Weapon Purpose

[Þorkell]

Originally Posted by sjard

As I recall, the statistical values of rounds fired per casualty* was somewhere around 1,000:1 in WWII, slightly higher in Korea, and in the 3,000:1 ranges for Vietnam.

I recall seeing info on rounds fired per casualty, and ISTR that they were higher than you recall and may even be as much as 10 times higher.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Not that I'm any kind of first-hand expert, but I've been told of situations where explosives were available but not used for the reasons I cited: Risk to noncombatants behind the door. This was by a U.S. serviceman operating jointly with SAS on hostile extractions of people who had to be alive for interrogation, and outside of an immediate combat area; it might not be SOP.

Yes, which is why the preferred method for entry is soft. You knock on the door and ask politely.

There are also breaching kits (bolt cutters, sledges) for intermediate situations.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

We agree that within each SEAL team, peer pressure would be put upon any individual SEAL who insisted upon using a weapon that was suboptimal for that SEAL's tactical role?

Sure.

And then you can find all those SEALS who preferred a shotgun over a carbine in an assault rifle caliber when he had both available to him.

GURPS SEALS in Vietnam makes the point that it happened; not that it was standard.

Note also that during the period of GSiV, shotguns are tried-and-tested technology available to anyone. Carbines are specially made, experimental technology that many SEALS couldn't get even if they wanted.

Even so, I'm nearly 100% positive that if we can get statistics on weapons actually carried on operations, the short-barrelled rifles will outnumber the shotguns.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Icelander

GURPS SEALS in Vietnam makes the point that it happened; not that it was standard.

No. The PDF makes it clear that the majority of pointmen (one role out of a 6-7 SEAL team) choose to use a shotgun.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

No. The PDF makes it clear that the majority of pointmen (one role out of a 6-7 SEAL team) choose to use a shotgun.

You do realize that there weren't any real assault carbines available in the era, right?

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

No. The PDF makes it clear that the majority of pointmen (one role out of a 6-7 SEAL team) choose to use a shotgun.

It doesn't even say that. It says "many," not "a majority." That's not the same thing.

[sjard]

Originally Posted by Þorkell

I recall seeing info on rounds fired per casualty, and ISTR that they were higher than you recall and may even be as much as 10 times higher.

Sorry, I should have pointed out that the numbers I've seen were for bolt action through small magazine semi auto weapons, pre M16.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

It doesn't even say that. It says "many," not "a majority." That's not the same thing.

And the normal usage would be to say 'most' if it really did mean the majority.

In context, I take 'many' to mean a significant minority, but less than half.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Icelander

And the normal usage would be to say 'most' if it really did mean the majority.

In context, I take 'many' to mean a significant minority, but less than half.

Yep, would be my conclusion as well. If anything, the text would seem to imply that the majority did not use shotguns, which makes sense.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

Yep, would be my conclusion as well. If anything, the text would seem to imply that the majority did not use shotguns, which makes sense.

Still, if the minority is significant enough to be, well, significant ('many'), surely that is a sign of something?