CWO3 Eby on suppressive fire and CQB.
Two articles by CWO3 Eby were published in the Marine Corps Gazette during 2004. The articles - summarizing trials for effective employment of platoon crew-served and individual weapons in CQB - are not currently retrieveable via the Gazette index. Versions available elsewhere on the web either lack tables or have poorly formatted tables. Attached (hopefully) is a fair copy formatted in Word.
Interesting to note that current USMC planning for its Infantry Automatic Rifle is apparently focussed on using the IAR as a replacement (rather than as a complement) for the LMG/M-249 with suppression to be provided by the M-240 and other heavy crew-served weapons.
2 Attachment(s)
CWO3 Eby on suppressive fire and CQB.
Two-part item in almost original format.
Eby and Suppressive fire/Automatic Rifle queries
Ok. Admittedly, I may have grasped the wrong end of the stick (it's a habit:D) but there's stuff I don't quite get. Perhaps it purely an editorial thing but the tables and the text are confusing me.
Quote:
Using a gunner and assistant gunner for each LMG became a variant on the LMG FT. This variant allowed the LMG to be manned and enjoy the same benefits as a medium or heavy machinegun. Rather than merely carry extra ammunition and a spare barrel, the assistant would load, direct impacts, help move the gun, and observe for maneuver encroachment on the gun target line. (See Table 2.)
Billet Weapon
3d FT Leader M16A2
SAW M249
SAW M249
A-SAW M249
Table 2. LMG FT: Variant 2.
So, does the above mean that the assitant SAW/LMG gunner is also armed with a SAW/LMG?
Secondly,
Quote:
The third platoon in each company consolidated their LMGs at the platoon level; i.e., the platoon organized itself into two rifle squads armed with test variant ARs, and the nine LMGs were placed into an LMG section.
Am I to undertand that in the LMG section/squad there are only four men not armed with SAWs/LMG (thre TL and a SL). If so who is helping to load and carry the extra ammo for this section/squad's SAWs/LMGs?
Overall I was quite impressed, it's almost a USMC version of Wigram tactical principles.
Depends on the target array. I want maximum EMP
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
Say again last transmission. That's awfully high for a height-of-burst correction, over.
from that airburst. :D
Six inchers are okay but eight Inchers are great
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
I guess that's what they mean when they say you should stay flexible. I never went into the "Adjust Fire" mode with that type of round before.
As the Actress said to the Bishop -- she was a Howitzer fan. :D
The 155mm had a 100t yield IIRC. With the 203mm you had dial-a-yield. Or assemble a yield, actually and got from three kt to 40 kt. A 40kt airburst EMP would knock out every unprotected electronic device within a healthy radius with a 1,600' or more airburst. Make a few people sick, too...