The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[jcustis]

Did you intend to offer a link?

I knew that...

http://www.france24.com/en/20091126-...liban-reporter

[Kiwigrunt]

An example of how not to use the weapons of your squad...

Silliness starts around the 15:00 mark.

A similar vid regarding a US unit and their fire-discipline was discussed here at SWC a few months ago.
Someone suggested then that it may have had something to do with putting on a show for the benefit of the camera. That may have been the case here; especially with that silly ‘mad minute’ at the end.

I wonder if there may also sometimes be a bit of frustration among these young heavily armed troops just wanting to make some noise in spite of stringent ROE and their inability to actually see the enemy and get stuck into them.

And by the way, that FKY-K spigot mortar sure is a quiet little weapon.

[Fuchs]

Question: Do we have a 40mm (LV/MV) expert among us?

[William F. Owen]

Question: Do we have a 40mm (LV/MV) expert among us?

I would never call myself an expert but I've written quite a lot about 40mm LV/MV and talked to all/most of the manufacturers.

I think 40mm MV has the potential to be significant weapon in dismounted operations.

[Kiwigrunt]

A bit more of an update on HK IAR
Politics or just gossip?

[William F. Owen]

A bit more of an update on HK IAR
Politics or just gossip?

See my other post> The 416 is in the running. So is a modified FN-SCAR like rifle. Neither is the front runner.

Of note, there were also 2 x NZ Army officers in the room, when the IAR program manager was presenting and they were certainly in the bar with us afterwards...

[Firn]

Harking back to the video and the idea of a 'trenchGL'.

I think we all agree that a little, cheap, camouflaged periscope might have been of great use for the pinned down men. As a matter of fact it would be rather easy to create the means to attack one to an UGL or a GL. I even made a rough design to figure out if one would be able to aim with it accurately.

To engage a target with effective short to medium 50-400m indirect fire you need the azimuth, elevation, range, wind and some other variables which can be handled by a decent FCS. If you are suppressed and you want to take your suppressor out you need to see and range it first. With a camouflaged periscope you can scan your target depending on the capabilities of your enemy in relative ease and range it roughly (mil dots) or precisely (LRF attached to it). It might also be sensible to be able to attach a digital camera to the eye piece, so that you can share the view with your section, fire support and other folk.

If the handler of the periscope (observer) and the grenadier have both an analog/digital compass on their system they can easily compute rapid and effective indirect fire if they are close together. With working digital maps and accurate positioning they can do so even if more distant - or the observer could just call in heavier IDF. However the observer and grenadier could be one and the same person if the latter has the periscope attached to his weapon. With two simple inclinometers (bubble levels with marks), the right way to attach the periscope, a capable ballistic computer and/or a lot of experienceand and maybe a guy reloading his GL he could put down quite some accurate, rapid, very reactive and easily adjustable firepower from behind cover.

It is of course for now just an idea, but it should be simple enough to be rather cheap and effective addition, especially for a certain type of environments and circumstances.


Perhaps I must add a rough sketch to make things more clear

Firn


P.S: I must still spellcheck

[Fuchs]

http://www.nrw2000.de/ns/pics_ns/ruhrkessel.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_V7Ehj7eG65Q/SBZBfavjMdI/AAAAAAAAAA4/08p7xBdHxYU/s1600-h/mg-peri.jpg

http://media.photobucket.com/image/s...iscopeRifl.jpg

Periscope-aimed weapons are old news. It works best if recoil is no problem:
Panzerfaust - recoilless
MMG - tripod handles recoil
Sniper rifle - single shot (recoil affects no follow-on shot)

Simple trench periscopes are even more common (although not officially supplied in many armies).

[Kiwigrunt]

....there were also 2 x NZ Army officers ....(snip)... and they were certainly in the bar with us afterwards...

Yup, that's where you'll find them.

[jcustis]

Question: Do we have a 40mm (LV/MV) expert among us?

No expert, but know enough to know we don't employ the weapon all that well. As for the round itself, I've fired enough and trained enough folks to fire, and have inadvertently stood on a pile of unexploded golden eggs at FT AP Hill, but what's the question or context of the question?

[B.Smitty]

Question: Do we have a 40mm (LV/MV) expert among us?

Has anyone here fired an MV round? I'm curious how much additional "effective" range they have, and their impressions concerning recoil.

[jcustis]

A bit more of an update on HK IAR
Politics or just gossip?

Okay, so the IAR is progressing...I am digging around on another board to elicit discussion about this weapon, but think better work can be done here. In no particular order, what are folks' thought about:

-What is the prescribed firing technique for this thing? Although capable of full-auto, if the rhythm is prescribed to be 3-6 rd bursts, what does it give us over a standard heavy-barreled carbine firing on burst?

-What is the recommended combat load, assuming a drum or large box magazine cannot be made to work well? I think 10-14 mags will be the starting point, and will slowly decrease to 8-10 from bulk and weight alone.

-How does the IAR factor into battle drill once it comes online? In open terrain fighting, do the other team members act to support siting and employment of the IAR, as they should be doing with the M249 SAW, or will this change the rules? The IAR, after all, was pursued even after marginal accuracy and suppression testing, because of the mobility complaints aligned against the SAW.

-What should qualification look like?

-This may be best suited to the world's most interesting man (Ken White ), but what sort of pitfalls in training and employment should we be mindful of that also befell the BAR? Is the BAR even in the same class as the BAR, in terms of team/squad tactics?

I hope this primes the pump on good debate and discussion, because I'm afraid the equipment and new equipment training will come well before the doctrine has even been though out (or, in the case of the FMFM 6-5, simply omitted!).

[jcustis]

I think we all agree that a little, cheap, camouflaged periscope might have been of great use for the pinned down men. As a matter of fact it would be rather easy to create the means to attack one to an UGL or a GL. I even made a rough design to figure out if one would be able to aim with it accurately.

To make a periscope ruggedized enough for the average dismounted infantryman
would be to also make it too unwieldy for general carry and use, much like dragging around a spotting scope.

[Firn]

To make a periscope ruggedized enough for the average dismounted infantryman
would be to also make it too unwieldy for general carry and use, much like dragging around a spotting scope.

I would issue one per fireteam. Something else should be left at the base for it, as I think it is a pretty neat thing to be able to take a safe, long look over a wall or around a corner under enemy watch.


Let us google:

The Soviet Trench Periscope from 1940 seems to be not overly bulky and was considered to be very robust.

There is one is newer and looks rather light. I have no idea how rugged it is.

Israel seemingly issues this periscope. It is also part of Britain's fist, according to this link.

All in all periscopes seem to be in greater use than I imagined.

Well it was a great thing to have 90 years ago to scan the ground from behind safe cover, so it should be still a great thing to do the same job. At least it is worth a try.


Firn

[pumpkin644]

I have the book and have corresponded at length with the author. I can send you the article I wrote on Wigram for the British Army Review, if you wish? It covers everything (and more?) that the book does.

Wilf:

I am a Canadian attorney with an interest in the iconoclastic role played by certain lawyers in war-time. Wigram is a recent discovery. Can I take advantage of the offer you generously extended to jcustis and obtain a copy of your article.

Thanks muchly.

[Kiwigrunt]

I would issue one per fireteam. Something else should be left at the base for it, as I think it is a pretty neat thing to be able to take a safe, long look over a wall or around a corner under enemy watch.

It is also part of Britain's fist, according to this link.

All in all periscopes seem to be in greater use than I imagined.

Firn

IMO many of these gadgets (like periscopes and spotting scopes) certainly have great potential. These two in particular would be useful for static surveillance. I do however agree with Jcustis that all these gadgets add weight and bulk. I for one would not want them in my pack during a 12 day foot-patrol (are they still being conducted?.....don’t answer that). So, a toolbox in the back of a vehicle might work but beyond that….

There is perhaps another issue with creating an over- reliance on a kaleidoscope of gadgets. (disclaimer: my experience is pretty much pre-electronic gadgets). The need to drag them with you and the want to use them may well take some focus away from just getting on with the job. I was a good one for just that. I had my own belt-webbing made (issue stuff back then was crap) and collected plenty of stuff to fill it up with. My platoon commander commented on how impressed he was with the shiny kit and how he used to do that himself. Until he saw the light and did an about turn and started minimising right down to bare basics. As much as I am a gadget freak myself, I think there is a lot to be said for KISS.

Firn’s last link also shows the current fashion of tricking out the Minimi. That bipod is IMO cool for the likes of carbines, rifles and maybe AR’s. Not particularly suitable for MG’s though, partly because they don’t appear to cant.

Well it was a great thing to have 90 years ago to scan the ground from behind safe cover, so it should be still a great thing to do the same job. At least it is worth a try.

Here you may have shone a light onto something. 90 years ago trench warfare involved a lot of static surveillance. From there we evolved (back) to the big M's, movement, manoeuvre, mobility.
Now going by some of the vid’s I’ve seen lately, and taking into account the risk averse approach and the weights already carried, have we gone back to something that resembles trench warfare? In the last vid that Jcustis linked some days ago, that French unit just laid up behind that wall during the entire battle (if we can call it that). Hmmmm.

[Fuchs]

Taking cover doesn't equate Trench Warfare, but it doesn't equate Mobile Warfare either.
It's simply a necessity for water bag beings threatened by flying high-velocity lead.


One interesting trait of all periscopes is that they're almost impossible to detect & ID in a thermal sight. That's not very relevant for 'small wars', but very relevant for all stuff 'great wars'.

Any association with "Trench warfare" is therefore a huge problem because these items are really important for high-tech warfare (and thankfully they're also cheap for a change).

[Kiwigrunt]

-What is the prescribed firing technique for this thing? Although capable of full-auto, if the rhythm is prescribed to be 3-6 rd bursts, what does it give us over a standard heavy-barreled carbine firing on burst?

In the case of the HK, I would say it gives us nothing over any standard assault rifle with a bipod. In the case of the other 3 contenders I think it will only give slightly increased stability (as a result of weight) and (slightly?) greater sustained fire as a result of the open bolt and heavy-er barrel. Also, I wonder how long 3-6 rnd bursts can be sustained since even the Minimi has a prescribed rate of only 3-5 rnds.

-What is the recommended combat load, assuming a drum or large box magazine cannot be made to work well? I think 10-14 mags will be the starting point, and will slowly decrease to 8-10 from bulk and weight alone.

I’d be inclined to agree. But it would of course depend strongly on how the weapon would end being used.

-How does the IAR factor into battle drill once it comes online? In open terrain fighting, do the other team members act to support siting and employment of the IAR, as they should be doing with the M249 SAW, or will this change the rules? The IAR, after all, was pursued even after marginal accuracy and suppression testing, because of the mobility complaints aligned against the SAW.

And here is where I have my biggest reservations. This is where IMO the whole concept fell over for the Brits with their LSW (Wilf has been hinting on this….I think). The SAW, even though it was introduced as an AR, is clearly an LMG. Therefore it kind of deserves to be manoeuvred around and sited by the rest of the team. It’s potential (not going into the calibre debate) weight of fire justifies that doctrinal approach. The extent to which that is sensible at fire team level is another matter.

The IAR however is not an MG. Eby is also very clear on that. I believe that there is so little real difference between assault rifles and AR’s that a strong doctrinal differentiation is not justified and may lead to disappointment with the weapon. (see the Brit LSW again?)

I think we make a mistake to compare today’s AR’s with the BAR. First of all, the BAR was first introduced alongside the 1903 bolt action. There’s a big difference, to the point that within the realm of that comparison, the BAR was almost an MG. (Like the Bren versus the SMLE). The introduction of the Garand would have closed that difference a bit.
So I wonder if we should look at changes in doctrine not so much from a perspective of differences between the BAR and modern AR’s, but more from a perspective of the increased ability of rifles to take on the role of the AR (read for instance James Webb on squads).

-This may be best suited to the world's most interesting man (Ken White ), but what sort of pitfalls in training and employment should we be mindful of that also befell the BAR? Is the BAR even in the same class as the BAR, in terms of team/squad tactics?

Ken may also be able to tell us if, in his experience, the BAR was an improvement over the Gatling. (we have to tone that other thread down a bit).

[jcustis]

From there we evolved (back) to the big M's, movement, manoeuvre, mobility.
Now going by some of the vid’s I’ve seen lately, and taking into account the risk averse approach and the weights already carried, have we gone back to something that resembles trench warfare? In the last vid that Jcustis linked some days ago, that French unit just laid up behind that wall during the entire battle (if we can call it that). Hmmmm.

LOL, I think you are onto something. Current writings by some infantry officers are advocating a return to a very light infantry focus (reference the current Marine Corps Gazette). MRAPs certainly lend themselves to a sliggish form of fighting, if one could call it fighting at all.

And here is where I have my biggest reservations. This is where IMO the whole concept fell over for the Brits with their LSW (Wilf has been hinting on this….I think). The SAW, even though it was introduced as an AR, is clearly an LMG. Therefore it kind of deserves to be manoeuvred around and sited by the rest of the team. It’s potential (not going into the calibre debate) weight of fire justifies that doctrinal approach. The extent to which that is sensible at fire team level is another matter.

The IAR however is not an MG. Eby is also very clear on that. I believe that there is so little real difference between assault rifles and AR’s that a strong doctrinal differentiation is not justified and may lead to disappointment with the weapon. (see the Brit LSW again?)

I think we make a mistake to compare today’s AR’s with the BAR. First of all, the BAR was first introduced alongside the 1903 bolt action. There’s a big difference, to the point that within the realm of that comparison, the BAR was almost an MG. (Like the Bren versus the SMLE). The introduction of the Garand would have closed that difference a bit.

So I wonder if we should look at changes in doctrine not so much from a perspective of differences between the BAR and modern AR’s, but more from a perspective of the increased ability of rifles to take on the role of the AR (read for instance James Webb on squads).

Hmmm, so if the SAW was never really an AR because it deserved to be maneuvered like a MG, but the IAR is realistically not that much different from the other weapons of the team and therefore there might not be lessons to be derived from the BAR, where can we look?

I'm interested in the LSW matter now. Any good references?

[William F. Owen]

OK, I hope this helps.

An IAR and LSW are basically "ordinary" rifles with all or some of the following,

• bipods,
• better optics
• Heavy/longer barrel.
• Fully-automatic/selective fire.

There are many, many examples. The UK L-86A2, the Steyr AUG LSW, the FN-LAR etc etc. Almost every modern rifle has an LSW/LAR variant.
They are only creating more effective fire at longer range than the ordinary rifles. LSW are meant to use exactly the same mags as the rifles, and be manned by only one man, and usually scaled at 25% of the rifles.
Basically they are a rifle, with a better chance of hitting at longer ranges. Use them that way.

History here is not helpful, because form got confused with function very early on. The BREN was not an LSW (MG crewed by 3), but the BAR was sometimes (when crewed by 1).

If you have a fire team, of 4 men with rifles, you can make it more effective, for very little increase in weight/penalty by adding an LSW.

If you have a squad composed on a Rifle Group and Gun Group, you can make the rifle group more effective by adding LSWs - BUT - it may also be possible to concentrate 2-3 LSWs in the Gun Group and get better effects from an MG in the same calibre.

Written to more clarify my own thoughts, rather than preach to other folks -