As to electronics v robust technology, there is always the point at which a new technology has become mature. Prior to that point, it may have some prophets who see its potential, or some crackpots who believe that its potential will be greater than what is curently available.
There is a pattern of overlapping effectiveness, where the old tech is still more effective generally than the new technology. Case in point is the internal combustion engine v. the steam engine, or the car v. the steam (or other) train. Initially, when steam engines were a very mature technology, internal compustion engines were all a bit silly; noisy, dirty, using exotic fuel, requiring getting out and cranking, being constrained to wholly inadequate roads, and still getting one there slower than a steam engine using developed rail system. Between WWI and WWII, the steam engine had its hayday, while the constant improvement in road infrastructure and automotive technology brought the internal combustion engine closer to its potential (which I would argue has not been reached). Now fuel cells are in the position that the intenral combstion engine was in.
Now, we get a little emotional about our arms, myself included, which includes nostalgia. (Yes, "we;" I could go on ad nauseum about the older weapons systems that were better than their replacements, and I might be right in some cases...) There is a desire to hold onto the tried and true which has served well.
Well, any new technology must be brought to maturity through investment, and indeed through deployment. You get the equation wrong, men die, enemies laugh, and the pointy-headed staff-weenies and politicians who really made the gaff will be long gone.
The U.S. Army tested a liquid propelled artillery piece at one point; the potential for such a technology is exciting to the military. The program was killed, because the piece (I believe it was a 155) was "subject to spontaneous, uncontrolled disassembly." :rofl:
Good call. The Improved TOW Vehicle, was a bad call. Thankfully, I never had to take my platoon of 8 to the war for which they were designed; it was the best of all possible wars, one which didn't happen. A lot would have died.
Electro/optical weapons sights are a maturing technology that have passed the point where their utility has exceeded iron sights. Not every technology (or combination of technologies into a complex weapon system) ever reaches that point. Note that part of that maturity is seldom a complete replacement; it's about market share. It's also about correctly perceiving the niche of the new technology. Electro/optical sights have been fully accepted not only for their advantages, but because they are employed in accordance with their higher potential for technical problems; modern mounts always give the potential for iron sights as a fall-back. Electro/optical sights are saving U.S. lives today; some might argue their deployment was too slow; at the time prior to full fielding, many groused against them.
Same story for ATGM's; when they were an immature technology in 1973, the Israelis used to see it as a mark of achievement to have a number of expended Sagger wires draped across the front of their APC's. The Sagger did not represent the maturity of the ATGM technology: way too hard for the gun to fly the missile. Neither did the TOW's that we rushed Israel during that war by the planeload, but they were closer; just keep your hips loose, smooth traverses, and keep the crosshairs on the target while the brain box does the rest. The Arabs were terrible shots, and the Israelis were fighting for their very existence. The REAL killer in the Sinai, however, was the very mature RPG, a technology that the Israelis had written off as irrelevant in the desert, the province of the jet fighter-bomber and tank. A lot of IDF died for making that call wrong, but the IDF was an agile organization and was able to correct itself in days.
As to making the exact calls on when we should "leap" from one tech to another, it's probably past any of us on this board; caseless will probably mature further, but its market saturation will probably be incomplete. The arguement that looks at the old technology's simplicity is a limited one, however. This argument was made by the Chief of the Cavalry, Maj. Gen. Herr, to General Marshall when WWII was an inevitability for the U.S.; he was, of course, right in his own way. There are things cavalry can do that Mech still cannot, but being a little right can still leave you very wrong. Marshall spoke to an aide outside the office, and by the time that the 15 minutes of pleasantries at the end of their doctrinal discussion was concluded, the aide had Herr's retirement orders in hand, that also abolished his position. Marshall unerstood the nostalgia for old weapon systems, and the potential for new. Patton, in fact, re-equipped a brigade with captured German horses, but that does not make Marshall wrong. What made Herr dangerous was that there was enough truth in what he was saying to make soem really disasterous policy choices. In WWI, the British shipped more tonnage in horse fodder to their troops than ammunition.
Smart rounds for small arms will mature: they obviously have not. I think their chief use will be localized indirect fire. The 23mm airburst rounds currently contemplated may not have it yet: I do not know about that yet. I believe in Counterinsurgency, which my sons will need to teach their sons, makes direct fire essential, as it requires the judicious use of force. Unobserved indirect fire is always wasteful, and usually ineffective. So the new infantry "smart rounds" may or not be close enough to maturity to be useful, and they are not so smart.
As for the 1911, I owned one, and I was issued another. Nothing even felt as good in my hand as that single stack (I have stubby, sausge-like fingers). It was a great weapon. I believe that my Glock 20 does everything that the 1911 was intended to, much better, however. Was the M9 and improvement? Only partially. A new Berretta beats a broken Colt, and they were broken. (Owned one, issued another M9, too. Got rid of mine. Still have my first "Grock"....) Often the new tech loses something even while being better. That 1911 was still a prettier pistol, and felt better....:nonono:
Bottom line is we can make no assumptions, but should relay on our imaginations. This is a game, a science
fiction game, that approximtes space opera behind a fig leaf of science. Make it sound rational, make it cool. We're
not going to be
right.
How about a truth serum?
