The use of double taps is a technique best reserved for someone with plenty of skill with a weapon. Skillfully employing a double tap requires more than simply pointing and squeezing the trigger. Over-zealous use of this method of firing can lead to unintentional casualties, i.e. killing people you didn't mean to. Note: See Blackwater.

To properly employ a double tap, rely on proper firing techniques. Most important, especially with pistols, is trigger control. Most people will encounter two problems when squeezing the trigger of a pistol:

1. Slapping - Slapping the trigger rather than squeezing it smoothly will cause the barrel of the pistol to pull to one side, usually towards the firing side. Even at short distances this will cause the round to miss the intended area, and in stressful situations this will be exaggerated.

2. Anticipation - Recoil anticipation is when the shooter anticipates the recoil of the weapon, causing them to grip the pistol grip more tightly. This will usually cause the barrel to drop down, throwing the round off drastically at even short distances.

Next, after trigger control, comes body position. The proper body position for combat shooting is to face your intended target directly. Square your body , meaning hips and shoulders should be facing the thing you would wish upon to layeth thy scunion. Next, firmly grip your pistol and grip your firing hand with your non firing hand. Your fingers should overlay, with one hand griping the fist of the other. Your arms (BOTH) should be firmly locked out, shoulders forward, head behind the pistol. Lastly, bend your knees, and lean forward as if you want to punch the target with your hand. Don't be afraid to squat over, but keep your back straight. All these things combined will give you proper body position.

If done correctly, when the round goes off, your good body positioning will cause the barrel of your weapon to naturally come back down on the original target. These steps are called recoil management, and without it you'll get kicked the hell out of country and be forced to change the company name cause you zapped a bunch of civilians you dumb bastards.

An armored personnel carrier (APC) is a vehicle designed to carry soldiers, weapons and equipment around the battlefield and to provide limited protection against weapons common to that battlefield. They are war's 'battlefield taxis" and are designed to move people about when the going gets rough. They come in all shapes and sizes and fill a multitude of roles. Heavily armed versions known as infantry fighting vehicles have turned APCs into mini-tanks. This writeup introduces their long history and development.

The true history of the modern armored vehicle begins during the First World War. The realities of trench warfare came as a rude shock to officers in World War I. Machine guns, barbed wire and trenches gave overwhelming superiority to the defense. The simple fact was men could not take a defended position without enduring hideous casualties, despite incredible artillery preparations from thousands of guns. In fact the artillery barrages proved part of the problem, they tore up the earth all around the battlefield, making it all but impossible to cross.

World War I came as a surprise in other ways. The cavalry had been the pride of the army, but the horse soldiers performed poorly in modern combat. The problems continued outside of direct combat. Horse-drawn and foot transport really wasn't good enough in the modern world. Armies didn't exactly get rid of the horse (in fact most German transport was horse-drawn at the beginning of Word War II) but horses were extremely vulnerable to fire, and the mud characteristic of trench warfare slowed them down a lot and stripped them of much of their load carrying capabilities. Men were better in mud, but not much, and could not march quickly enough. The imperatives of battle were such that soldiers had to be able to move in almost all conditions, and if breakthroughs were to be exploited, they had to move fast.

The ultimate solution reached was the tank. The track laying system could get soldiers across very rough and soft terrain, and armor protected them from most weapons. However tanks have their limitations. You can't see out of one very well without sticking your head out to be shot at, something most tankers don't do in heavy combat. A smart infantryman can easily sneak up on a lone tank, and if equipped with the right anti-tank weapon, put it out of action. So the most effective way to use tanks is with infantry, who can see quite well but aren't terribly resistant to artillery and gunfire.

The British realized this and in 1917 developed the first armored personnel carrier the Mark IX, essentially a redesigned and lengthened version of the Mark V Male tank of the period. The idea was to protect the infantrymen from machine gun fire until they got across the battlefield, when they could dismount and serve as the eyes and ears for the tanks. Because military operations rarely take place where paved roads are ubiquitous, it was realized that infantry would have to be mechanized in vehicles capable of crossing poor, undeveloped or no roads at all. The next generation of armored personnel carriers were half-tracks. Vehicles like the German SdKfz 251 and the US M3 halftrack served as the prime movers near the front during World War II. They steered like cars with the track system designed to provide traction under conditions of mud and snow. The vehicles were lightly armored (primarily against small arms) and usually equipped with a machine gun for air defense. Some were used to mount heavy mortars or to tow artillery to give the big guns the ability to keep up with the tanks.

These halftracks, like most APCs, provided fairly roomy armored hulls and load-carrying capability. Much military equipment is heavy, and if it is to keep up with the tanks it has to be mechanized. From the beginning APCs have been adapated to many roles, and come in many specialized variants. Room to spread out a map and operate many radios made them prime candidates for command vehicles. Specialized mortar and anti-aircraft vehicles abound. Troops need to be resupplied in combat and so they often serve as trucks where shooting is expected. There are electronic and fire control variants. There are about a dozen specialized standardized variants of the American M113, and that's not atypical.

The second problem was artillery fire, as guns had made quantum leaps in numbers, firepower and accuracy during the first half of the 20th century. Longer range guns could reach deep behind the lines to strike second echelon forces. During the war soldiers began to realize that the best time to attack an enemy combat force came before the enemy deployed for combat. Cold War doctrine for the U.S. Army stressed attacking Warsaw Pact units well behind the lines, as they were easier to hurt, and it was discovered such hits could produce predictable times of weakness that could be exploited.

This thinking drove the APC to its current form. An oustanding example that came from that period was the US M113. Essentially a box on tracks, it is armored to resist light machine gun fire (heavy machine guns from the front) and light artillery fragments. NATO officers have always respected the power and numbers of Soviet artillery. APCs are designed to survive near misses from artillery and keep their passengers safe from snipers until deployed. APCs are not armored to resist direct hits from heavy weapons, That much armor would render them too heavy and immobile. (The Israeli Achzarit is a notable exception, formed out of captured T-55 tanks and Israel's historic manpower shortages.) The sides tend to be lightly sloped and with heavy sloping on the front where more protection is often needed. Many APCs are amphibious to get across the many waterways found in the field, but most are poor swimmers requiring ideal conditions to cross. Most APCs are lightly armed - usually just a machine gun.

This "box on tracks" form is not ubiquitous. Nor are tracks mandatory. There have always been armored cars, but recent advances in wheeled technology have produced mobility very close to tracked vehicles, but without the enormous maintenance and other costs associated with tracks. Plus they don't need transporters for long moves. The price for this is armor, because little can be carried. Second, not all APCs are boxes. In Vietnam U.S. troops often rode on top of their M-113s because they were more afraid of RPGs and mines than artillery or gunfire. In the 70s South Africa noticed their Angolan and African National Congress opponents didn't have much artillery but they did have mines, so they designed the open topped and very odd-looking buffel to protect against them. APCs are often used in reconnaissance because their armor can protect them against the odd rifleman while searching for the bad guys.

The Russians took the next step and brought us the first infantry fighting vehicle (IFV). Their tactics drew on World War II experience and stressed offensive operations. Experience taught them to try and get through any breakthrough as quickly as possible to prepare for counterattack. The idea was to create a breakthrough so ideally you'd have to carry infantry past the front to exploit any opportunites. They also recognized the growing number of anti-tank weapons on the battlefield, and soldiers do not enjoy just hunkering down under fire, they like to shoot back. They figured that if an APC had to cross a battlefield it might as well be able to fight. The BMP-1 was the world's first infantry fighting vehicle. Armed with a turreted 73mm gun, Sagger anti-tank missiles and machine guns it was intended to pin down enemy soldiers while on the attack, and to support infantry with heavy weapons after they dismount. Heavy machine guns, cannon and anti-tank weapons are very heavy, often too heavy to be carried. Moving them onto the APC was seen as a way of giving the infantry more firepower and mobility. The IFV minimizes the historical fact that many military hybrids don't work very well, but IFVs do give a motorized unit a lot more firepower. History shows that if commanders have an armored vehicle available, they'll use it regardless of its intended purpose. In Vietnam, lightly armored M-113 APCs were often used in the assault role because tanks weren't available. At least the IFV carries enough firepower to breach many prepared positions.

Western soldiers looked at the new BMP and had a collective moment. They did notice that the IFV was packed with ammo which might go boom if hit with the right weapon, but it was also fast and low and most soldiers don't aim too well when they're being shot at. They also had another moment when they started counting Soviet tanks, all of whom are fast, low and well-shaped. Defeating armor in such numbers seemed a daunting process, and the profusion of Soviet APCs simply multiplied the problem. They knew they'd never get enough tanks to match up. So NATO commanders tried to saturate the battlefield with their own anti-tank weapons, particularly promising guided missiles like the TOW. However, guided anti-tank missiles come with their own set of issues. Most move rather slowly with the flight time counted with seconds and most produce a fairly distinctive back-blast that can be targetted. Since aim must be maintained during the entire flight it was decided to put the weapon (and others of its type) under armor in hopes that the gunner will take heart and keep his eye on the target. Given that NATO troops expected to fight on the defensive prepared firing positions might protect and conceal the IFV sufficiently to bring its weapons to bear.

NATO adapted many standard APCs yet the BMP inspired plenty of western imitators. The M2 Bradley was designed primarily to bust BMPs. To fight tanks designers gave it a TOW and put the operator under armor. The 25mm Bushmaster was intended to slice up more lightly armored vehicles like the BMP. When moving across the battlefield the crew was supposed to use socketed mini-M16s to keep enemy infantry off their back (the M231 firing port weapon). The M231 can't be aimed and hitting anything while racing across country is a very dim prospect. But you can bet the mounted infantry will use them just to keep busy and at first they'll keep enemy infantry down too. Like the BMP in combat it is supposed to operate behind its deployed infantry and bring heavy weapons to bear. And it's fairly heavily armored, by APC standards. Reactive armor can make them rather RPG resistant, but dismounted infantry will want to keep a safe distance away from the competing blasts.

Armored personnel carriers are not going away. They can cross most terrain and protect their passengers against most threats. They can carry heavy stuff where needed and fill just about every role. And they're armored, and most soldiers believe you can't have too much armor around, so long as it's far enough away not to bring a bomb down on the nearby infantry. The combination of mobility, flexibility and armor is more than enough to keep around for the foreseeable future.

IFVs are also known as armored fighting vehicles or AFVs, the choice being personal preference.

Victory in war is often followed by relaxation. Being on the winning side of the Great War left America a bit complacent, and while like others the Army produced some noted advocates for armor-- namely Eisenhower and Patton the American army quickly lost all interest in tanks. So called 'real soldiering' (the Poor bloody Infantry) was seen as more honorable and, more importantly, cost a lot less.

Then along came a guy named Hitler. By 1939 war clouds had gathered over Europe and Japan was on the march in China. As this Hitler guy was on the losing side in World War I, and having lost he took some of those new-fangled mechanization ideas a lot more seriously. The German Army, disarmed at Versailles, was building tanks. When the Germans took over Poland pretty damned quickly it was realized that victorious armies were mechanized.

The problem is when you need something in a real hurry you grab whatever's off the shelf. You've got a helicoil suspension available from the M2 Light tank (tanks were okay for scouting). Got a nice continental radial aircraft engine producing 400 HP. Got a 75mm gun. They designed a turret for it, put these off-the-shelf bits together and pronounced it a Sherman. And the Sherman wasn't too bad either, in fact in 1942 it was better than the Wehrmacht's best. But by then the Germans had visited the Russian front. To their amazement the Russians had built this thing called a T-34.

The T-34 was the best tank of the first half of World War II, and possibly the most influential tank design in history. Its Christie suspension and powerful diesel motor made it faster than any other tank. Russian designers were intimately familiar with General Mud so they gave it wide tracks which allowed their tank to operate on soft ground no other tank could cross. It was well armored, and the armor was well sloped multiplying the plate's effectiveness. It had a 76mm gun too, so it had lots of hitting power. While the T-34 wasn't perfect, it combined speed, mobility, heavy armor and firepower in a near beautiful balance. Add reliabilty to the mix and you had a special tank, good enough that T34's still serve today. At the time the Panzerkampfwagon III with a 37mm gun was Germany's primary anti-tank vehicle. Simply put no German vehicle matched up. German tankers begged Berlin for something that would. Germany responded with the Panther and Tiger. Germany dumped the Panzer III and started sticking long 75mm guns on the Panzer IV.

The Russians had warned America of the Panther and Tiger, but they didn't appear in numbers until late 1943, well after the Army committed to the Sherman. Now properly backed, American tank engineers worked on the tank they really wanted to produce, and paying close attention to combat experience around the world. The produced a number of prototypes, most notably the T23 whose turret found its way onto later models of the Sherman. In late 1942 the T26 was under trials. It was a heavy tank that would become the Pershing. But in 1942 the Sherman did quite well against the older German tanks in the Afrika Korps. It was in full production and retooling would have led to a short term drop in production during the build up for D-Day. The Sherman was there and it looked more than good enough.

Maintaining production was one reason the Pershing was left on the slow track. Another was that most American leaders thought most of the German heavy tank production would head East, where it was badly needed. The last, and possibly most imporant reason was doctrine.

The Army had recognized that enemy tanks might prove a problem. So they created the Tank Destroyer Force to deal with them. The force was a combination of specialized anti-tank vehicles (eg: M18 Hellcat, M10 Wolverine) and towed guns who were supposed to fight enemy tanks. Tank destroyers got better guns (the 76mm and later 90mm) and the lion's share of the hottest ammunition. Tanks were reserved for more important tasks like assaults and exploiting breakthroughs. Unfortunately the Germans refused to co-operate. Fearing a second front the Germans put most of their Panthers and Tigers in the west. Moreover, except for the Battle of the Bulge German armor was primarily in the anti-tank role or limited-objective counterattacks to contain allied thrusts. Shermans got into lots of fights with the good German tanks, and a lot of American tankers died because of it. The rule was that it took five Shermans to fight a Tiger and only one would come home.

By 1944 the Army realized its anti-tank doctrine was wrong. There were other issues. The Sherman wasn't heavily armored enough for use in the 'assault' role. The M4A3E2 "Jumbo" Shermans with very heavy armor filled that role temporarily, but would not do forever. Even the 76mm Shermans needed a bigger gun. The Army needed a tank capable of taking on a Tiger or Panther. They gave the go-ahead to start mass-producing the M26 Pershing.

The Pershing was the first true clean-sheet American tank design. It tossed out the helicoil suspension used on the M3, M4 and M5 and replaced it with a torsion bar suspension. They used an improved version of the Ford GAA V-8 used in the M4A3 producing 500 hp and mated it with a very new automatic transmission with a torque converter. The cast hull was lower, better shaped and thicker than the Shermans. It had lower ground pressure for greater mobility. The turret was enlarged and 90mm anti-aircraft gun adapted for use. That decision proved controversial. The Army dithered between the the 76mm used in the M10 and later Shermans and the 90mm. Given the inadequacy of the 76mm the 90mm seems an obvious choice, until you consider they expected more of the HVAP ammunition, and 90mm ammo was both much larger and more expensive (which meant the tank would carry less ammo). Finally they settled on the 90mm.

The resulting design was very modern indeed, all U.S. tanks until the M1 Abrams evolved directly from the M26. The well-shaped hull offered excellent protection for relatively light weight. The gun performed well. The tank had good mobility in soft ground, but it had one major flaw: the powerpack. First it was underpowered. The Ford GAF V-8 was reliable but produced no more power than the GAA and the M26 weighed 10 tons more than the M4A3. The transmission was not reliable. It made the tank easier to drive when it worked, but it broke regularly, and proved a maintenance nightmare. In 1948 a new powerpack was designed. Both engine and transmission were replaced and upgraded models were redesignated the M46 Patton.

The M26 enjoyed a good combat record. It was introduced in limited numbers (200 tanks) in January 1945. By then the German back was already broken, but it proved capable of going one-on-one with any tank in Germany's arsenal, something that could not be said about the Sherman. The Tiger II was considered better but at much greater weight and many times greater cost. Pershings fought well during the Korean War and in limited numbers the Pershing and its M46 upgrade destroyed over half the T-34/85s killed by American tanks.

The M26 is one of the least known tanks built in America, but because it set the pattern for 30 years of American tanks and because it performed well in combat it deserves a solid place in history. The M46 and M47 Pattons really are nothing more than upgraded Pershings, and the lineage is clearly visible in the later M48 and M60 series. Which shows they got the basic design right.

Specifications:

• Weight: 46 tons loaded
• Height: 109" to the top of the cupola
• Length: 249" (6.3m) without gun
• Armor: 4.5" mantlet, 4" front, 3" sides, 1" topv
• Armament main: 90mm gun M3:
• 1 .50cal M2 machine gung, 2 .30 caliber machine guns
• Crew: 5
• Speed: 25 mph.