Results 1 to 20 of 439

Thread: Rifle squad composition

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    Besides the points answered by Ken I justed wanted to point out that the mortar has traditionally been the mountain infantry's best friend. Not only does it allow you to suppress and target almost everything within range with considerable effect, but it can also do this job deployed behind ridges, on steep slopes and possibly close a good supply route. The FOs/platoon should have the tools and training to make the best use of it.

    Sending the vehicle supplied HE from afar is way easier on the backs of the humping soldiers.
    Last edited by Firn; 11-27-2009 at 08:45 AM.

  2. #2
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    589

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Firn View Post
    the mortar has traditionally been the mountain infantry's best friend. Not only does it allow you to suppress and target almost everything within range with considerable effect, but it can also do this job deployed behind ridges, on steep slopes and possibly close a good supply route.
    The Soviet experience in Afghanistan underlines this experience. They quickly found that their 82mm Vasilek "semi-automatic" mortar provided stirling, timely and in most cases devastating fire support (especially in burst fire mode) in contrast to their SP and towed arty. I wonder how far along the Dragon system is progressing for the USMC? Hope it hasn't been cancelled (...would like to hear that the Royal Marines will subsequently aqcuire them in future. Ahhhhhh, BAe, god love yah ).
    Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 11-27-2009 at 10:54 AM.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    One comment to Tukhachevskii's Afganistan comment. During IIWW Soviet troops used this kind of launcher in Caucasus. Fuchs can say now that this is copy of Nebelwerfer


  4. #4
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Default

    While reading in another thread where I wanted to post I came across this post which puts some of my thoughts better in words than I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by ODB View Post
    but I'll lay it out here. Many dicussions throughout the SWJ revolve around weapons. Everyone talks about the ideal round, ideal lethality, ideal caliber, firing rates, etc..... Finally someone brought up one of my biggest pet peeves (Thanks Coldstreamer). POSITIVE ID. At what distance with the naked eye can a soldier positively ID (PID) his threat in any environment? Yes, the environment makes a difference and I know all the associated factors. For arguements sake let's say open desert:

    1. In local attire carrying an AK or RPG?

    2. In local attire hiding an AK or RPG under his clothes?

    3. In military uniform carrying an AK or RPG?

    4. In military uniform with no weapon visable?

    Aditionally lets use the same constraints with common current optics found within our force.

    1. ACOG 4x power

    2. M68 or EOTECH 0x power

    3. Binos (showing my age by allowing the old M22) 7x50

    4. Thermals (lightweight)

    5. ELCAN M145 3.4x power

    Staying in the daylight only realm, night becomes a completely different story.

    I'm not talking capabilities with sniper teams and other specialties. Most discussions center around the "force" in general.

    Additionally this changes based on the fight your in. Yes one can PID someone shooting from a much further distance or can they?
    Also trying to get the ability and equipment to ID something or somebody was perhaps the key issue of that old book written in 1920. What the "drag net" of observers logged down could then be dealt in a myriad of ways. Heavy MGs, a whole rifle platoon, snipers, raids or various doses of artillery fire were used to achieve the objective.


    Firn

  5. #5
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kaur View Post
    One comment to Tukhachevskii's Afganistan comment. During IIWW Soviet troops used this kind of launcher in Caucasus. Fuchs can say now that this is copy of Nebelwerfer

    Fin stabilized, rail instead of tube-launched - very different and much smaller than a Nebelwerfer - also much less complicated (the ammunition).


    Mortars are not good against forward slope positions on a steep mountain, but that kind of position is rather rare anyway.

  6. #6
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Shoot high

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    Mortars are not good against forward slope positions on a steep mountain, but that kind of position is rather rare anyway.
    if they're on or near the military crest provided one is present; the blowdown can do an amazing amount of damage. If there is no military crest then you are indeed stuck with direct fire. Reverse slope defenses are a more difficult target for everything, hence their popularity...

  7. #7
    Council Member Fuchs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,189

    Default

    The fuze and frag pattern are also something that should be kept in mind. Most mortar bombs have a quite horizontal frag pattern (if they explode while descending straight down).
    This pattern is extremely inefficient against targets on near-vertical surfaces in comparison to their performance against target in flat terrain.
    Even proximity fuzes don't help much.

    A low trajectory (even direct fire) munition and some of the very rare forward frag mortar bombs (or air burst WP-Inc) can be much more efficient in that case.

  8. #8
    Council Member Firn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,297

    Exclamation

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
    A low trajectory (even direct fire) munition and some of the very rare forward frag mortar bombs (or air burst WP-Inc) can be much more efficient in that case.
    Perhaps a part of the solution.


    Corps to field more grenade launchers


    “The typical [Marine] company will … receive three MSGLs,” she said. “The MSGL is a commander’s discretionary weapon. Unit commanders will decide the means of employment.”
    ...

    “When there’s an exchange of fire going back and forth, one of our goals is to immediately gain fire superiority, and when you fire six rounds and you hear six explosions on the back end, sometimes that quiets the guy who’s shooting back at you,” Maj. Jody White, team leader for the weapon’s acquisition, said last June. “It allows us to maneuver at that point, and seek him out and destroy him.”

    This sounds like they are giving one of those big .40 revolvers to each rifle platoon of the company, doesn't it?

    This firepower comes at a price called weight. A dedicated grenadier with a lighter, stand alone single-shot launcher can carry a lot more rounds. This is important if it is used by light or mountain infantry. Still the M32 can make of sense, especially when you have to put quickly a lot of HE downrange. I rambled about this topic before.



    Firn


    P.S: It should be the L variant, capable to shoot higher velocity 40x46 mm grenades.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The second variant is the Mk 1L, which features a new sliding buttstock and a 140 mm (5.5 in) long cylinder. Certain special-purpose grenades such as tear gas canisters and less-lethal impact rounds are too long to fit in older models of the MGL, but they will fit in the Mk 1L's extended chambers. As a result, the weapon can fire a wider range of ordnance, and is more suitable for use in peacekeeping and riot control operations. The Mk 1L also incorporates all the improvements found in the Mk 1S.
    Last edited by Firn; 02-25-2010 at 10:47 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •