Results 1 to 20 of 978

Thread: The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Thanks for a pics JMA, thatīs a fine rifle. I never shot from that, but itīs capability seems similar to me like ours SVD Dragunov. And about ear pro, itīs big issue for me. I personally hate peltors with active hearing. If rain drops on your helmet, or walking along the stream, the sound is deafening, and in hot weather, you are getting very uncomfortable after a while. Also, itīs crushing my skull, especially with shooting glasses underneath it (even if I have glasses with flat legs), or helmet over it, and I surely canīt buy own helmet. If I wear goggles with rubber strap, they became foggy too often no matter what type or treatment in very hot weather when moving. Peltors are OK for a three hours raid, but not for 2 days dismounted patrol, where you need to concentrate on observation, and not being tortured by hearing set. Next option are normal ear plugs, which are comfy, but restrict significantly your hearing - not an option when on foot patrol. You can have them half-in, and during the contact plug them deeper, but again thatīs not ideal for hearing nor protection in the first moments of contact. I bought SureFire EP4 plugs (about 13 USD), which are possible to connect to one-ear hearing set. This plugs can be adjusted for better hearing and reasonable protection, but again, still itīs not ideal. Sometimes I just had them slightly in my ears, as I wrote above. When the contact is on closer range, usually there is no time to plug them in, but never had my ears go ringing, and even machine gunners had the same experience (if I would do the same on the range, I would go ringing for a week, I guess itīs because of adrenaline rush). Nobody wants to get kicked from the job because of decreased hearing, or lower medical level and go for a desk job. I admit I couldnīt find any non-restrictive, but effective ear pro, possible to wear for days on foot patrols, so far. About team radios - I agree itīs total nonsense to give everybody in the squad own personal radio. I still prefer yelling in contact and hand signals otherwise. When whole platoon is on the same frequency, someoneīs still talking and disrupting the net while trying to listen and observe (radio discipline can decrease that significantly, but not solve the whole problem), and it becames mess when sh.t hit the fan. When every squad is on own frequency, some armies or unitīs team leaders have to carry two personal radios, so they can talk in the same time to superiors and subordinates, switching frequencies doesnīt work well, because your commander is gonna call you in the moment you switch on team frequency. I did not find any radio with two push-to-talk buttons each on different frequency, able to receive on both. Also getting wrapped in cables is annoying. There are situations, when somebody from the team is talking to his TL over the radio, someone next (local, interpreter, other teamīs member) talks to him personally, and commander needs to issue some order over the other radio, and thatīs just over oneīs brain capability.
    Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 02-24-2011 at 08:27 AM.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Durban, South Africa
    Posts
    3,902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BushrangerCZ View Post
    Thanks for a pics JMA, thatīs a fine rifle. I never shot from that, but itīs capability seems similar to me like ours SVD Dragunov.
    I thought the Dragunov was a sniper rifle? But certainly the FN/SLR was fit for purpose. As most of our action was at very close ranges the range of the weapon did not come into play but it was the knock down effect and the terrible wounding it caused that set it apart from the AK47. Yes, our guys went down when hit by a 7.62mm intermediate but the wounds were not of the same magnitude. I would say the huge advantage we had was carrying the FN MAG on a one in four basis as having gunners who built up fearsome reputations through much combat experience. Int reports from captures indicated how much the insurgents feared the MAG.

    And about ear pro, itīs big issue for me. I personally hate peltors with active hearing. If rain drops on your helmet, or walking along the stream, the sound is deafening, and in hot weather, you are getting very uncomfortable after a while. Also, itīs crushing my skull, especially with shooting glasses underneath it (even if I have glasses with flat legs), or helmet over it, and I surely canīt buy own helmet. If I wear goggles with rubber strap, they became foggy too often no matter what type or treatment in very hot weather when moving. Peltors are OK for a three hours raid, but not for 2 days dismounted patrol, where you need to concentrate on observation, and not being tortured by hearing set. Next option are normal ear plugs, which are comfy, but restrict significantly your hearing - not an option when on foot patrol. You can have them half-in, and during the contact plug them deeper, but again thatīs not ideal for hearing nor protection in the first moments of contact. I bought SureFire EP4 plugs (about 13 USD), which are possible to connect to one-ear hearing set. This plugs can be adjusted for better hearing and reasonable protection, but again, still itīs not ideal. Sometimes I just had them slightly in my ears, as I wrote above. When the contact is on closer range, usually there is no time to plug them in, but never had my ears go ringing, and even machine gunners had the same experience (if I would do the same on the range, I would go ringing for a week, I guess itīs because of adrenaline rush).
    You have identified the problem... now what is the solution?

    IMHO the hearing problem takes two forms. One is the obvious inability to locate the position of the enemy by his fire which is a life and death issue when in contact and then it is the protection acoustic trauma. We hardly used ear defenders even on the range in the 70s and we have paid the price. But that said all the use of ear protection is meaningless after a series of cave clearing contacts with loud bangs in confined spaces. And then we had a number of guys who hit a number of landmines... I think their ears are still ringing

    I thought that ear plugs which allow normal speech and sounds through but protect against gunshot noise were freely available from gun shops or mail order?

    Nobody wants to get kicked from the job because of decreased hearing, or lower medical level and go for a desk job.
    Yes this is weird isn't it. I see the Brits are getting clever about this too. Soldiers beyond the ten years service are being found to be unfit for operational duty due to reduced hearing. Idiots. It was the army that did it to them and they should be fitted with the best available "hearing aids" to fix that not only in an operation context but also for after their service as well. What makes this so damn laughable is that on operations they give them a head set that blocks out the hearing in one ear anyway.

    What would entice me back into the military at this stage of my life would be to carry out a "Stalinist type purge" of all the deadwood and idiots who seem to do more than the average enemy to hamper/sabotage military performance.

    I admit I couldnīt find any non-restrictive, but effective ear pro, possible to wear for days on foot patrols, so far.
    You need a gizmo? The yanks will have it and in this case some damn fine stuff too. Why not ask around here I'm sure you will get good advice.

    About team radios - I agree itīs total nonsense to give everybody in the squad own personal radio. I still prefer yelling in contact and hand signals otherwise. When whole platoon is on the same frequency, someoneīs still talking and disrupting the net while trying to listen and observe (radio discipline can decrease that significantly, but not solve the whole problem), and it becames mess when sh.t hit the fan. When every squad is on own frequency, some armies or unitīs team leaders have to carry two personal radios, so they can talk in the same time to superiors and subordinates, switching frequencies doesnīt work well, because your commander is gonna call you in the moment you switch on team frequency. I did not find any radio with two push-to-talk buttons each on different frequency, able to receive on both. Also getting wrapped in cables is annoying. There are situations, when somebody from the team is talking to his TL over the radio, someone next (local, interpreter, other teamīs member) talks to him personally, and commander needs to issue some order over the other radio, and thatīs just over oneīs brain capability.
    Again you have identified the problem (well done - I read the situation as you do, and had a current Brit special forces sergeant major (WOII) tell me the same on November last year.) There are of course situations where personal radio (PPR) is useful but not I suggest for the line infantry for the majority of the time.

    I used a dog whistle.


    Attached to my dog tags I started with it at a normally audible level and slowly tuned it higher and higher till only a trained ear (and a dog could hear it). You can get quite fancy with the whistles mixing long and short for different meanings.

    Does it work? Well one day I showed a fellow officer how in a situation where my troop were playing volleyball against another about 30m away. I blew it. My troopies looked towards me, the others did not. It works. Try it.
    Last edited by JMA; 02-26-2011 at 12:54 AM.

  3. #3
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    EU
    Posts
    67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
    I thought the Dragunov was a sniper rifle? But certainly the FN/SLR was fit for purpose. As most of our action was at very close ranges the range of the weapon did not come into play but it was the knock down effect and the terrible wounding it caused that set it apart from the AK47. Yes, our guys went down when hit by a 7.62mm intermediate but the wounds were not of the same magnitude. I would say the huge advantage we had was carrying the FN MAG on a one in four basis as having gunners who built up fearsome reputations through much combat experience. Int reports from captures indicated how much the insurgents feared the MAG.



    You have identified the problem... now what is the solution?

    IMHO the hearing problem takes two forms. One is the obvious inability to locate the position of the enemy by his fire which is a life and death issue when in contact and then it is the protection acoustic trauma. We hardly used ear defenders even on the range in the 70s and we have paid the price. But that said all the use of ear protection is meaningless after a series of cave clearing contacts with loud bangs in confined spaces. And then we had a number of guys who hit a number of landmines... I think their ears are still ringing

    I thought that ear plugs which allow normal speech and sounds through but protect against gunshot noise were freely available from gun shops or mail order?



    Yes this is weird isn't it. I see the Brits are getting clever about this too. Soldiers beyond the ten years service are being found to be unfit for operational duty due to reduced hearing. Idiots. It was the army that did it to them and they should be fitted with the best available "hearing aids" to fix that not only in an operation context but also for after their service as well. What makes this so damn laughable is that on operations they give them a head set that blocks out the hearing in one ear anyway.

    What would entice me back into the military at this stage of my life would be to carry out a "Stalinist type purge" of all the deadwood and idiots who seem to do more than the average enemy to hamper/sabotage military performance.



    You need a gizmo? The yanks will have it and in this case some damn fine stuff too. Why not ask around here I'm sure you will get good advice.



    Again you have identified the problem (well done - I read the situation as you do, and had a current Brit special forces sergeant major (WOII) tell me the same on November last year.) There are of course situations where personal radio (PPR) is useful but not I suggest for the line infantry for the majority of the time.

    I used a dog whistle.


    Attached to my dog tags I started with it at a normally audible level and slowly tuned it higher and higher till only a trained ear (and a dog could hear it). You can get quite fancy with the whistles mixing long and short for different meanings.

    Does it work? Well one day I showed a fellow officer how in a situation where my troop were playing volleyball against another about 30m away. I blew it. My troopies looked towards me, the others did not. It works. Try it.
    Thanks JMA, I will try that whistle. Yanks I worked with usually used peltors, or two-color earplugs which did not really protect or allowed perfect hearing. They were half way between this two issues, which is still not solution, but compromise. There is also device which is on the same principle as earmuffs with active hearing, but much smaller, pushed inside your ear, with the same function. I never tried that one, someone here did?? I agree that army should understand the problem, but as we do not wage a full scale war, and soldiers with this issue are rather exception than norm, they donīt bother with some official exceptions.
    Solution for that radio issue would be letting just TL and his 2IC having the ICOM (even the team splits sometimes for a while), and use only one frequency. Personally, I would prefer that. (We talk just about team radios, not about HF, of course).
    Last edited by BushrangerCZ; 02-26-2011 at 08:25 AM.

  4. #4
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    I suppose I'm old-school, but I think the basic infantry weapon should deliver accurate and lethal fire out to around 600 meters. That means a rifle and not a carbine. If portablility and the ease of getting in and out of vehicles are such major issues reverse the old rifle-to-carbine ratio in unit MTOEs and make carbines the norm, around 80 percent, and rifles about 20 percent.

  5. #5
    Council Member Pete's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    North Mountain, West Virginia
    Posts
    990

    Default

    Were the Army to decide that carbines and bare minimum marksmanship intruction are okay for the main-force Army maybe a new niche could be found for the straight shooters out there. To take my previous message a step further, perhaps the "Designated Marksman" initiative could be expanded into an Infantry MOS with career progressions leading into scouting, sniping, Special Ops, etc. You'd want to give guys like them a real man's rifle, something in 7.62. Maybe having the gun nuts in an MOS that satisfies them and encourages them to do their utmost would be a good thing for the Army.
    Last edited by Pete; 02-28-2011 at 04:14 AM.

  6. #6
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    CenTex
    Posts
    222

    Default

    Realistically, if you think an infantry rifle should have a 600M range, then the M4 can already do it.

    For that matter, the 95% of Soldiers that aren't tasked with shooting the enemy with an IW would be best served by something small and portable.

  7. #7
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True on both counts. But...

    Quote Originally Posted by SethB View Post
    Realistically, if you think an infantry rifle should have a 600M range, then the M4 can already do it.
    How much damage will the bullet actually do when it gets there?
    For that matter, the 95% of Soldiers that aren't tasked with shooting the enemy with an IW would be best served by something small and portable.
    Whoa. 95%. 95%?

    Aside from the basic fact of combat life that ALL soldiers, by definition (and location) may well have to shoot the enemy with an IW and they had better be adequately trained (and practiced...) to be able to that with a weapon that is reliable and effective in worst case scenarios, I suggest that if the percentile cited were to be in fact correct, then the Army to which it applied would have some really significant organizational and purpose problems...

    I think considering SOF, Scouts and everything else, it's nearer 90%.

    Minor quibble made only to present the point that the exact numbers aren't critical. Regardless of the exact number, any figure in that range is still way too high and an indictment of the aforesaid organizational and purpose problems. Not to mention the training attitude and impact...
    Last edited by Ken White; 02-28-2011 at 10:38 PM.

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
  •