30.08.2006, 13:20
Eigentlich war ich gerade dabei nach ein paar Informationen zu der 106mm recoilless rifle zu suchen. Dabei bin ich auf einen durchaus diskussionswürdigen Artikel gestoßen:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.combatreform.com/popguns.htm">http://www.combatreform.com/popguns.htm</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.combatreform.com/popguns.htm">http://www.combatreform.com/popguns.htm</a><!-- m -->
Zitat:WHY ARE WE PUTTING POP GUNS ON VEHICLES?Sind TOW, Dragon & Co und "pop guns" ein vollwertiger Ersatz für größere Kaliber? Was meint Ihr?
Despite urban combat realities, we've mothballed our Iowa Class battleships, retired the M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle (CEV) with 165mm demolition gun, withdrawn the M551 Sheridans to NTC as training aids, cancelled the M8 Ridgway Armored Gun System, thrown M113s into the sea to feed fish leaving us with the only BIG GUN to win a direct-fire urban fight on a 70-ton Abrams tank that is sometimes too big to fit into narrow Third World Country streets and too heavy to fly in large numbers or airdrop to accompany our light troops who are the first-to-fight. Even if M1s can be delivered in time, their turbine engine exhaust prevents infantry from following behind to use the tank as moving cover in a city fight or to tow trailers with more main gun ammunition and/or supplies for infantry. "Passing the buck" to other combat arms/services does not work.
Relying on Aircraft for fire support in a city fight to make up for a lack of ground level SHOCK ACTION has been proven ineffective at key moments in Panama and Somalia.
...