From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@y...>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 19:57:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Inaccuracy, was RE: [SG] HAMR
> --- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote: > Actually the 50 cal. round was in it's first I'd have to do a bit more research to be sure, but according to http://www.gunnery.net/warwagon/history.html experience with the the German 13mm round was the inspiration behind the request for development, but the copy of the 13mm lost to what was basically a scaled-up 30-06. I make no claims as to the accuracy of this particular website, but it's the first one I could find that went into the history of the development of the round. The point is true about the intention to use it as an anti-tank rifle round, but by 1921 (my mistake, I originally said 1920) when the original incarnation of the.50 cal was type standardized as the M1921 it was a purely machinegun round because of the advances of armor tech. In fact, to my knowledge, the US is the only major nation that did not adopt an anti-tank rifle. Sidenotes: It has been brought to my attention off-list[1] two points I should make clear. 1)My initial response to Bob's post was a bit too heated. While I stand by the substance of what I said, I apologize to Bob for the manner in which I expressed it. 2)It's pretty unclear to most people exactally why I get so annoyed by this point. Those who propagate that myth make two unspoken statements in the way they express it. Those points are that a)they are in the military but have no clear understanding of the legal implications of the oath that they swore, and that b) they are willing to violate that oath as they understand it. All of Western civilization's development in the past several hundred years has been based on the control of the military by civil government through a series of oaths and laws. A soldier[2] willing to violate his oath is the most dangerous development possible from the point of view of the continued existence of society. It's dangerous, and it's offensive to those of us who try to serve in as professional a manner as possible. Furthermore, Bob's statement was obviously intended to be semi-humorous. I don't find stating an intent to commit what the writer honestly believes to be a violation of international treaty (and hence as much a war crime as shooting prisioners or looting civillian property) to be even slightly funny or humorous.