i know I'm going about this backwards...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Going back as far as we do Reed, I think we've always agreed on the merit of something more than bullets. I'm really not worried which weapon it is, as long as 3-5 can effectively carry and employ it. You may want to look at the ALCOTAN-100
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_kdcsVoFMTK...BAM3Dentro.jpg
Mix of a AT-4 LAW type weapons with a Fire Control System. Goes to 600m. M-32 with MV 40mm with go to 800m. Do you care?
Wilf, I finally found out our major sticking point. Recognized policy for most counties small unit tactics reduce (maybe to almost nothing) the value of the individual rifleman except to keep the enemy from disrupting the crew served weapon. This comes straight from WW2. The Germans kept rebuilding the 10 man squad with its embedded M34/m40 LMG. It proved its effectiveness over and over. The American squad with its BAR wasn't the killer it was supposed to be. I won't go into the supply problems that a normal squad/platoon went through because of all the cartridge types that the squad/platoon had. The M1 rifle was effective but the BAR proved less than spectaclar. It was too light and fragile to be used as an effective LMG. The platoon's M1919 30 cal MMGs were effective but there weren't enough of them in a platoon.
So today, it matters little what the cartridge or rifle is as long as it can keep the bad guys at bay. The real killing will be done by crew served weapons.
In this case, you're right in your convictions. It fits the prevalent operational mission of the squad/platoon. The SAW is sort of a aberation. All the minimum parameters of the inefficent rifle round and all the requirements of a crew served weapons. No wonder so many feel that it is a pile of sh*t.
I on the other hand work with nonstandard requirements and getting the best bang for the buck. Most of my clients are knowledgeable about the effect of crew served weapons but they feel the need to put them under the control of more experienced (and politically correct) officers and ncos. So I have a reason to try and get the most out of thier riflemen and see a need for a family of weapons that has a greater effective range, reliable, semi and controllable auto fire and needs less training. They have to take up the slack of the fewer crew served weapons and those that they have are usually older and proven reilable. For the most part if they'e using the American system (High overal cost is a disadvantage) this means the "pig" (M60) and there is really no answer to the RPG7v2-3 unless they fall back on a recoiless rifle of some sort. Most American weapons are expensive, cumbersome and need a lot of expesive training.
I sort of see it as a view of the future. We are going through cost cuts and restructuring of our military to fit a smaller profile. maybe it's time to look at all our assumptions and see if changes need to be made.
Actually I will take it one step further. While foot powered units show weaknesses, there are more than a few countires that are seeing a tendency of using less tanks (expensive and too big to ship easily) and instead of going to a more and more effective IFVs caring a section of Infantry. In Russia, this means the new BMP 4 with its 100mm gun and (hopefully) fanatical soldiers, that can be shipped easily to the point of conflict. The Contract Soldier program has been a failure for it is no more effective than their present conscript program. So there go the "fanatical" soldiers. But the creation of more intense squad weapon assets on the IFV show a need for more simple riflemen, IAR and SDM (SVD rifle) specialists.
The Americans tried this and is failing. The Bradley was effective for a while but now there are a larger and more powerful weapons packages out there. Also, the Bradley was never that easy to pack up and ship anywhere. Also it didn't fit our squad profile of 9 men easily. Under such conditions, it is cramped and in the case of long rides/confinment, it is very taxing.
I have studied the Israeli system and while it is more effective in most areas, it show a certain weakness in urban environments. ESP. in anti-terrorist insurgency missions. I have my masters in the international relationships though my specialty was in insurgency and non traditional forms of government. So I'm a bit sensitive to the effects of world wide political opinion on the actions of the individual state. :rolleyes:
Now that I have my feet placed clearly upon the floor...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
That's a statement that is questionable. The BAR did what it was supposed to and did it well. There were better weapons available-- the Johnson for one example; the Bren and Type 99 for a couple of more -- but the BAR , like the M4 tank or the M16 series was adequate. It was light, it was not fragile.
The issue raised is whether the US / British squad was not as effective as the German squad due to weapons selection -- or training level.Not against a well trained enemy they won't...The 'need' for automatic fire is vastly overstated and is a compensation for marginal training. ;)
The BAR was an old concept and an old weapon by the time I was ready to play with it. I lugged it for a while. There were problems with it that couldn't be fixed. It would over heat easily esp. in extended fire fights. Its rate of fire was to0 slow for my tastes. Finally the mags had a distinct problem of the mouth of the magazine deforming. I trained the troops I was with to fight a M60. All teams finally did the same at one point or another. Yes, Ken, ammunition was a bitch but it was worth the hassle. Then, suprisingly, all problems were magically whisked away.
Wilf, maybe it took one man to fight it but it took the whole squad to support it. For one thing, it took everyone in the unit to carry a mag or two for the gunner (me) couldn't carry all the ammo that we would need for a mission.
Problem with adquate is that it is almost a mathematical proposition. The Panther or Tiger tank could be overcome by 5:1 or 10:1 ratio of Shermans to either German tank. But we would comeout victorious in the end. Yeah! But what happen to those other 4 or more American tanks that were lost trying to stop the German tank.? At 5 men per Tank, how many casualties were there? I see a problem there.
The American Rifleman with his M1 rifle and sufficent ammunition was the best equipped on the field. His moral had a tendency to break but then squads/platoons would quickly reform (with or without the leader being present) and go back into fight. I think the Japanese reliance on "fighting spirit" was over rated but in anycase, it was the American soldier that showed who had fighting spirit. That overcame the need for auto fire.
However, I'm torn. If your training is excellent and your group has Espirt de Corps, no, auto fire can be more trouble that its worth. But today's operational policies being what they are. I don't have that faith. A barely adquate weapon with quick and dirty training bring what to the small unit. Ken, as you said before armies seem to reduce training costs but are willing to spend so much more in action cost in material if not casualties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Wilf
Not sure of your point here. Yes, some weapons are disproportionately effective in breaking the enemies will. Obviously how you sustain, manoeuvre and apply those weapons within your tactical doctrine, is extremely important.
The German Squad of 1940 was 13 men, not 10. Treat with extreme caution what folks say about German infantry organisation. By mid 1944 almost all German infantry units task organised and threw the TOE in the bin.
First of all, yes, the original German squad was 13 men and a M34 LMG. I learned to look at it as a 10 man team and one LMG section. However, losses reduced it to a 10 men total, of which 2 would fight the M34/M42.
Yes, your tactical doctrine is formost in its importance. However, The Germans refused to add new technology or change its Small Unit Tactics until casualties force them to change their policies. That's your task orientated units. They didn't have the manpower to keep creating "old" squad TO&Es. The was the driving force behind the Sturmgewehr 44. SMGs were too short ranged to be affective and the full power round took too much training to be put to best use. So they relooked at their tactics and decided the STG 44 was the perfect compromise.
Operator headspace was the usual problem
Quote:
Originally Posted by
AlexTX ret
The BAR ... problems with it that couldn't be fixed. It would over heat easily esp. in extended fire fights. Its rate of fire was to0 slow for my tastes. Finally the mags had a distinct problem of the mouth of the magazine deforming.
I saw with the BAR. First thing one should do is dump that clunky bipod and useless carrying handle, then take out and discard the actuator, actuator spring, sear release and buffer key -- that cuts the weight down to about 17 plus pounds and converts your officially dual auto fire weapon to an illegal (regulation-wise) but practical one that fires semi-auto and full auto at about 600rpm cyclic, 200rpm effective -- slightly faster than an M-60 but not quite as fast as an M-240. Got in a fight or two here and there, never had an overheat problem if the weapon was used as it should have been. Anyone who tried to use it as a LMG probably would have problems.
Magazine lips were easily disturbed, no question. Simple solution was operator training which was effective. Not a difficult fix. Though one did have to occasionally throw a steel helmet at a Troop to insure he paid attention and didn't just drop or fling his BAR Belt...
The key a fire fight is accurate suppressive fire, not volume of fire -- the BAR, Bren and Type 99 (arguably one of the best LMG/AR designs ever) are about 3x as accurate as any MG that was available before the M-60 / MAG 58 / M-240 / PKM / SS-77 and the BAR is twice as accurate as those. It was adequate for the task at the time.
Hopefully someone more current will weigh in but
having run the gamut from 13 man to 11 man to 9 man rifle squads plus playing around here and there with six man scout squads I don't really think it makes much difference. IMO, the quality of the troops is the biggest determinant of success or failure. You take what you have and use it to the best of your -- their -- ability. This was before the days of easy Chaptering people out so you had to work a bit. :cool:
The three fire teams and 13 men of the Marine squad give you a lot of flexibility so that's the easiest to use but all of them work. I've gone out with none, one, two and three automatic weapons; three is better (not for the added 'firepower' but for redundancy and flexibility), two will work fine, one is okay and none, job dependent, can range from okay to not so okay... :wry:
If the element is well trained, they all work.