Quote:
|
Oh yes of course that has to be it.
|
Yes, that is it. You can throw away all your magazines and articles which deal with tactical issues surrounding choices of weaponry, because the people who write them are too stupid to see the larger picture, namely the picture from the perspective of the person who makes the decisions over the defense budget and the person who manufactures the weaponry: a civilian sitting in government trying to line his pockets, and an executive sitting in his office trying to line his pockets.
Quote:
|
It is better to save 5 cents on a round
|
It's better to save money producing them and sell three times the produce.
Quote:
|
and spend 300% more on a gun.
|
Yes. Three times the price without three times the production costs yields a greater profit.
Quote:
|
The reason just as I stated is because soldiers asked for something with more firepower.
|
The reason is, like everything else in the Kwa, profit.
Yeah. They asked for more firepower and they got a pea shooter. I'll be the one laughing when your mighty U.S. infantry with its mighty toy guns comes up against a modern infantry force equipped with
body armour instead of running after partisans in the desert. It'll be interesting to see what happens when soldiers find that their hi-tech firearms are nearly useless except for making aimed head shots which could be better done with something they hauled out of their grandfather's attic bearing the names "Garand" or "Lee Enfield".
It'll no doubt be similar to the U.S. bringing back WWII era aircraft from service to Vietnam, because, as everyone in 1965 knew, speed, altitude and the ability to deliver hi-tech weaponry were everything, and they'd never again need to use slow, low-flying, armoured aircraft with guns for close air support.
