Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[SethB]

The reason that I first thought of the LRF was when I was considering Wilf's point about a .338 in the PLT.

An LRF takes a lot of the voodoo out of distance shooting. A BORS from Barret takes even more mystery out. Then it's just point and click to 1500M.

I'm not against using equipment to solve training issues. It's an American favorite.

[Ken White]

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

[Kiwigrunt]

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

Then that individual may have to rely on a buddy with the same gismo. At the weight of a single 40 mm round you could easily have a few of these in a section, or for a little more weight this one has a built in inclinometer. Or else he/she is back to square one, which, if jcustis’ post 31 is anything to go by, isn’t much of an alternative.

I agree with you that good training and the individual’s ability to master these skills without the gadgets is preferable, but it just doesn’t seem to be happening (enough). So would it not be better to swallow our pride and break the status quo by allowing today’s technology to help us out?

How long did it take for optics to become common on almost all rifles before we dropped that silly ‘we should simply be able to use open sights because optics may fail’ attitude (read Arthur Schopenhauer’s quote below). Sure they may fail, but so what? Rifles may fail too, so let’s go back to swords.

I’m not suggesting that we drop training without the gadgets, not at all. Map reading and use of compass for instance should (and I hope is) still be taught and trained along side the use of GPS, but while GPS is available and it works, and its accuracy is required, use it.
In fact, a LRF can aid in training range estimation because you can check your guesses immediately. I do that with hunting and that is sometimes a good thing.

I’ll admit that over-reliance on gadgets will almost certainly blunten the ‘naked’ skills, and minimising that is/will be a challenge, but I think that using that as a justification to not use these tools does us a disservice, especially where the use of these tools increases effect measurably.

How many AT4s and other such weapons, and perhaps lives, could potentially be saved (money, carried weight and exposure through unnecessary firing signature) by increasing first hit capability through issuing these simple LRFs? Bean counters may even be happy to hand them out as disposable items.

Alternatively, issue the heavier and better military specific LRFs to team/section leaders so they can give accurate fire control orders for all weapons in their teams including 40 mm and machine guns. But for that to work effectively we may have to go back to some form of normality with regards to the number and variety of support weapons carried.

[Ken White]

Or else he/she is back to square one, which, if jcustis’ post 31 is anything to go by, isn’t much of an alternative.

METT-TC. Right tool for the job. At 29 Palms, rocky desert, range estimation is difficult for several reasons and thus the LRF and such are beneficial as are they in mountains or on open plains but they aren't necessary in urban, heavily wooded or jungle environments.

Range estimation is not difficult, it just is poorly and rarely trained. Once trained it must be practiced and that isn't done either because most units spend too much time in garrison and not enough in training; the cop out for saving that money because filed training is expensive is to spend more money buying technological substitutes for competent training.

Basic problem is that you're going to do the same thing with military equipment we've done with social welfare -- make it truly unaffordable. Not even the wealthy west can afford to really equip a large Army that well. True, today's Armies are small and professional and thus lots of good equipment is affordable -- but they will have to train any required future large Armies and they won't know how...

We prove daily that we do not learn well from the past.

I agree with you that good training and the individual’s ability to master these skills without the gadgets is preferable, but it just doesn’t seem to be happening (enough).

We agree that more and better training is required but we really disagree on the answer -- 'giving in' to technology is the old slippery slope. Most warfighting skills are cognitive, use 'em or lose 'em.

So would it not be better to swallow our pride and break the status quo by allowing today’s technology to help us out?

I have absolutely no problem with using all the technology that's available and pushing the envelope to get more. What I do have a problem with is the fact that substituting technology for training is a fool's game. A well trained individual will get more benefit and therefor more power from technology than will a barely competent user.

It is not a question of pride, not at all. it is a question of enhancing capability -- and retaining only slightly degraded capability under adverse circumstances. That's just common sense. US Artillery adopted computers early on -- and they learned the hard way they had better teach FDC personnel how to use the old manual Plotting Board as well. So they do...

The broader problem is that warfare provides a harsh environment and most modern tech, while reasonably sturdy is not fail safe -- and you can't always rely on the availability of others in order to swap or borrow equipment. Murphy says, correctly, that it will not work when you most need it...

I’ll admit that over-reliance on gadgets will almost certainly blunten the ‘naked’ skills, and minimising that is/will be a challenge, but I think that using that as a justification to not use these tools does us a disservice, especially where the use of these tools increases effect measurably.

I did not say or even imply that; those are your words and the rifle / sword analogy has no relationship to anything I did say.

Fuchs:

Them getting dirty or break is a less marginal problem than power.

Exactly. Also add the logistic footprint of that power...

That and the skill loss. Most forces today are professional and capable of learning and doing far more than they are currently asked. They are trained and treated as a bunch of barley competent conscripts. That is just stupid.

[Fuchs]

Until they go inoperative or you run out of batteries. Then what...

There are 1,000 m LRF for Golfers and hunters on the market. A few hundred bucks a piece. They use civilian standard batteries and the power consumption is ridiculously low - a battery set could easily serve for a full deployment.

The weight is about 1.5 lbs, one per squad is easily acceptable.

Them getting dirty or break is a less marginal problem than power.

[Tukhachevskii]

While reading this article, The Defence of Strong Point Centre from the Canadian Military Journal, I came across the following statement;

Larochelle thought he was hallucinating when he witnessed what he perceived as mini-explosions going off above his outpost. Little did he realize at the time that the enemy was using RPG munitions that emitted mini cluster rounds from their 75mm warheads, which, in turn, exploded, spraying deadly shrapnel, much like an air-burst round

.

AFAIK the RPG series do not have sub-munition/DPICM-style rounds. Is the report accurate or is it simply a case of the Taliban using the self-destruct fragmentation effect of the warhead when fired at extreme range?

I think the latter (thus pointing to the Taliban using RPGs either from farther away than the contact reported above or using the RPGs in the ad hoc mortar role as the Mujahedeen did during the Afghan-Soviet conflict, though usually out of necessity). I say that because the target of the above RPG strike was the Forward Observation Post/Strong Point centre located in and around a thickly built mud, straw, thatch hut within which above mentioned Pvt Larochelle was manning a GPMG and which had a “loose tarpaulin” roof which likely would have proved a tempting target; they may have decided to use their RPGs to lob one into/over the compound.

Of course the other possibility is that, in the absence of Taliban mortars equipped with such rounds (there is no mention of mortars being used by the Taliban in the engagement recounted in the original article, only RPKs and RPGs) and assuming that the munitions identified were indeed sub-munition rounds could they be the result of rcl rifle fire? Which leads me to ponder the same question above?

What say my betters?

(p.s. Can anyone tell me where I'm going wrong with my quotes?)

[baboon6]

Part of the British Army's FIST (Future Infantry Soldier Technology) plan is for officers and NCOs to be issued Vectronix MOSKITO binoculars with a built-in LRF, while the SA80/UGL will be fitted with the Rapid Acquisition Aiming Module which also has an LRF.

http://www.armedforces-int.com/artic...onix-raam.html

http://www.miloptik.se/pdf/moskito_flyer.pdf

http://www.jag.as/Wilcox_Media/TDS11...le%20-RAAM.pdf

From what I've read the US has similar kit either already or coming soon. To a layman like me at least though some of this stuff appears unnecessarily heavy and bulky. Are their lighter solutions out there?

[kaur]

First I thougt that I'll post this letter to "Indirect fire support in small wars" thread, but I decided to post it here.

Supporting assets is either artillery, if in range, or more commonly air strikes. My question, can U.S. troops be provided enough organic lethality that they can overmatch the enemy with both direct and indirect fires without having to wait for air strikes? Prompt air support might not always be available and the infantry must have the weapons to overmatch the Taliban.

Another U.S. shortcoming in the small arms fight is the lack of a GPS guided mortar round. Only now is the Army developing a GPS round for its 60mm and 81mm mortars, and they have yet to reach the battlefield. With a 60mm mortar and GPS guided rounds, American infantry would be ale to accurately target Taliban fighters on the next ridgeline, and even behind it.

http://defensetech.org/2010/03/01/ta...alf-kilometer/

Is this restart for UK Merlin shell project?

http://www.armyrecognition.com/forum...opic.php?t=763

[William F. Owen]

IMI has Laser and GPS guided Mortar rounds in 120 and 81mm. Having said, IIRC that the stated accuracy is a CEP of about 5-8m for GPS.
60 is not yet possible last I checked.

Basically on this subject, if we just looked to improve performance and stopped seeking "new capabilities" life would get a lot simpler.

[kaur]

Kiwigrunt's first post started the discussion about Javelin and Spike. Wilf, could you disclose the approximate price of this IMI 81 mm round to make comparsion with Javelin/Spike? Isn't 120 mm mortar too much for dismounted infantry in mountains?