5 ms·

I remember reading this before, but don't recall the author... Who was it? Regarding the article: it seems to miss the obvious points, and sounds almost sociop

I remember reading this before, but don't recall the author... Who was it? Regarding the article: it seems to miss the obvious points, and sounds almost sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism to suggest that chemical weapons should be regarded as a viable weapon, if only it weren't for the military weaknesses it produces. > the narrative I got was fairly clear: we didn’t use chemical weapons because after World War I the nations of the world got together and decided that chemical weapons were just too horrible and banned them, and that this was a sign of something called ‘progress.’ The use of chemical weapons, as parent's comment writes, is indiscriminate in who and what it affects, whether it be enemy or own soldiers, or innocents: women, children, animals and even fauna. To have your skin melt, or your lungs liquified because some monster on the other side cooked up a recipe shows how inhumane and lacking in compassion people can be. I recall being told why modern military don't use high calibre rifles anymore (303 or 762): because a lower calibre tends to wound the enemy, which means that 2 or more enemy soldiers are needed to help their comrade out... Hence 1 smaller & lighter bullet can take out 2 or more of the enemy. That is, modern warfare is about incapacitating an enemy's ability to fight back. This is why sanctions, targetting infrastructure, stealth attack, etc, is what you see on the news all the time.

ip26 7y ago
Another reason for low Calibre rifles- despite a cultural focus on marksmanship, internal studies found number of bullets fired was the number one predictor of enemy casualties. And the more bullets you shoot, the more you have to carry.
- LanceH 7y ago
  Literally survivor bias.
ThrowawayR2 7y ago
I think it's well established in the literature that the modern military doesn't use the old larger battle rifle cartridges anymore because the extra range it offered was almost never needed and the smaller assault rifle cartridge allows more ammunition to be carried by each soldier.
- j9461701 7y ago
  Additionally, intermediate cartridges allow more rapid followup shots compared to full power rifle cartridges. An M4 fires lightly enough that soldiers can "miss their way to a hit" - as in fire, fire, fire, oh I'm aiming too low, fire, fire, fire oh i'm a little left fire, fire, fire bullseye. Trying that with an M14, which has much stronger recoil, would just result in your shots going increasingly wild.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    You're not wrong but the M4 is particularly good at follow up shot performance (stock in line with barrel and raised sights to keep the barrel in line with your shoulder will do that) and M14 is particularly terrible about being hard on the user. If you want to be all proper and sciency about it you should probably compare guns that are on the same general platform (M4/AR10, AK/PSL, G3/G33, list goes on).
    - CydeWeys 7y ago
      Anecdotally, proper sling usage makes a huge difference with the larger cartridge battle rifles. The sling needs to be wrapped around your off-arm tightly and seriously pull the rifle into your shoulder, which substantially helps to mitigate the recoil knocking it off its aim. Yes, your shoulder is still gonna be taking a bruising, but that's the much better end of the rifle to be on.
- Foober223 7y ago
  Depends on the area. In Afghanistan there was a much stronger need for range. Old hunting rifles, not AK's were the most powerful small weapon used by the locals. The US had to bring back the old .308 rifles to compete. And even brought in some newly designed .308 rifles.
throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
"sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism" WTF? :) > The use of chemical weapons, as parent's comment writes, is indiscriminate in who and what it affects, whether it be enemy or own soldiers, or innocents: women, children, animals and even fauna. To have your skin melt, or your lungs liquified because some monster on the other side cooked up a recipe shows how inhumane and lacking in compassion people can be. Yeah because Wilfred Owen wanted long slow agonising deaths for everyone (he was an equal opportonist, hawk and warmonger). Nice trolling though.
- karaokeyoga 7y ago
  I believe he was referring to the article itself, rather than the quote.
gherkinnn 7y ago
Another doctrine is to fire blindly at the enemy, effectively suppressing them with overwhelming small arms fire and calling in an airstrike.
int_19h 7y ago
> I recall being told why modern military don't use high calibre rifles anymore (303 or 762): because a lower calibre tends to wound the enemy, which means that 2 or more enemy soldiers are needed to help their comrade out This is a retroactive justification, and it was never an official one - boot camp stories, more or less. All it takes to disprove it is to look at the history of M16, since that was the platform that introduced the first small-impulse infantry rifle cartridge, 5.56mm. It was originally developed as the outcome of Project SALVO research, which concluded that two close hits with a small-caliber round are significantly deadlier than a single hit with a (then-standard) large rifle round - and therefore the new weapon should be capable of controlled, accurate burst fire. Then, early M16 tests showed that even a single 5.56 bullet would routinely do more damage than then-standard 7.62 NATO ball ammo, because it would fragment due to higher velocities, producing massive tearing - the early reports are practically gushing about this. In comparison, 7.62 ball, and similar WW2-era rounds, would just produce a straight, narrow wound channel. The other aspect is logistics. You can make fragmenting 7.62 ammo, after all, and it's deadlier still. But lighter ammo means that soldiers can carry a lot more. And most shots are fired in modern warfare for suppression purposes; all else being equal, the side that can suppress its opponents for longer - and thus outmaneuver them - wins. Thus, more lethal but heavier ammo comes with a considerable overhead.

ip26 7y ago

Another reason for low Calibre rifles- despite a cultural focus on marksmanship, internal studies found number of bullets fired was the number one predictor of enemy casualties. And the more bullets you shoot, the more you have to carry.

LanceH 7y ago
Literally survivor bias.

ThrowawayR2 7y ago

I think it's well established in the literature that the modern military doesn't use the old larger battle rifle cartridges anymore because the extra range it offered was almost never needed and the smaller assault rifle cartridge allows more ammunition to be carried by each soldier.

j9461701 7y ago
Additionally, intermediate cartridges allow more rapid followup shots compared to full power rifle cartridges. An M4 fires lightly enough that soldiers can "miss their way to a hit" - as in fire, fire, fire, oh I'm aiming too low, fire, fire, fire oh i'm a little left fire, fire, fire bullseye. Trying that with an M14, which has much stronger recoil, would just result in your shots going increasingly wild.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  You're not wrong but the M4 is particularly good at follow up shot performance (stock in line with barrel and raised sights to keep the barrel in line with your shoulder will do that) and M14 is particularly terrible about being hard on the user. If you want to be all proper and sciency about it you should probably compare guns that are on the same general platform (M4/AR10, AK/PSL, G3/G33, list goes on).
  - CydeWeys 7y ago
    Anecdotally, proper sling usage makes a huge difference with the larger cartridge battle rifles. The sling needs to be wrapped around your off-arm tightly and seriously pull the rifle into your shoulder, which substantially helps to mitigate the recoil knocking it off its aim. Yes, your shoulder is still gonna be taking a bruising, but that's the much better end of the rifle to be on.
Foober223 7y ago
Depends on the area. In Afghanistan there was a much stronger need for range. Old hunting rifles, not AK's were the most powerful small weapon used by the locals. The US had to bring back the old .308 rifles to compete. And even brought in some newly designed .308 rifles.

throwaway_pdp09 7y ago

"sociopathic in its use of literary lyricism" WTF? :) > The use of chemical weapons, as parent's comment writes, is indiscriminate in who and what it affects, whether it be enemy or own soldiers, or innocents: women, children, animals and even fauna. To have your skin melt, or your lungs liquified because some monster on the other side cooked up a recipe shows how inhumane and lacking in compassion people can be. Yeah because Wilfred Owen wanted long slow agonising deaths for everyone (he was an equal opportonist, hawk and warmonger). Nice trolling though.

karaokeyoga 7y ago
I believe he was referring to the article itself, rather than the quote.

gherkinnn 7y ago

Another doctrine is to fire blindly at the enemy, effectively suppressing them with overwhelming small arms fire and calling in an airstrike.

int_19h 7y ago

> I recall being told why modern military don't use high calibre rifles anymore (303 or 762): because a lower calibre tends to wound the enemy, which means that 2 or more enemy soldiers are needed to help their comrade out This is a retroactive justification, and it was never an official one - boot camp stories, more or less. All it takes to disprove it is to look at the history of M16, since that was the platform that introduced the first small-impulse infantry rifle cartridge, 5.56mm. It was originally developed as the outcome of Project SALVO research, which concluded that two close hits with a small-caliber round are significantly deadlier than a single hit with a (then-standard) large rifle round - and therefore the new weapon should be capable of controlled, accurate burst fire. Then, early M16 tests showed that even a single 5.56 bullet would routinely do more damage than then-standard 7.62 NATO ball ammo, because it would fragment due to higher velocities, producing massive tearing - the early reports are practically gushing about this. In comparison, 7.62 ball, and similar WW2-era rounds, would just produce a straight, narrow wound channel. The other aspect is logistics. You can make fragmenting 7.62 ammo, after all, and it's deadlier still. But lighter ammo means that soldiers can carry a lot more. And most shots are fired in modern warfare for suppression purposes; all else being equal, the side that can suppress its opponents for longer - and thus outmaneuver them - wins. Thus, more lethal but heavier ammo comes with a considerable overhead.