The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[ODB]

I get to get intimate with this in Oct. Rumormill most do not like it, but come Oct I will be putting it through it's paces and will share the feedback. Until then I'll remain silent on it.

Overall as a general purpose rifle still do not know why we are looking to replace the M4......makes no sense.

Without going into all the pros/cons in all environments. Have never had issues with it, all these so called studies, opinions, etc... in my mind are objectionable at best. Do not know many if anyone who puts as much ammo a year through their M4's. Then again maybe one only has to look as far as the maintainence on one throughout the year.

I will now wait for the shouting to begin and corrections to my observations by those much smarter than I to guide (pummel) me down the right path.

[AlexTX ret]

Overall as a general purpose rifle still do not know why we are looking to replace the M4......makes no sense.

Without going into all the pros/cons in all environments. Have never had issues with it, all these so called studies, opinions, etc... in my mind are objectionable at best. Do not know many if anyone who puts as much ammo a year through their M4's. Then again maybe one only has to look as far as the maintainence on one throughout the year.

I will now wait for the shouting to begin and corrections to my observations by those much smarter than I to guide (pummel) me down the right path.

The problem of the M4 is one of percieved usage. The usage of S109/M855 ammo is that it's marginal coming out of a 20" barrel. It takes a great amount of shot placement to be truly effective. Not that big a problem if the majority of your troops shoot Expert at the range. However, the M4 has been sold to the Army as a replacement for all other small weapons. From A 14" barrel, there is a significant amount of balistic energy lost. So again if the user didn't qualify expert at the range, it is even weaker than a std M16. If this reality is accepted then the M4 is a good weapon. However, it is my understanding that it still overheats in a serious firefight even if proper maintenace is done. But as you say, how much ammunition is put through a M4 in a year by the average user? I assume not that much. So overheating shouldn't be that big a problem. And for all the controversy, it is still better than a pistol and even superior to a submachine gun.

I hope I'm not raining on your day. I think you brought up a good point.

[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...

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.

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.

[William F. Owen]

Guys,

I think we need to admit that physics and engineering are pretty much the limiting factors in terms of working with what we have. Weight for weight, the M4 Carbine is pretty good. Far from perfect, but it is "good enough."

Personally, as I implied in this article, I don't really think we have a very good understanding of infantry weapons as a whole. We have snap shots of "best practice" and "seems to work," but having a debate about 14" versus 16.5" or even 20" seems pointless bearing in mind the limiting factor is someone shooting under stress, and the enemy seem not to care what is shooting at them, as long as it is!

Physics pretty much tells you what you can have for the weight. After that it seems to be very much a human performance discussion.

[AlexTX ret]

I started to reply to a series of post on this thread when I realized that we're possibly being myopic about this discussion. The military bureaucracy is not on the same page as the soldier in the field. The squad and platoon are the tip of the spear. Why can't we develope a weapon or weapon systems that will best suit our troops and their mission. What's wrong with the military procurement system? I think the relatively micro managed war in Iraq and to a lesser sense, Afganistan, has lulled us into a sense of complacency. From what I hear from most of the returning Vets is that they feel that they were as much policemen as soldiers. Even in Afganistan, conflicts are sharp quick and sanitized. Are all future wars going to be like this?

So I propose that we change things a little bit here and actually come up with systems that we would really want our virtual squads and platoons to field. What existing systems that would best suit our troops is an important discussion. But like Wilt mentioning the Milkor M32 and M40 multiple round GL launchers, what other weapon systems would be optimum to give the best bang for the buck or just the best bang?

I'll start with a few questions and hope I can get a few answers.

First, the United States has millions of M16's ver A2 - A4. Is it worth scapping all these weapons for a new system and/or caliber cartridge? Should we keep our investment in the M16/M4 system and modify the upper reciever and barrel to optimize for the optimum 5.56 NATO round. Should we just say that there is no reason to change anything and just accept the status quo.

Should we develop an effective IAR and through that develope a SDM. Should we scrap the SAW or use it for special missions. The Saw seems to suffer from not only being fragile but it's a maintenance hog. However, if we create a IAR and SDM program to its extremes, should it be the same cartridge as the rest of the squad? It would ease supply issues if and when we fight a war that isn't as supply intensive as the ones we're fighting now.

What should be the extra weapons systems and how should they be depolyed? Wilt is a fan of the multiple warhead type M72 PI And I still like and trust the ancient RPG7v2-3. Is there something else that would work better. Should we scrap the AT4, the SMAW and the Javelin for something new or should we better deploy them?

I quess what I'm really asking is what should the "real" 21st century soldier be like? And I would like to extend it beyond the Iraq/Afganistan and think out side the box for many people I deal with are concerned that things maybe developing that are much larger than what we'ew involved in now.

One last example, The F22 program is in trouble and without it, we are using decades old technolgy. There is also a question that the F22 may not be the equal of the S 37. Do we cut the program to save money that could be used other places? Do we bite the bullet and order more F22 to replace our aging fighter aircraft? Or do we see if a better fighter can be built? This has nothing to do with SWC infantry squad and platoon weapons. I've just used this as an example of what I would like for us to do if possible.

Thank all of you for humoring me.

[William F. Owen]

• Wilt mentioning the Milkor M32 and M40 multiple round GL launchers, what other weapon systems would be optimum to give the best bang for the buck or just the best bang?
  
• Wilt is a fan of the multiple warhead type M72 PI And I still like and trust the ancient RPG7v2-3. Is there something else that would work better. Should we scrap the AT4, the SMAW and the Javelin for something new or should we better deploy them?

I assume you mean me, and that would be WilF. My wife has called me Wilt, but at that is a long - very long- and sordid story....

What I am a "fan" of is limiting the number of weapons and ammunition natures in the fire team and the platoon to fewest and simplest options that will allow you to create and sustain the required effects on the enemy.

My opinions are based on achieving specific effects at specific ranges, based on a carried weight. Thus I am far more concerned with thinking about the range and the effect, than I am the weapon.

[AlexTX ret]

And I'm playing a highly paid secretary today.

I assume you mean me, and that would be WilF. My wife has called me Wilt, but at that is a long - very long- and sordid story....

Sorry, "Wilf", I won't make the mistake a second time! Though the long and sordid story might be interesting. Then again if you don't tell me yours then I won't have to tell mine!

What I am a "fan" of is limiting the number of weapons and ammunition natures in the fire team and the platoon to fewest and simplest options that will allow you to create and sustain the required effects on the enemy.

That goes to the heart of my questing completely. IMHO, I don't want to limit the effectiveness or adaptability of a unit to acomplish a mission. However, I think that we need to make supplying that unit as simple as possible.

2nd: I think the less the number of different weapons (and cartridges) a squad or a platoon uses in most situations (excepting more complex missions) increases the possibility that all soldiers can be taught to be at least familiar (if not expert) on all the weapons used. This would be a great advantage as a unit takes casualties. It would also help when trying to get replacements settled.

3rd: Nevertheless, I think training to make total use of the weapons that supplied to such a unit may create a certain amount of creativity and problem solving. Again lower level leaders should be allowed a certain amount of anonymity to create solutions to various missions. If all squads do "a" when faced with problem "b" then the enemy knows to do "c" to counter it.

My opinions are based on achieving specific effects at specific ranges, based on a carried weight. Thus I am far more concerned with thinking about the range and the effect, than I am the weapon.

yes, but... The problem is that if you do not describe the weapon then emphasis on specific weigth and ranges get lost in the procurement proccess. Supposedly all attemps at creating a proper assault gun cartridge has ended up with a round near 7mm in size. But for the EM-2 which was very advanced for its time (Possibly too advanced to be accepted) there has never been a weapon to match with the cartridge. I know that "It wasn't designed here" had a lot to do with it but the US decided to create a weapon first. It was a modified M1 with improvements. It was then that they created a cartridge to fit the rifle. The acceptance/ overiding politics of the M16/AR15 and its cartridge had less to do with ranges and mission optimization than some poorly though out criteria. And the military as a whole has the same blind spots. We still have the M16/AR15 as our primary infantry weapon 46 years after the debacle of the M16 in the early years of the 'Nam.

[Ken White]

...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...

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...

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?

...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.

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.

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.

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.

[AlexTX ret]

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...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...

Yep, we really scewed the pooch on our small wars in Iraq and Afganistan. though I know quite a bit of what went on in the administration and the military on the ground, I can't say much about it. Let us say that we took weak intelligence and used it to further our objectives. Then we exacerbated our problems by confused and conflicting after action orders.

However, a real war would be really messy and possibly "frightening". I agree that we are headed for it and if we don't start acting properly with indepth intelligence that may not be politically correct, a lot of people are going to wake up with a hot round in their laps. *sigh*

I agree on the M4 though it would reguire a barrel change to optimize for the better 5.56 cartridge. The M262 requires a 1 in 8 spin optimally. Not to say the M262 is the optimum cartridge.

As for taking our time, I agree. However, there is a problem with our procurement system To simplify and take more control of the procurement system, the military decides ahead of time what the parameters of the weapon, etc should be. Yes, this is the perogitive of the Generals and their civilian advisors. However, it keeps designers from thinking outside of the box. And I've seen little such thinking by the "Tactical Generals". So who will step up to the plate and speak for those who have to accomplish the mission?

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.

I don't have an answer to the 9mm question. Would a 40S&W be the answer, I don't know because it isn't as acurate a round as the 9mm or the 45. Would a 45 be the answer, better accuracy but there would have to be more and better training for those men and women who are of a smaller stature to handle the recoil of the weapon. I'm not saying that they can't handle it, I just saying they would need more experience. However, that goes for any weapon. Without proper training and continued practice, any weapon might as well be a rock.

I would add the 40mm grenade launcher to the squad/platoon mix but I agree with your accessment. I'll bite my toungue and say that the M72 PI would also be a good addition to the squad/platoon mix since it is issued a single round and doesn't require a weapon to fire it. You either have it or not.

I think your also correct to most weapons requireing a crew be regulated to company level. In my years as a RA, I found such weapons confusing to both leaders who needed to field and fight them and to training of other members of the squad/platoon to pick up the weapon and operate it in an aggresive manner, when casualties occured. People get hurt out ther you know!

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?Yes and no.

Both China and Russia are showing much improved fighters than possibly we can field now. I don't know if they are just a handfull of protoypes in which we could be wasting money for nothing. However, we can't compete with the 2nd world countries in number of aircraft, so we need to create better aircraft that will give us air superiority. We need good intel more and more. it might be the best investment we can make now!?!

More range, less handy, more rounds per magazine, less lethal, more maintenance, less reliable. All weapons are compromises.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.

Agreed!

All weapons are compromises and the M4 is adequate but not as good a compromise as is possible.

Agreed! But when we try to fit weapons that don't fit their supposed mission then the "feet on the ground" suffers.

Good question, been my observation that those who spout such idiocy are rarely seen carrying the weapon they tout in combat.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.

My opposite number on one of my rotations was so disgusted with the M1 carbine that he cried when I got him a M16. It was kind of sad really. I thought the "Mattel" rifle was terrible but it was so much better than the M1 carbine. And so the story goes...

[AlexTX ret]

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...

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.

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?

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.