Adapting Equipment to the Reality of the Battlefield

[120mm]

3 issues I'd like to address, here. First, Monte Cristo, the reason why we are FORCED to engage the enemy in Iraq at close range, is that they use the terrain they have to FORCE us to go in after them at close range. If we "stand off" and snipe them, we become the Air Force, just killing everything that looks suspicious.

Second, none of the semi-auto precision rifle options are good ones. Both the M-21/25 and SR-25 systems have functional issues. While you may find the odd one that works well and accurately on the target line, they are difficult to maintain in the field with stoppages and failure to feed. Bottom line: You can have functionality or you can have accuracy, but you must choose.

Third, bullpups are fatally flawed. Their ergonomics are Not Good(tm). Combat magazine changes are crucial to the CQB fight, and while the top-loading magazine bullpups have good ergo, they require an overly complicated and fragile action. And the bottom-loading ones are hard to change, compared to the M4. Also, the only way left-handed firers can shoot bullpups is to teach right-handed firing, eject through the bottom, which has significant problems, or introduce a fragile and complex system for changing which side they eject from.

There is a certain amount of parallax which is built in to the basic bull pup design over and above the M4 type. The higher you make the sight, and the closer to the muzzle the sight it, the more you have to compensate for parallax, which confines your combat range.

I am continually getting in peeing matches with folks who argue "bullpup uber alles", but generally speaking, they do not understand the role that basic ergonomics plays in infantry combat, nor do they understand parallax.

I don't think small arms are that relevant to the Small Wars issue, anyway. While equipment shortcomings and PERCEIVED shortcomings can become part of the I/O battle (And, obtw, Russia, Iran and China are fighting an I/O battle over military equipment right now against the west) I think it matters not what your soldiers are equipped with, it is how they use it.

[goesh]

It wouldn't take any training to cross over since it is an AR platform

[Monte Cristo]

3 issues I'd like to address, here. First, Monte Cristo, the reason why we are FORCED to engage the enemy in Iraq at close range, is that they use the terrain they have to FORCE us to go in after them at close range. If we "stand off" and snipe them, we become the Air Force, just killing everything that looks suspicious.

Well, first of all, I would like to formally thank you for the rhetorical spanking. It felt great! Plus, I really needed that! Seriously though, I suggest you save your misplaced aggressiveness for more worthy causes.

The enemy doesn't compel you to do anything. You make your own decisions….bad decisions if you’re unable to control your emotional impulses. When the nature of the mission or the lack of tactical foresight exposes you to hostile fire or ambushes, following your enemy might lead you into a trap. You might want to reflect on that. The best soldiers are those that manage to find a balance between too much and too little aggressiveness.

I feel that the substance of my threat has been lost.

Back to you, Bill.

[Steve Blair]

Well, first of all, I would like to formally thank you for the rhetorical spanking. It felt great! Plus, I really needed that! Seriously though, I suggest you save your misplaced aggressiveness for more worthy causes.

The enemy doesn't compel you to do anything. You make your own decisions….bad decisions if you’re unable to control your emotional impulses. When the nature of the mission or the lack of tactical foresight exposes you to hostile fire or ambushes, following your enemy might lead you into a trap. You might want to reflect on that. The best soldiers are those that manage to find a balance between too much and too little aggressiveness.

I feel that the substance of my threat has been lost.

Back to you, Bill.

You do not always have to follow the enemy to be exposed to close-in attacks. The basic mission of population security does that for you. To provide that security, you HAVE to be out there with them. That exposes you to IEDs and ambushes. Nature of the beast, not bad decisions or over-aggressiveness.

Back to 120mm...I agree about the bullpups. Quick reload is a major concern, and too many non-shooters just don't understand parallax or the role that reasonably precise shooting plays in the real world. Just because your bullpup does well in Counterstrike doesn't mean it will work well out in the field.

[Monte Cristo]

Counterstrike? Is that a flick or something?

[Steve Blair]

Counterstrike? Is that a flick or something?

First person shooter. You'd be amazed how many people get their ideas about how weapons work from computer games. This of course ain't how they really work.

Rob: The 5.56 versus 7.62 debate has been around for ages. Usually it's been spun as rate of fire and weight of ammo as opposed to penetration ability. 7.62 has greater penetration power, but you can carry more 5.56 and weapons that use it tend to have a higher rate of fire (at least until the 3-round burst feature came into use). I suspect the debate will always be with us.

[Monte Cristo]

If you wanna debate console games, you should wait for 120 mm to get online.

I'm afraid that my experince with bullpups is limited to live-fire range exercises.

[Steve Blair]

No debate on console games. Just pointing out that perception does not always equal reality when it comes to equipment and the situation in the field. 120mm makes very valid points in his post about the capabilities of weapon systems, and as someone who's using the gear today, Rob's points should be considered carefully as well. Using a weapon in range exercises isn't the same thing as using it when you're under fire in a dirty environment.

This whole thing brings to mind one lesson that every army seems to have to relearn with EVERY conflict: that of combat load for infantry personnel. Back around 1870 or so a group of German medical students determined that the most an infantryman could be expected to carry without degrading his endurance and performance was around 40 pounds. But every conflict we've been in since that time this lesson always surfaces as something new. Sort of like "you need more water when operating in a desert or jungle environment." Who knew?