> Anonymous Coredump[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote: > > On Fri Apr 05 2002 Major Variola (ret) (mv_at_cdc.gov) wrote: > > > At 09:19 PM 4/4/02 -0800, jamesd_at_echeque.com wrote: > > > -- > > >On 4 Apr 2002 at 14:55, John Young QUOTED: > > >> "The current-issue 62gr 5.56mm (223) round, especially when > > >> fired from the short-barreled, M-4 carbine, is proving itself > > >> (once again) to be woefully inadequate as man stopper. > > >> Engagements at all ranges are requiring multiple, solid hits > > >> to permanently bring down enemy soldiers. > > > > > Yes, disabling someone drains the enemy's resources more than killing > > them outright. > > But generally when firing at someone the idea is to stop them from > > doing what they're doing, ASAP. This is done by reducing the hydraulic > > supply to their brain, the nervous system itself being too small a > > target to aim for. > > > > >Military weapons are generally not designed to kill quickly. A > > >badly wounded man who takes a long time dying is a much bigger > > >drain on your enemy's resources. > > > > True for snipers, but if you're being shot at and have inadequate cover, > > I bet your opinion would change. > > > > >An ideal low fire rate weapon will in a single shot so badly wound > > >a man that he will soon die, unless he receives very prompt and > > >expert medical attention, but does not "drop" him. > > > > So he gets another chance to kill you. Or drop another mortar down > > the tube. Or boobytrap his body. Not a good plan. > > > > >An ideal rapid fire weapon will reliably cause serious and often > > >permanent injury in a single hit, but will typically take several > > >hits to so badly wound a man that he will shortly die. > > > > Only you won't hit him twice because your muzzle is flying around. > > The soldiers who are complaining should be able to obtain > > AKs (7.62mm), which use a more penetrating projectile, fairly easily > > over there :-) > You can thank the Geneva Convention - it specifies milspec projectiles to > be high-velocity FMJ rounds, which produce disabling wounds but don't do > such massive damage that it becomes "one hit, one kill". No shattered > bones, just neat little clip-outs that hurt like hell... > Hydostatic shock is, however, another matter. > - Dr. Strangelove > This is yet another example of how Western cultural biases have been proven faulty in dealing with this enemy. The Geneva Conventions were written with the notion of uniformed, national armies, which placed a fairly high value on their soldier's lives.
The warrior willing to die if that makes his or her attack even marginally more successful was not envisaged in the GCs or in most of Western military planning, nor the notion of an enemy which provides a major foe without anything which looks like a uniformed national army. The milspec projectile seem to be optimized for the WWII model of a fairly thin line of engagement between territories under the control of different powers. In that case, a wound which requires attention, but does not kill, is ideal - it takes the woundee out the fight, and requires his side to expend labor and resources to pull them back from the front line and get treated - a single wounded soldier may take one or two more out of commission for at least a while. If, however, your opponent is a Holy Warrior who expects and yearns to become a Blessed Martyr by dying in battle, this doesn't work. On being wounded, his response is not to fall out and call for a medic. He rather regards it as the signal that his opportunity is at hand, and he might as well make the best of it, since he is already dead. [It's not only the West that the GCs are failing - the highly technical, legalistic grounds under which Shrub is denying PoW status to captured Taliban is another example (one which even many US military find objectionable).] Peter Trei
