Technoviking said:
I for one am sick and tired of getting terminal ballistics "lessons" and bullshit on this from non-infantry people.
If you want to bring a new capability into the forces, that goes no where unless you can sell the idea to a bunch of civilians in treasury board. Before you can sell it to there, you have to sell the idea to PMB with its representation of Navy, Air Force and Civilian staff. Yet some how you are going to suggest that a member of another combat arm, with formal ballistics training, is unqualified to discuss with you because only the infantry can understand?
We afford a certain weight of truth to the conclusions & opinion of a SME. However, when a SME is challenged with logically formed arguments based in fact, that SME is still expected to back-up their position with their own logically formed counter-arguments. Ad hominem is not a logical argument, so you can just drop attacking capbadges.
If you really have a problem with what I’ve presented, then why don’t you address that? You believe I just don't understand - so clearly you must be able to put together the counter arguments to show me wrong. Instead, most of your argument has focused on theatrics, attacking the messenger, or nit-picking on the periphery.
Technoviking said:
Ok , since when did you get involved in Infantry Weapons procurement?
As can be seen in project documentation, the CASW project was procuring for more than just infantry. It is not just an infantry weapon.
Technoviking said:
An AGL that is too heavy to carry adds nothing of value.
Bull – and, in the event you want to write off that statement for being from out side the Infantry, others from the infantry have called you on this too.
As per B-GL-392-001/FP-001, “each weapon is used according to its characteristics”- that is capabilities & limitations. You claim to acknowledge this, yet you continue to deny the capability and to describe the weapon as simply the sum of its limitations. The weapon has both and there are fitting uses inside of those capabilities & limitations even at the platoon level.
If you go back through all my posts, you will note that I have not stated that this is the right weapon for an infantry platoon. My argument with you all along has simply been that your “nothing of value” conclusion is so exaggerated as to be dishonest. This weapon does offer a significant increase in firepower capability but is so heavy that it may never be used as a platoon weapon in a mobile dismounted operation. But, where our Army likes to establish FOBs, SPs, COPs & Pl houses, there are plenty of static operations for the infantry to exploit this weapon.
I’m fully ready to accept the notion that the value is not worth the cost. At least from there, we could consider if there might be (might have been) another way to get that same value (or most of that same value) without the unacceptable limitation. I am also ready to accept the notion that the value provided is not what is ultimately required. The exaggerated denial of any value … well, that argument adds no value.
Consider, when you reach CO, if your Plans O presents a series of CoA for your decision and flat-out denies the existence of any weaknesses (or strength) to one or the other of the CoA even when those weaknesses (or strengths) had been presented to him - he may have a proper estimate and the right answer, but you will find his whole effort to be suspect. Denying reality undermines credibility of the whole argument.
You finally got the argument this morning. Where you continued to present the critical limitations of the weapon:
-
Technoviking said:
What is the analogy with the .50? Well, back in the olden days, we had a very heavy, non-mobile system that could, in theory, be ground mounted. If we were moving by foot (and we often did even in mechanised battalions), then that .50 didn't move with us. Now that we have troops moving by foot in combat, even today, it is irresponsible to think that they can carry something as heavy as the C16.
while giving recognition to the strengths & capabilities:
-
Technoviking said:
Yes, it could be used in static locations such as a FOB or a COP, and with great effect ...
and providing the counter argument to those strengths & capabilities:
-
Technoviking said:
... but I can think of better ways of spending procurement cash. I mean, we already have a proven weapon system, the .50 calibre, that is perfect for such a role.
Of course, I still think there is room to debate if a .50 cal, an AGL, or something else is the better weapon for that static defence role - for any arm.
We get it, you think it's the answer to everything...
