True and I sure agree on both counts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Uboat509
...As for the M249, when I was a SAW gunner...I will never trust that gun again.
Nearly as I can gather, you've got a lot of company on that. The only person I've ever seen really defend that weapon is Schmedlap -- and even he admits it took extra loving care. Can't always provide that...
Agree on the M 60. It was a good weapon, almost impossible to screw up and did not require an excess of maintenance. No MG does well on blanks IMO -- but then, they don't need to...
Same weapon, different name
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kiwigrunt
Sorry about the confusion. Wilf and I were referring to the 7.62 Minimi made by FN Herstal http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail="][/URL]as opposed to the Mk48 of the US. The M240/Mag 58 are indeed a totally different ball game.
The 7.62 Mimimi is a Mk 48 without an upper handguard and a few very minor differences as the gas cylinder plug you noted.. Your link says it weighs 8.2 kg which is roughly 18.04 pounds, same as the Mk 48 and thus at least 9 pounds less than a MAG 58 / M240 / L7. No confusion. I note that the FN link you used also does not give the weight of the MAG 58... ;)
The Minimi in 5.56 is the M249 and the Mk 46; the 7.62 Minimi is the Mk 48. Minor differences but they are quite insignificant.
Quote:
I like your suggestion on the PKM in 6+. The Russians did indeed try something like that with the 6mm Unified Machine Gun but that seems to have gone nowhere.
Big armies have too many sunk costs in equipment to change it unless there is a pressing need. Right now, there is no pressing need for them or us.
A 6mm cartridge has a lot of advantages but its still a compromise, heavier and larger than 5,56 and without the reach and power of the 7.62.
Quote:
Darn....can someone please teach me how to tidy those links up (a computer geek I am not).:o
Intead of using the clickable link button here, I've found it easier just to type [ url= then copy and paste the link and add an end bracket ]type in 'link' or whatever name you want it to possess then close with [ /url ] with NO spaces between the brackets and the text.
Here's all that using parentheses instead of brackets:
(url=http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=249&backPID=306&productID=19&pid_prod %20uct=233&pidList=306&categorySelector=2&detail=% 22) LINK(/url)
And with brackets:
LINK
I think you have to organize for specific mission
or situations and the old METT-T applies. The advantages of the USMC Squad to me are ability to absorb casualties and still function, the training value for junior NCOs and flexibility it offers to organize in many ways.
Leading it I've been down to six people, usually had ten, rarely all thirteen. I've organized with all the ARs in one support team team and all the rifles in an assault team. I've held a line and sent out a four man FT patrol many times but have also sent out multiple two or three man patrols and two FT sized patrols -- depends on what the other guy seemed to be doing. Went to Recon where we supposedly had a 10 man Sqd with Three 3 man Scout teams; due to shortages, we usually operated as a Scout Sqd with six or seven total people.
Later, in the Army I ran an 11 man squad briefly in training but spent most of time in Recon thus had either a six bod squad or a 28 man platoon to worry about and I've used various combination of that for a lot of things -- to include Wilfs idea of four five man teams (less drivers or four six man teams with).
Whatever works. I did see 18-20 man platoons in the Army in Viet Nam. A lot of people liked to keep an M-60 with the Squads but there some that did not. Some folks, if short an NCO would combine a squad into a SL, x number of troops and an asst SL; others would try to keep two Ft and put a SP4 or even a PFC in charge.
A lot of Infantry Battalions took their Recon and anti Tank Platoons and combined them into a mini-Rifle Company. They had six M-60s and usually about 50 plus people, generally organized into one big platoon with six seven or eight man squads including an M-60. Some did okay, most got chewed up regularly because they'd give them company sized missions too often.
just a few morning observations...
Just got back from my mornng run so I feel I can take on anything...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Wat gramor?
I have a few "issues" with the SCAR, and substantially fewer with HK-416, but they are not really relevant here. I see the Rangers are deploying with the SCAR any day now.
I rather like the G-36KV, but any 5.56mm with a 14-16 inch barrel will do the job.
The key to my mind is the MIL-STD 1913 rail and the ability to swap out Sighting Systems and things like the EGLM. It is in my opinion the most important development in infantry weapons since the advent of 5.56mm, and 40mm.
I would like to know your issues are. I need all the info I can get. I live in a dream world most of the time. PR Hacks/Marketing make sure that their wares are shown in the best light possible and they "never" malfuntion. So any outside source is welcome. Sorry for using my public "open" Email account but it's hardly ever used so it's pretty secure.
I think I have the right HK 36KV, you are talking about the new version, right? It is a very good weapon though niether it or the XM8 take the std m16/NATO magazine. Not really a sticking point since HK will gladly change basically anything for a few hundred thousand unit order. :rolleyes:
However, the reliability tests were done with the special polymer magazines. I wonder what the tests would have been like if they had used std M16 magazines? The FN SCAR and the HK 416 were done with M16/NATO snd mags. However, it's just one of the things you have to consider when you evaluate "test' data.
However, it a very light weight weapon that hasn't been tested in the field enough to know how reliable it really is. All tests that I have knowlege of (Thank goodness for the God of coffee) have been done in controled enviorments. So time will tell.
It has the ugliest stock in existance. :eek:
As far as Mil accessory equipment rails, I think the British had the right idea of making a small optical sight as part of the standard rifle. Several companies are making optics as part of the overall package available. However, nothing comes free so most buyers still shun them.
Off topic: I think small optics and the M262 type round will be the wave of the future if there is going to be an upgrade of present rifles. This is where the HK 416 Upper receiver upgrade makes sense. Hope HK can keep its costs down.
Yes, I concure that the various new underbarrel GL launchers are a serious boost to unit effectveness, especially if they can use the new 40X51 rounds.
Long ago on a galaxy far away we had the
M1 and M2 Carbine. They were issued by the ton in WW II and worked fairly well for the last year or so of the war. We took 'em to Korea. In the winter of 1950, it was discovered that the Carbine had a tendency to freeze up in extreme cold AND that it would not stop charging Korean or Chinese troops with heavy padded jackets. Voila, the Carbine disappeared almost overnight, replaced by the M1 which would stop most anything -- and do at reliably at 6-700meters.
The M4 worked reasonably well in Iraq, no one there had many complaints. OTOH, in Afghanistan, it had two big problems. Range for the open spaces and knockdown on stoned Afghans who are made of different stuff than Iraqis. Afghanistan was relegated to a side show so the fact that Iraq had no major complaints overrode the grumbling from Afghanistan. That grumbling will now get louder. We'll see what happens with that.
I mention the carbine only to highlight that we have in the intervening 59 years gotten so bureaucratic that we can no longer make life saving decisions in a timely manner...:mad:
I helped run the original troop test on then AR 15 in 1963. We -- the Army -- recommended that a few be bought for special purpose units but the M14 be retained for world wide service. That was based primarily on the 5.56 varmint cartridge rework poor results on the hundreds of pigs we killed for the Oscar Meyer Plant in Fayetteville. Instead, McNamara canceled the running M-14 contract and ordered the M-16 into production. I'm sure the fact that TRW had contributed to Nixon's campaign while Colt had contributed to Kennedy's had no bearing on the decision. :rolleyes:
I carried one in combat for two years, It is not a good weapon, never has been and the dumb things the Ordnance Corps did to it did not help. Nor did Barry Mccaffery -- the godfather of the M4 -- help. I've always been fascinated by that bolt closure device on the Ma1 and it's clones...
As AlexTX ret says it's the weapon we have and there are sure a lot worse ones around, all it needs for now is a decent cartridge; the new Brown Tip may do the job. We'll see about that as well, I guess.
However, just this once...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
M1 and M2 Carbine. They were issued by the ton in WW II and worked fairly well for the last year or so of the war. We took 'em to Korea. In the winter of 1950, it was discovered that the Carbine had a tendency to freeze up in extreme cold AND that it would not stop charging Korean or Chinese troops with heavy padded jackets. Voila, the Carbine disappeared almost overnight, replaced by the M1 which would stop most anything -- and do at reliably at 6-700meters.
The M4 worked reasonably well in Iraq, no one there had many complaints. OTOH, in Afghanistan, it had two big problems. Range for the open spaces and knockdown on stoned Afghans who are made of different stuff than Iraqis. Afghanistan was relegated to a side show so the fact that Iraq had no major complaints overrode the grumbling from Afghanistan. That grumbling will now get louder. We'll see what happens with that.
I mention the carbine only to highlight that we have in the intervening 59 years gotten so bureaucratic that we can no longer make life saving decisions in a timely manner...:mad:
I helped run the original troop test on then AR 15 in 1963. We -- the Army -- recommended that a few be bought for special purpose units but the M14 be retained for world wide service. That was based primarily on the 5.56 varmint cartridge rework poor results on the hundreds of pigs we killed for the Oscar Meyer Plant in Fayetteville. Instead, McNamara canceled the running M-14 contract and ordered the M-16 into production. I'm sure the fact that TRW had contributed to Nixon's campaign while Colt had contributed to Kennedy's had no bearing on the decision. :rolleyes:
I carried one in combat for two years, It is not a good weapon, never has been and the dumb things the Ordnance Corps did to it did not help. Nor did Barry Mccaffery -- the godfather of the M4 -- help. I've always been fascinated by that bolt closure device on the Ma1 and it's clones...
As AlexTX ret says it's the weapon we have and there are sure a lot worse ones around, all it needs for now is a decent cartridge; the new Brown Tip may do the job. We'll see about that as well, I guess.
I know a lot of people that swear by the M1 carbine. Some have tried to make them into deer rifles. However, you're right, the M1 cartridge is a might stained by practically everything it tries to do. However, the only criteria for its developement was that it could take the place of the various pistols used by most of the military. Given that parameter, was it better than a pistol to everyone not on the frontline?
As for the M4, it was never designed to take the place of the standard M16A2+. I think it was a failing of the Tactical Generals because they wanted to issue the M4 as an all purpose weapon. It still is better than a pistol or submachine gun.
As for the M16, 2 thoughts.
First: Where are all the advisors who said that the M16 would be a enemy force devisor. For every enemy soldier wounded would require up to as many as 4 other soldiers to get the wounded trooper back to an aid station? :mad:
Second: My AKMS never failed to fire. It had other issues such as battlefield identification because of its different sound when it fired. However, one SF soldier used a 30-30 so there was a lot of differences between established T&OE and what we actually fought with.
Going back to the M1 carbine, indirectly, it was part of the reason we got the M16. The military sort of fubared and forgot all the worst things about a small cartridge weapon. It rationalized that the the M1 Carbine was a success. I know they handed out enough of them to the ARVNs.
Everyone is entitled to my opinions...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AlexTX ret
...Are all future wars going to be like this?
Almost certainly not. We can and should avoid wars like these and when a real war comes along -- and it eventually will -- people are going to be in for a big shock...
Quote:
I'll start with a few questions and hope I can get a few answers.
Keep the M4 as is for now, minimal mods, no new upper, simply improve the cartridges in general issue.
There are multiple reasons to change; maintenance intensity not sustainable in heavy conflict, inadequate lethality, unreliability -- but we should take the time to do it right. Not that we will do that... :rolleyes:
One pistol or SMG cartridge (9mm has major lethality problems for moderately trained shooters) and one for a carbine / rifle / AR / GPMG. No belt fed below company level (maintenance and training problem). Four cartridges at Bn level, pistol / carbine etc. / .50 / 40mm or whatever grenade like rounds we finally select. A real war will be far more supply intensive than anything seen by us in the last 50 years.
The LAW is good, need more and better and that's achievable; Javelin is good and needs to stay until a lighter, better replacement is developed. RPG has more disadvantages than advantages.
The F-22 decision has been made, Congress may or may not go along. Why would /do we need a better fighter at this time -- and if we developed one, would it be manned or unmanned?
Quote:
...Given that parameter, was it better than a pistol to everyone not on the frontline?
Yes and no. More range, less handy, more rounds per magazine, less lethal, more maintenance, less reliable. All weapons are compromises.
Quote:
Tactical Generals because they wanted to issue the M4 as an all purpose weapon. It still is better than a pistol or submachine gun.
Thus my lambasting McCaffery on the M4. It is better than the existing pistol, we have no SMG and both those are better in the proper caliber for some jobs than the M4. All weapons are compromises and the M4 is adequate but not as good a compromise as is possible.
Quote:
First: Where are all the advisors who said that the M16 would be a enemy force devisor.
Good question, been my observation that those who spout such idiocy are rarely seen carrying the weapon they tout in combat.
Quote:
I know they handed out enough of them to the ARVNs.
That's more because the ARVN hated the M1 which they also had in large quantities; the weapon was bigger than they were in some cases and the recoil was, to them, vicious. They were given the option of Carbines with less lethality and less recoil so they took it. Proving that the US is not alone in making dumb weapons decisions.
After blowing upon another forum...
I'm glad to see a smiling face!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Wow.No one else here can say that. Or would.
I worked for a time as as contract intell. Everything I know is hearsay but at the right time and the right place, a simple question can verify the most complex of concepts. Also everything I say, I know that it has been reported in the media repeatedly. Everything else, I'll tell my grandchildren when they'e grown, if I live that long. I don't get a thrill out of being a hero. That should be left to one's children and the young. Who knows after 9/11, anyone could be listening and I might find myself on a list. I just hope they get my name right. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
We exacerbated our problems by incompetence at high levels in uniform and showed the result of 25 years of poor training.War is not frightening to those who are prepared for it. It will be for those who want to fight nicely.Democracies in peacetime do not do good intel -- or adequately train their military forces; Legislators and Mommies get upset. I can accept that for the benefits of the system.
Our Founding Fathers created a system that freedom and the ability to say, without fear, what we felt was neccessary. So it's not unreasonable that we have a system that is unperfect but flexible. The problem is when we turn from that path. In certain ways, the military has turned to the dark side. It is bloated and dictitorial. So we find ourselves unable to come up with clear, comprehensive and tested policy that can comprehend shades of gray.
The military has changed little since I was a shave tail 2lt. If anything, it has gotten worse. I'm not discussing sedition but there may come a time for new blood to rise to the top and let in some light. However, it won't come anytime soon. So we do with what we have and try and make it better.
War is frightening no matter how prepared you are for it. It is how you handle that fear that dictates ow effect you are. It's like a new man in your squad or platoon. He talks like he's big and bad but you know to keep an extra eye on him when he is baptised by fire. Sorry for stating the obvious to one as distingished as yourself. I think the problem is that we've become complacent and have forgotten the true sting of combat. Those who play nice are going to be the ones hurtiing the most. I think we are doing a diservice to our troops by trying to make it anything but a terrible, gory business. But like you say, it would upset the kiddies.
I too accept the benefits of the system and would fight again if came to that. I think most veterans would. That is our way. And I hope to God that it never changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The Mk262 (I guess that's the one you're referring to) has a 77 grain bullet; the new one has a 70 grain bullet. Barrel change either way but that's okay because we don't teach people how to clean weapons well so barrels get excessive wear from over maintenance.There are some new ones in the works.
Yeah, I had an interesting discussion about the 6.5 MPC and how the goverment is taking a serious look at it. It is shorter ranged than the Mk262 but it hits with more authority. It also gives a greater pulse than the 5.56 and that would make the impinged gas system more reliable. And all it would reguire is a barrel change. And your right, most of the Army's M16/M4s are close to needing a rebuild/refit. From what I've heard tonight the Army has decided already that the SCAR-L is too unreliable even before the Rangers get a chance to test it. They are saying the same thing about the HK416. It seems that they feel that the short stroke piston gas system is an unwarranted change. Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
True, that's why the M16 as purely political for the initial purchase is pretty sad.The Viet Namese Airborne Brigade had a number of purchased AR-15s; 15 to 20 per Rifle Company. If a troop carrying one got hit, they'd get five men killed to get that weapon back. We got some 'to be scrapped' M-60s to use in lieu of the BARs -- bear to scrounge Ammo for 'em. The little guys loved the Pig as well. :D
I can imagine. Why did we do so poor a service to the ARVN and then complain that they couldn't fight their own war? Scrounge? Didn't you have the magic mojo. Contraband or anything hard to get would open all sorts of doors. I always wondered if it was corruption that added to our failure in 'Nam.