![mirrors edge 3 mirrors edge 3](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/BDoAAOSweRhfNT2q/s-l300.jpg)
Small arms offer a soldier the ability to react and change to situations while still having offensive capabilities. Such places, as previously mentioned, are constantly evolving situations, and soldiers need to react and move quickly. Source: Marco Zanferrari/FlickrĪll of these factors are incredibly important for environments like a battlefield or combat zone.
#MIRRORS EDGE 3 PORTABLE#
Small arms are also very portable and some can even be easily concealed on a combatant. This makes them ideal weapons for soldiers in many different combat environments and situations. Small arms are generally very simple to use and are increasingly more durable. They have grown in sophistication, accuracy, and fire rates over the years, with some capable of firing 300 rounds a minute or more - very useful from a battlefield perspective.
![mirrors edge 3 mirrors edge 3](https://wallpapersbq.com/images/mirrors-edge/mirrors-edge-wallpaper-3.jpg)
Small arms are by their very nature also potentially very lethal too. Small arms, unlike larger weapons such as tanks, fighter planes, or howitzers are generally very cheap and quick to manufacture. It is reduced by another factor of ten if the enemy has machine guns, or if he has tanks, and by a hundred if he has both," Storr explains. It is reduced by a further factor of ten or so if there is an enemy firing back at him. “It appears that a soldier’s ability to hit a given target is typically reduced by a factor of ten or so when he is moved from a static rifle range to a field firing area where he has to select cover, move, shoot, and so on. Jim Storr, argued that, generally speaking, a soldier who is more than capable of hitting a human-sized target at 2,000 ft (600 m) on a range can rarely achieve the same feat in battle. However, such statistics may completely miss the point of small arms fire in combat.Ī widely-cited and highly acclaimed article, " The real role of small arms in combat" by Dr. That is incredibly inefficient from a bullet-to-kill point of view. A former lieutenant colonel for the United States Army, Grossman argues in the book that human beings are not usually that willing to kill another human being.ĭuring the Korean War, this number rose to an estimated 50,000 rounds expended for every kill, and an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 rounds during the Vietnam War. However, the reality of war tells a very different story.Ī seminal work on the subject was published in 1996, titled, " On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society " and written by Dave Grossman. Since the basic duty of a soldier is to engage and potentially kill the enemy, you might think that most, if not all, soldiers actually fire at the enemy in combat. How often do soldiers actually fire their weapons?
![mirrors edge 3 mirrors edge 3](https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/d7069502ef47c2648d3ae9edc36a0be6.jpg)
In case you haven't watched, the premise is that, in battle, most soldiers will shoot over enemy soldiers' heads or purposefully miss.īut is this actually true? Are humans actually hardwired not to harm, if at all possible, another human being? Let's find out. If you've watched the Black Mirror episode " Men Against Fire", you might be wondering if the claims of soldier effectiveness in battle are, as claimed, quite pitiful.