Gun A is twice as accurate as Gun B while also being twice the cost. From a military standpoint Gun B is the better gun, right?
Gun A is twice as accurate as Gun B while also being twice the cost.
Gun A is twice as accurate as Gun B while also being twice the cost. From a military standpoint Gun B is the better gun, right?
I wouldn’t worry about it.
How much does Gun B cost?
from a standard issue thing then yeah
No, clearly not, Gun B has higher Cost-Per-Effect than A when the effect is calculated in a unit that actually matters, i.e. "cost per dead enemy soldier" or "cost per enemy casualty inflicted." Reduced ammunition requirements also reduces Cost-Per-Effect in terms of the invisible logistical burdens of moving and producing that ammo. Arguing for Gun B would require arguing for an untrained, underqualified infantry, which flies in the face of numerous post-WWII lessons regardling how combat inevitably occurs.
You can contrive counterexamples (now Gun B is some autistic machine gun and A is a battle rifle) but if they are comparable in function and role A is obviously superior.
if Gun B is still minute of man at effective engagement distances, then no
it's a threshold based system, if Gun B meets the threshold then you don't need Gun A
Not necessarily, if gun A shoots half MOA at 100 and gun B shoots 1 MOA, that’s still better than the average soldier.
At 300 that’s a difference of 1.5 inches for total of 3 inch spread vs 1.5 inches. At 600 a difference of 3 inches for a total of 6 inch spread vs 3 inches.
With stats like above, more value for accuracy will likely result from improved soldier training. Though in a combat situation and not on a bench it’s relatively insignificant. Individual weapons are not effective on their own, they’re effective when used as a section with fire orders/target indications.
So it depends on how accurate.
I would probably agree with you if it was more like 3 MOA vs 1 1/2 MOA
Is gun B good enough? If so, "better than good enough" isn't really worth more than arming twice as many guys is most scenarios. The obvious reasons to go for gun A in that case:
- bribery
- gun A is easier/faster to train on than B
- gun A is logistically superior to B
- troops are not short of small arms (so B being cheaper doesn't matter as much) and have plenty of time to train as marksmen (so the benefits of A can be fully realized).
That's my un-expert opinion, so not only take that with a fat line of salt, but also realize that the question you asked is incredibly broad, and so a lot of the "meat" of the discussion is locked away behind personal interpretation
Arming twice as many guys isn't worth a fifth of having one guy perform one and a half times as effectively. If you can do it with fewer soldiers, you must, because through conscription you are depriving your country of its most productive members, healthy young males, and turning them into pincushions, while modern militaries spend big on small core quality elites instead. At worst, pay to ensure most of your conscripts return alive (i.e. good survival training, body armor, cowardice awards), if there must be conscription at-all.
Opportunity cost is a real thing, even if it isn't easy to see. You only find out how bad the consequences of underinvesting and cheapskating are long after you've made the mistake, and by then it's much too late to turn back. (I would say "ask Russian generals about this" but most of the people who would field that question have been thrown out of windows or MLRS'd)
>Arming twice as many guys isn't worth a fifth of having one guy perform one and a half times as effectively.
I don't think that's true.
Depends on a lot of factors.
If gun B's accuracy is adequate for it's role and it's not worse in any other way then maybe it's worth the savings. If it's substantially sub-par, then it really doesn't matter how cheap it is if it's going to put the user at a critical tactical disadvantage.
If gun A is twice as much as B, but still relatively affordable then they may as well pay the extra bucks for the added performance. It's double the cost, but double of dirt cheap can still be relatively cheap.
Also, it depends on what the gun is meant to do. A pistol or PDW doesn't necessarily need to be very accurate because it's meant to be used at short range. A DMR or sniper rifle is highly reliant on it's accuracy potential. With an assault rifle or machine gun, it's an important factor but not the only one.
Remember that the grunt using the weapon typically costs some money to recruit, equip and train. Small arms aren't really that big a part of the overall equation and usually it's worth spending a little more if it delivers an actual tactical benefit.
If gun B is solely to be used as a personal weapon, then yes.
Savings on gun B allow investment in more powerful weapons. Gun B exists solely as a means of personal defence. your average rifleman is nothing more than a foward observer for an avalanche of bombs. We have taken all the fun out of killing.
You guve gun A to the guy who you expect to be getting into combat, gun B to the guy who sits holds positions in the back or just civilian militias.
>From a military standpoint
which ever contractor salesmen greases political palms the best, and throws the best parties, is who gets the contracts.
how accurate is gun B? If gun A is 10moa and gun B is 20moa then it might be worth it to go with B. If gun A is 1moa and gun B is 2moa its basically never going to be worth it for an infantry rifle, accuracy is a diminishing return but having it not be able to hit shit is also bad. there is a sweet spot of cost and accuracy
>right
no
do you really think that small arms make up a substantial portion of the military's budget?
It's entirely based on whether or not it's made by a company or area that has ties to the senators on the committees in charge of procurement.
>twice as accurate
Means nothing if Gun B is at least capable of achieving 4 MOA which every rifle adopted for the last 60 years has proven. After that it's just a race to the bottom.