Mark IV Series 80
Member
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2002
- Messages
- 207
What do you consider to be "Light Arms" and "Small Arms"?
I saw this piece while doing some research:
__________________________________________________________
http://www.rand.org/hot/op-eds/030101JIR.html
There is no precise, formal definition for light arms. However, for the purposes here they will refer to direct fire weapons that can be carried by an individual, or on a small vehicle, and which have a secondary capability to defeat light armour and helicopters. Excluded are those arms generally understood to encompass major conventional weapons systems such as tanks, large calibre artillery, aircraft, attack helicopters, ships and armoured combat vehicles.
The term 'light arm' is really a misnomer as many of these weapons retain a phenomenal capacity to kill and inflict chaos and mayhem. The Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle, for instance, can fire up to 30 rounds in less than three seconds, with each bullet lethal up to a range of 500m. At close quarters, the Heckler and Koch AM 180 sub-machine gun is even more devastating, having a cyclic rate of fire of 1,500 rounds per minute. The Russian made RPG-7 can penetrate 330mm thick armour at distances of up to 500m; the US-made Claymore landmine is able to propel up to 700 steel balls in a 60º arc and is lethal up to 50m.
Small and light arms are commonly accepted to have a number of characteristics that lend themselves to rapid and frequent movement, both across borders, between organisations and among individuals. They are, by definition, light. This facilitates cheap and easy transportation and covert movement. Arms caches have been sent to insurgent groups by boat, in trucks, on the back of camels and even by post. Light weapons are also cheap, which opens up a very large potential buyer's market, even in the poorest parts of the world. Finally, light weapons are extremely durable, requiring only a minimum level of field maintenance. They rarely break down, and do not require an extensive inventory of spare parts.
I saw this piece while doing some research:
__________________________________________________________
http://www.rand.org/hot/op-eds/030101JIR.html
There is no precise, formal definition for light arms. However, for the purposes here they will refer to direct fire weapons that can be carried by an individual, or on a small vehicle, and which have a secondary capability to defeat light armour and helicopters. Excluded are those arms generally understood to encompass major conventional weapons systems such as tanks, large calibre artillery, aircraft, attack helicopters, ships and armoured combat vehicles.
The term 'light arm' is really a misnomer as many of these weapons retain a phenomenal capacity to kill and inflict chaos and mayhem. The Kalashnikov AK-47 assault rifle, for instance, can fire up to 30 rounds in less than three seconds, with each bullet lethal up to a range of 500m. At close quarters, the Heckler and Koch AM 180 sub-machine gun is even more devastating, having a cyclic rate of fire of 1,500 rounds per minute. The Russian made RPG-7 can penetrate 330mm thick armour at distances of up to 500m; the US-made Claymore landmine is able to propel up to 700 steel balls in a 60º arc and is lethal up to 50m.
Small and light arms are commonly accepted to have a number of characteristics that lend themselves to rapid and frequent movement, both across borders, between organisations and among individuals. They are, by definition, light. This facilitates cheap and easy transportation and covert movement. Arms caches have been sent to insurgent groups by boat, in trucks, on the back of camels and even by post. Light weapons are also cheap, which opens up a very large potential buyer's market, even in the poorest parts of the world. Finally, light weapons are extremely durable, requiring only a minimum level of field maintenance. They rarely break down, and do not require an extensive inventory of spare parts.
Last edited:
