[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 
and informative.
Lynn Johnson

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 
> snipers!
> Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? Amazing!
> Cheers, Val Geist
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/paleopsych/attachments/20041103/ea4bb00f/attachment.html>

More information about the paleopsych mailing list