04-22-2014, 03:05 AM
The major reasons that I have seen cited for full-auto capability are for a last-ditch defense of a position that is about to be overrun and for breaking contact when the enemy is near. The controllabilty needed is to provide sufficiently accurate fire for 50m or so. Full auto fire is not to be used otherwise.
It is important to note that the American Vets who want full-auto capability are largely those who fought in Vietnam, where massed or "swarm" attacks occurred. It is also pertinent that these veterans were fully aware that such attacks had occurred in three wars within living memory (Korea, the pacific campaign of WWII, and WWI). I am sure that they had heard stories from veterans of these wars along the lines of " My buddy Joe would still be alive today if ..."
Another reason cited is the psychological effect on soldiers to know that the option is available if needed (even if never used).
It is important to note that the American Vets who want full-auto capability are largely those who fought in Vietnam, where massed or "swarm" attacks occurred. It is also pertinent that these veterans were fully aware that such attacks had occurred in three wars within living memory (Korea, the pacific campaign of WWII, and WWI). I am sure that they had heard stories from veterans of these wars along the lines of " My buddy Joe would still be alive today if ..."
Another reason cited is the psychological effect on soldiers to know that the option is available if needed (even if never used).