Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
It all comes back to the original purpose of this thread I suppose - "long range" decisions ie a decade or three rather than the immediate future.
|
The decisions made by Milgov in early 2001 will affect the history of the US over the next 10 to 20 years, certainly. There are sharp limits to what Milgov can accomplish, even if one sets aside the drought. Therefore, decisions made in 2001 will have long-term effects because reversing them will be difficult. The right decision in 2001 will support rebuilding and reunification over the next 20 years without any major changes in ammunition, design, resource allocation, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
I agree that marksmanship ability may reduce, however there is a method called "dry firing" which can substitute somewhat for a lack of ammo. It's so effective when carried out correctly that the Soviet Olympic team used it as part of their training regime. Any of the older soldiers, or even civilian target shooters will be able to apply their knowledge of this to keep and improve general marksmanship.
|
I presume the whole panoply of ammunition-saving marksmanship training methods will be used. These methods and appropriate devices might be something else for Milgov to consolidate and distribute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
It may even be that semi-auto weapons become the norm, thereby preventing ammo wastage…
|
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
(although really screws with the supply chain to have a dozen+ pistol calibres, etc...).
|
Agreed. Therefore, Milgov is likely going to make some decisions about standardizing a shotgun, a handgun, and a bolt-action rifle for precision fires.
Webstral