There's a new "military tactic"....


PDA






Third_Rail
March 29, 2004, 11:43 AM
Aiming. You read correctly; today I was "informed" that AIMING is a military tactic to kill more people as quick as possible. :uhoh:

Do people really buy that?! :what:

If you enjoyed reading about "There's a new "military tactic"...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Justin
March 29, 2004, 11:48 AM
Works for me.

4v50 Gary
March 29, 2004, 11:53 AM
So, "Bang! Bang! You're dead doesn't work anymore?" Funny, it worked when we were kids. :confused:

Third_Rail
March 29, 2004, 12:00 PM
I don't know, maybe I'm the only one really bothered by people thinking that such a basic thing as aiming is a deadly military tactic!

That's almost as bad as when the news called indexing an "exclusive law enforcement" tactic. :scrutiny:

RobW
March 29, 2004, 01:16 PM
4v50 Gary: YOU ARE SUSPENDED FROM SCHOOL FOR 1 MONTH!

rich2u
March 29, 2004, 01:16 PM
Its pretty funny when you say"hey you got to aim the d_mn thing'. but the truth is most shots are of the spray & pray or to keep the guys head down variety. I read after WWII they figured some ridiculouse number of shots for every enemy combatint killed. i can't remember the exact # it was just enormous, thousands upon thousands of rounds expened.

rich2u
March 29, 2004, 01:24 PM
Its pretty funny when you say"hey you got to aim the d_mn thing'. but the truth is most shots are of the spray & pray or to keep the guys head down variety. I read after WWII they figured some ridiculouse number of shots for every enemy combatint killed. i can't remember the exact # it was just enormous, thousands upon thousands of rounds expened.

Mike Hull
March 29, 2004, 01:25 PM
Rich, IIRC it was slightly over 50,000 rounds for each enemy killed in the Vietnam war.
It may even have been higher than that, but 50K is the figure that sticks in my mind from that time period. :uhoh: :confused:

4v50 Gary
March 29, 2004, 01:41 PM
I'm being suspended for pointing my finger and shouting, "Bang, Bang, you're dead?" Dang zero tolerence policies suck. :scrutiny:

Aimed fire has an interesting history. Funny but the studies of wasted shots goes back to the mid 19th century. It was reported in 1851 in the "Times" (presumably London Times) that 80,000 rounds were fired to disable 25 "karfirs." When the French fought in Algiers (1830s), they expended 3,000,000 cartridges with little to show for it. It was estimated that the French expended 25,000,000 cartidges during the Crimean War. Of that, estimates vary between 3,000 to 20,000 cartridges for each Russian rendered hors de combat.

Suppressive fire has its purpose in combat (Rommel taught it as a means of extricating oneself from ambushes) and we didn't necessarily have to hit anyone to get the British to surrender Fort Sackville (Vincennes). The mere construction of a tower from which riflemen could shoot down into a fort induced the fort to surrender. Hardly any aimed fire here. (BTW, I've submitted an article to Muzzle Blasts magazine on that). Other battles showed the value of aimed fire including King's Mountain in South Carolina.

Both have their roles.

AJ Dual
March 29, 2004, 01:44 PM
I don't know, maybe I'm the only one really bothered by people thinking that such a basic thing as aiming is a deadly military tactic!

It's bothersome, but hardly surprising. Remember when the Beltway (70-yard) "Snipers" :rolleyes: were caught, every talking head in the nation was going on about how the "Bushmaster was extra-special deadly" because it made the bullet spin, with these special grooves in the barrel called rifling"?

People are dumb, and it makes me want to smack them. Not a day goes by where I have to resist the urge.

I guess the best (non-smacking) tactic is to sound concerned for the person and say, "People have been aiming firearms since they were invented, saying that aiming is somehow a new idea makes you look ignorant, please stop." Then just change gears in the conversation without giving them a chance to respond because what you said was so obvious it didn't merit any further discussion.

Third_Rail
March 29, 2004, 01:47 PM
AJ, that may be the best way to go, thanks for the idea.




And when did they start doing this "rifle-ing", as you call it? :D :rolleyes:

AJ Dual
March 29, 2004, 01:58 PM
And when did they start doing this "rifle-ing", as you call it?

The simplest answer is ever since they started calling them "rifles", since that's what they're named for. :D

Circular logic and glibness are other smack-worthy categorys in my book, so I guess I'll go hit myself now.

4v50 Gary
March 29, 2004, 02:06 PM
Cutting spiral grooves into the barrel is attributed to Gaspard Zollmer of Vienna (around 1500) or Koster of Nuremburg (1520). The Swiss (and some Germans) used to hold competitions with them but it wasn't until about 1631 when it was first issued as a military arm. Rifles really became accepted for use by irregulars around the time of the Silesian War (which compelled the Prussians to raise and arm light infantry with rifles) and aimed fire won acceptance (temporarily) because of the fighting tactics of the American Indians who were too smart to stand in the open in formation and receive incoming musketry.

Third_Rail
March 29, 2004, 02:14 PM
Wasn't rifling done just to reduce leading at first? :confused:

4v50 Gary
March 29, 2004, 02:20 PM
fouling.

Third_Rail
March 29, 2004, 02:27 PM
:neener:

You know what I meant! :D

Archie
March 29, 2004, 02:42 PM
Rifling was done to impart spin-stabilization to the projectile.

Fouling occured in both smoothbores and rifled bores. The solution for smoothbores was the paper patch... actually the cartridge "case" for front loaders. The paper could be varied as the barrel fouled. The solution for rifled guns was the minie ball. It was undersized and had a hollow base that expanded upon firing to fit the barrel.

The ultimate solution of course, was nitrocellulose powder.

I did notice a number of years ago about the cyclic nature of marksmanship and attendent military doctrine.

First was smooth bores. The guns weren't very accurate and the tactic was that we lined up all our guys and fired a volley of rounds at all their guys who where also all lined up. Someone was bound to get hit.

Then, rifling was invented. An individual one our side could actually aim and stand a good chance of hitting an individual on that side.

Then fully auto weapons were invented, which evolved into full auto shoulder weapons. One of our guys fires a lot of shots at their guys and someone is bound to get hit.

Isnt' this where we came in?

LawDog
March 29, 2004, 03:28 PM
Just some interesting trivia: I was browsing through a translation of a really old German manual of arms concerning the use of rifles on the battlefield, when I came across a passage on the benefits of rifling.

Accoding to the author, poor accuracy is caused by imps riding the bullets and pushing them off course. The purpose of twist rifling is to cause the bullet to spin, tossing the little devils off of the rounds, thus rendering them incapable of accuracy-destroying mischief.

*scratch, scratch*

Sometimes I really think that the anti-gunners haven't progressed any further in their thinking than that old author.

LawDog

Erich
March 29, 2004, 03:55 PM
"Good marksmanship is always the most important thing for the infantry."

- Gen. Gerhard von Scharnhorst, 1812

Quantrill
March 29, 2004, 07:20 PM
Accoding to the author, poor accuracy is caused by imps riding the bullets and pushing them off course. The purpose of twist rifling is to cause the bullet to spin, tossing the little devils off of the rounds, thus rendering them incapable of accuracy-destroying mischief.


I think the Imps that were thrown off by spinning the bullet took up residence in my barrels and that they are perfecting a new method of staying on.

DJJ
March 29, 2004, 09:03 PM
I remember reading just the opposite: rifles were more accurate than smoothbores because there *was* a demon riding the bullet, guiding it to the target (after all, the logic went, why else would they be more accurate?). The proof was in the whine from a rifle bullet ricocheting - that was actually the demon shrieking. One pope or another banned the use of rifling for that reason.

Ironbarr
March 29, 2004, 09:29 PM
May I ask... how many French rounds were expended between 1938 and 1945?







:evil:

-Andy

4v50 Gary
March 29, 2004, 10:08 PM
Ironbarr - perhaps the question should be rephrased as, "How many billions of rounds of small arms ammunition were captured by the Germans in 1941?"

lotus
March 29, 2004, 10:54 PM
Bah!

Aiming's not all it's cracked up to be.

I personally prefer to spray-fire from the hip with my bullet hose!

:neener:

Autolite
March 29, 2004, 11:06 PM
Rifling was created so that the bullet would spin and knock the Imps off? That is utterly ridiculous. The 'Imp' problem was solved with slippery teflon coated bullets ...

Ironbarr
March 30, 2004, 12:17 AM
Gary, uh uh.

That would be a statistic showing how many were made, then captured.

(Plus points for one team.)

Showing the number fired would be more descriptive of the effort............... made to keep the Billions from falling into other hands.:)

(Negative points for the other team.)

-IB

Diamondback
March 30, 2004, 12:31 AM
Aiming ?........what's AIMING ?????????

If you enjoyed reading about "There's a new "military tactic"...." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!