Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
What I said was, "A unit comprised exclusively of shotgunners: useless in just about every type of military engagement known." Do you disagree?
|
Under ideal conditions, proper weapons are available for specific conditions. Typically, that would be an assault rifle. I
do concede that point. However, consider WWI. When the infantry would go "over the top", to assault the opposing trench, it was the rifleman's rersponsibility to protect the shotgunners until they could actual get into the enemy's trenches. Once in, the shotgunners could basically "clean house". Right tool for the right job, and the shotgun will always have a place in the toolbox.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by longbough
It's hard to believe you wouldn't also rely on the M4 and M16A2 among other tools at your disposal depending on the task at hand.
|
Actually, the GUU-5P was our rifle of choice. And, of course, the Baretta 9mm after they replaced the S&W .38s.
But...
again, I was in the Air Force. I was not in an "infantry". I was on a highly specialized response force. Our means, and our methods, were not conventional.
Counter terrorism is nothing new. We were preparing for it over 20 years ago, and we were good. And shotguns played a very large part of that, albeit not the
only part.
In any event...none of this has anything to do with the fraud (I believe) that is...John Titor.