The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[William F. Owen]

I agree that we have sacrificed HE at the target. But I don't think that adding a SAW type weapon will add to that. And using a 7.62 NATO MMG will affect the maneuverability of your assault sections. I also agree that the 40mm grenade is too light and too short ranged to be effective in a lot of actions. The M79/M203 was considered too light back as far 'Nam. It was just that we didn't have anything else and we stretched its envelope beyond what was considered its capabilities.

I think you'll find that a few of us a SAW sceptics. You might also want to examine the capabilities of modern 40mm natures.

There are also some very potent South African and German 40mm HEDP. IMO, 40mm is currently the way ahead, combined with RGs and LAWs. The new M72s are very capable weapons indeed.

[reed11b]

Wilf,
Has the accuracy or range of the M72's increased along with the utility of the warheads?
Reed

[AlexTX ret]

First I want to apologize for the grammer mistakes I made in my earlier post today. My only excuse is that I was running out the door of my motel for a meeting. For someone that seems to write memos all day, I really blew it!

I think you'll find that a few of us a SAW sceptics. You might also want to examine the capabilities of modern 40mm natures.

There are also some very potent South African and German 40mm HEDP. IMO, 40mm is currently the way ahead, combined with RGs and LAWs. The new M72s are very capable weapons indeed.

My days are sometimes interesting when I can get out of the office.

It's interesting that the meeting I was running to was another demonstration (and a little play time) with the various FN Scar-L/M16 prototypes and the SCAR-H in all its 7.62 goodness. After all the various M16 variations and the HK 416 (very interesting weapon and possible upgrade for existing M16s and M4s) and HK 417, I find myself drawn to the FN SCAR and fire it every chance I get. I digress.

Anyway part of the demonstration was the easy on/off EGLM 40 mm grenade launcher. I can see your point of the newer 40 mm grenades. They are more effective now than they were 4-5 years ago. The effect of these new rounds, far exceeds their literature, in real life. I was especially impressed by the MEI Hellhound. I concede your point.

I have the literature for the Milkor M32 and M40 on my desk somewhere. (My assistant is worth her weight in gold but if she cleans my desk up, I can't find anything.) I fired the original South African Six Pack. However, it used only std 40 mm rounds. I was impressed by the extra rounds but still unimpressed by the std/old style 40 mm grenade. The new 40x46 rounds are most impressive even if fired in single shots. I have seen a video about the Milkor MGL and the effect of the various new 40x46mm rounds. Even more impressive after todays demonstration. However, Milkor has a new MGL called the M40 and it is a real b*d*ss.

I quote:

40x51mm

Ripple Effect – formerly Milkor – the South African designers of the Milkor MGL ("M32 MGL" in U.S. service) developed a new "Extended Range Low Pressure" (ERLP) 40x51mm cartridge. This round extends the range of the 40 mm grenade from 400 m (440 yd) to 800 m (880 yd). A new version of the MGL, the XRGL40 is chambered for the new round, but can still fire the regular 40x46mm grenade.

If it is as good as the video portrays, I'm going to make a date soon. This weapon could truly be a serious force multiplier. Old men need their toys too.

I have fired the Chinese QLZ - 87 35mm grenade launcher in it's 6 rnd bipod Light Infantry model. A good weapon, I think the system is lighter than the M32 but the grenades aren't as lethal. But is interesting in that it has a 6,9,12,15 rnd drum. Also could be a real force multiplier.

As for the M72 PI, it is a good weapon and can be supplied as single rounds and discarded. I still have a bias against it in that it is has such a short effective range. I also like the optics that are attached to the tube of the RPG 7v2 or 3. I also like the longer effective range. 900+m for the RPG7 vx 200m for the M72 PI though I like the fact that they have come up with so many variations of the M72 PI that could fill a broad range of missions.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf,
Has the accuracy or range of the M72's increased along with the utility of the warheads?
Reed

oh yes... The trigger is now really good, and the specs I've discussed with NAMMO give it a dispersion of 1.5 mils at 250m.

[William F. Owen]

First I want to apologize for the grammer mistakes I made in my earlier post today. My only excuse is that I was running out the door of my motel for a meeting. For someone that seems to write memos all day, I really blew it!

Wat gramor?

After all the various M16 variations and the HK 416 (very interesting weapon and possible upgrade for existing M16s and M4s) and HK 417, I find myself drawn to the FN SCAR and fire it every chance I get. I digress.

Anyway part of the demonstration was the easy on/off EGLM 40 mm grenade launcher.

I have a few "issues" with the SCAR, and substantially fewer with HK-416, but they are not really relevant here. I see the Rangers are deploying with the SCAR any day now.

I rather like the G-36KV, but any 5.56mm with a 14-16 inch barrel will do the job.

The key to my mind is the MIL-STD 1913 rail and the ability to swap out Sighting Systems and things like the EGLM. It is in my opinion the most important development in infantry weapons since the advent of 5.56mm, and 40mm.

[AlexTX ret]

Just got back from my mornng run so I feel I can take on anything...

Wat gramor?

I have a few "issues" with the SCAR, and substantially fewer with HK-416, but they are not really relevant here. I see the Rangers are deploying with the SCAR any day now.

I rather like the G-36KV, but any 5.56mm with a 14-16 inch barrel will do the job.

The key to my mind is the MIL-STD 1913 rail and the ability to swap out Sighting Systems and things like the EGLM. It is in my opinion the most important development in infantry weapons since the advent of 5.56mm, and 40mm.

I would like to know your issues are. I need all the info I can get. I live in a dream world most of the time. PR Hacks/Marketing make sure that their wares are shown in the best light possible and they "never" malfuntion. So any outside source is welcome. Sorry for using my public "open" Email account but it's hardly ever used so it's pretty secure.

I think I have the right HK 36KV, you are talking about the new version, right? It is a very good weapon though niether it or the XM8 take the std m16/NATO magazine. Not really a sticking point since HK will gladly change basically anything for a few hundred thousand unit order.

However, the reliability tests were done with the special polymer magazines. I wonder what the tests would have been like if they had used std M16 magazines? The FN SCAR and the HK 416 were done with M16/NATO snd mags. However, it's just one of the things you have to consider when you evaluate "test' data.

However, it a very light weight weapon that hasn't been tested in the field enough to know how reliable it really is. All tests that I have knowlege of (Thank goodness for the God of coffee) have been done in controled enviorments. So time will tell.

It has the ugliest stock in existance.

As far as Mil accessory equipment rails, I think the British had the right idea of making a small optical sight as part of the standard rifle. Several companies are making optics as part of the overall package available. However, nothing comes free so most buyers still shun them.

Off topic: I think small optics and the M262 type round will be the wave of the future if there is going to be an upgrade of present rifles. This is where the HK 416 Upper receiver upgrade makes sense. Hope HK can keep its costs down.

Yes, I concure that the various new underbarrel GL launchers are a serious boost to unit effectveness, especially if they can use the new 40X51 rounds.

[William F. Owen]

I would like to know your issues are.

My issues are actually with FN and some of the commercial reasoning and justification for the weapon. It's a rifle. There is nothing "special" about it, and I am really want to see the SCAR-H, with it's drop out, drop in barrel, match the accuracy of the a well maintained M14/Match/M-21. Not saying it can't be done, but I want to see it do it.

I think I have the right HK 36KV, you are talking about the new version, right? It is a very good weapon though niether it or the XM8 take the std m16/NATO magazine. Not really a sticking point since HK will gladly change basically anything for a few hundred thousand unit order.

I am pretty sure HK will sell you the magazine housing for 1. It already exists. As for after market STANAG magazines, you are spoilt for choice.

Several companies are making optics as part of the overall package available. However, nothing comes free so most buyers still shun them.

What no one seem to cotton on to, is you can swap out sights and sighting systems, night vision, LPI, bipods and Grenade launchers, as the mission requires. That's all much more useful than deciding what length of barrel you want to fit - which is another part of the SCAR hype I just don't get.

[reed11b]

oh yes... The trigger is now really good, and the specs I've discussed with NAMMO give it a dispersion of 1.5 mils at 250m.

If you ever get a test fire, drop me a line. My opinion on the LAW was that it's biggest failures were it's short range and difficulty in aiming it (hard to practice on a single shot disposable system). Fix those and I would disperse them fairly heavily if I could.
Reed

[Kiwigrunt]

The accessory rails on the G36 (K) are really only good for bipods, torches etc. Not so good for aiming devices like IRADs etc because the fore stock is only held to the receiver with a single push-pin, and is therefore not very firm/solid. Also, a UGL requires a special fore-stock.
That is of course much better on the likes of HK 416, FN Scar, Robarms XCR etc.
However, it does appear (I have never been near one) that the bottom rail of the Scar is attached to the barrel, not the receiver. I would imagine that that would have a detrimental effect on accuracy when a bipod or UGL are attached to it.

What no one seem to cotton on to, is you can swap out sights and sighting systems, night vision, LPI, bipods and Grenade launchers, as the mission requires. That's all much more useful than deciding what length of barrel you want to fit - which is another part of the SCAR hype I just don't get.

I’m with you there Wilf. The same has been said for the Steyr AUG for the last three decades. I’ve yet to see a soldier with a backpack full of different barrels. You get issued with whatever barrel is on your rifle and that’s it. SF may have a bit more leeway but even for them I doubt that they will run around with an assortment of barrels. You would also need to re-zero your sights on every barrel-change.

Reed, I concur with regards to aiming the old M72. Could never quite get my head around that. And never got enough of them around my head to remedy that.

A number of posts ago (my God, this thread is moving again) you said this Wilf:

I think the reason is blank firing on field exercises. GPMG makes lots of noise and confirms your participation. 40mm, LAW and 84mm, do nothing in field training!

You may have hit the nail on the head there. However, when ammo is black (thanks Reed) and you are reduced to yelling “bullets, bullets, bullets”, then you can reintroduce HE by yelling “M72, M72, M72”

[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]

My issues are actually with FN and some of the commercial reasoning and justification for the weapon. It's a rifle. There is nothing "special" about it, and I am really want to see the SCAR-H, with it's drop out, drop in barrel, match the accuracy of the a well maintained M14/Match/M-21. Not saying it can't be done, but I want to see it do it.


(snip)


What no one seem to cotton on to, is you can swap out sights and sighting systems, night vision, LPI, bipods and Grenade launchers, as the mission requires. That's all much more useful than deciding what length of barrel you want to fit - which is another part of the SCAR hype I just don't get.

Fabrique Nationale-Herstal is somewhat of a problem company right now. It designs and makes weapons of the first quality even if they are possibly over built for most large sales. However, a lot of countries, including the US, are caught in finacial situations where every corner must be cut. So even though they are fine rifles, the SCAR program is a bit pricey. However, I think that the basic rifles are such an improvement over the current M16/M4 that they don't come close.

However, I think the multi barrel option is a non-starter. I've never seen a specification where such an interchageable barrel system has been asked for. IMHO, it would increase an armorer's work load instead of decreasing it. It would create a supply problem in that how do you keep seperate barrels in stock to meet flexible TO&Es.

As far as the SCAR-H being the equivalence of the match M14/M1A or M21. I don't know. I haven't been able to compare them together since the DM program used up most M14/M21s and none of them have been released for international sales. On paper, it should be equal or better. It has a better magazine system while still being to use M14 mags. It is lighter and has a stronger more reliable action. Its interchangeable barrel system could allow for an accurized barrel using a dedicated sniper round. Optics would be no problem and other sniper gear would be easily added. However, the weapon that it would be compared to wouldn't be the M21/25 but the M110. There it would be a serious toss up. The M110 is a dedicated sniper weapon. I don't thing the SCAR-H was ever designed to match the precision of such a weapon. I would personally go with the M110 but they could create a dedicated sniper weapon out of the SCAR-H action and then it would be a serious contender.

I have compared the SCAR-H to the SVD and it was no contest. The SVD was specially buit for a DM/Sniper role and it showed. Even with good quality ammo, the SCAR-H wasn't optimized the same way that the SVD was. Also the 7.62x54r rounds the SVD uses are I think more than equal to the 7.62 sniper NATO round. The SVD and M110 are very similiar balistically. Again it would be the availability of the dedicated ammo both uses.

As for the advantage of Mil rails is that yes, you can selectably accessorize the weapon for any mission type. However, while I can see this being a great feature for a SOG group where you have the attention to detail required from your armorers. I wonder how effective it would be for non-specialized troops? Outside the possible use of "normal" things like night scopes and additional lights, will your unit have the prerequisite accessories? Does your armorer have the time and knowledge to optimize things for each trooper? It's a great idea that I think will become more and more used but there will have to be an increase in attention to detail by support personnel to make it work.

[AlexTX ret]

The accessory rails on the G36 (K) are really only good for bipods, torches etc. Not so good for aiming devices like IRADs etc because the fore stock is only held to the receiver with a single push-pin, and is therefore not very firm/solid. Also, a UGL requires a special fore-stock.
That is of course much better on the likes of HK 416, FN Scar, Robarms XCR etc.
However, it does appear (I have never been near one) that the bottom rail of the Scar is attached to the barrel, not the receiver. I would imagine that that would have a detrimental effect on accuracy when a bipod or UGL are attached to it.



I’m with you there Wilf. The same has been said for the Steyr AUG for the last three decades. I’ve yet to see a soldier with a backpack full of different barrels. You get issued with whatever barrel is on your rifle and that’s it. SF may have a bit more leeway but even for them I doubt that they will run around with an assortment of barrels. You would also need to re-zero your sights on every barrel-change.

Reed, I concur with regards to aiming the old M72. Could never quite get my head around that. And never got enough of them around my head to remedy that.

A number of posts ago (my God, this thread is moving again) you said this Wilf:

You may have hit the nail on the head there. However, when ammo is black (thanks Reed) and you are reduced to yelling “bullets, bullets, bullets”, then you can reintroduce HE by yelling “M72, M72, M72”

Yes, the Mil rails are weak though they do hold accessories that are mostly used in normal duty. THe UGL does use a differrent forestock/mounting system. I think many of the problems of the G36KV is the attempt by HK to try and make a rifle with lightness as one of its biggest issues.

As for the bottom rail on the FN SCAR being attatched to the barrel, it is. I don't like it either but it does seem to do its job well. I found no problems with the grenade launcher, probablely because the UGL doesn't knock the barrel out of zero when it's fired.

I've heard the same thing about the Steyr. Supposedly, it has turned into a real headache for supply.

The M72 PI is a much better weapon but I've already stated my thoughts on the weapon system in another post.

As for "ammo is black" scenarios, I think that the present wars have created a supply system that has matured to a great extent. However, if we have to commit serious numbers of soldiers, (Armies and above) I think that we'll see things not so sanitary.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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.