[Paleopsych] electile dysfunction
Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.
ljohnson at solution-consulting.com
Thu Nov 4 05:45:14 UTC 2004
Val, your point is well taken. The support troops qualify on the M-16 in
basic training, and then hardly ever fire their weapon. It is a
scandal. With fluid battle situations and no front lines, everyone
should be highly skilled with infantry weapons.
I liked the M-14, the weapon I originally qualified on. Big, heavy,
with a .30 round that could knock down a water buffalo. But it could not
be fired full-auto, so we went to the M-16 (.223 round) . Light, nice to
carry, not as noisy, but not a good combat weapon, not as good as the
old M-14. We probably should have copied the klashnikov and stayed with
a .30 round (7.62 mm). If I were the king I would do just that. the
AK-47 is a splendid weapon. The soviet system may have been dumb, but
they did amazing things with their weapons. I appreciate the fascinating
story about your father. And I find your posts consistently insightful
Val Geist wrote:
> Dear Lynn,
> The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue
> Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging
> industry to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The
> Panther was the reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured
> and re-used! My father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who
> survived, had a professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It
> worked when the German failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper
> rifle with a - superlative! - little scope was used also by German
> Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing!
> Cheers, Val Geist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the paleopsych