The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Ken White]

His finger on the trigger is the mistake, but he really is not shooting to the wall 50cm in front of him, he is just looking over the wall

Easy for one not familiar with weapon mounted optics to miss that, no one familiar with them should...

Agree with JMA on the length of pull. It is important -- try teaching small persons to shoot with an M1 designed for big Americans. Even more fun is to watch a large person shoot an M4 that has a stock that will not extend. Length of pull may be ignored but there will be an accuracy / muscle memory penalty. One can work up various innovations to get around the issue but such 'fixes' always seem to not work when one really needs them.

As an unrelated aside, being ancient and having walked around four Continents and an Island or two with unfriendly, even hostile, lurkers abounding and my finger on the trigger of a loaded weapon not on Safe far more often than not, I do not see that rigid finger outside the trigger guard except to fire as much more than a compensation for inadequate training (or marginally capable persons). Others may differ...

Fingers on triggers worry me far less than does the seeming increase in use of full auto fire and the practice of using the Magazine for a handgrip. For that matter, hand grips in my experience are not counducive to single shot accuracy because the upper edge of the thumb and forefinger aren't as sensitive to cant as the palm and that orientation puts undue strain on the muscles of the forearm as compared to a bottom of the stock hold with the palm of the supporting hand.

[JMA]

His finger on the trigger is the mistake, but he really is not shooting to the wall 50cm in front of him, he is just looking over the wall, with all respect Sir, it´s obvious.

Do modern sergeants make "mistakes" like that? Things are slipping.

With this attitude, you could cut off the sights at all, as Taliban fighters do sometimes. If you have ACOG, you can use it successfully also as an observation device. I am not going to discuss if it´s advantage or not. And yes, we have armourer, but there is no Sa58 recoil pad. Israelis do nice, cheap new stocks and that solves the problem, as they ship for free worldwide.

Perhaps I should say that I note that the line infantry units are tends to mimic and adopt the "special forces" way of doing things which in most cases is not a good idea for line infantry. I suggest that it is good to question what is going on around you rather than just go with the flow.

For example you may consider asking the question as to the point of having optics on weapons if they are used to improve individual observation but are seldom used in a contact (see a hundred examples on YouTube).

Second how many times have you heard on a YouTube clip a commander issuing a fire-control order? You suppress the enemy by winning the "fire fight" through laying down directed and controlled section fire into likely cover on their position.

I could go on.... sadly I see little evidence of the current crop of soldiers questioning, adapting and above all thinking about how better to close with and kill the enemy. Maybe it is because of a lack of depth in their training I don't know.

[JMA]

Israelis do nice, cheap new stocks and that solves the problem, as they ship for free worldwide.

... and your army lets you modify your weapon (and presumably your kit) as you like?

[William F. Owen]

T
From the The British Army Review Number 150 we read the following in the article Donkeys led by Lions:

I think I am safe to say that I was pretty familiar with the content of that article before it was published, though I place no claim as to authorship!

[William F. Owen]

So lets talk optics and red-dots and all that stuff. Obviously did not help the Queens Royal Lancers one little bit.

I spend a lot of time playing with weapons optics. To discuss it seriously you need to talk specifics. "Red-dots" for example may have no magnification power what so ever.

What you have from the QLR is a snap shot opinion. Not operational analysis. If you talk to audiences composed entirely of infantrymen recently returned from operations, then they have a very different perspective about optics and sensors.

So I wonder what the teaching is on how to suppress/kill the enemy if you know roughly where they are but can't see them?

Go online and read this.

Hope that helps.

[82redleg]

Do modern sergeants make "mistakes" like that? Things are slipping.

A modern US Army "sergeant" is not the same thing as the "sergeants" I've seen in the Commonwealth armies I'm familiar with. I have no idea where the Rhodesian Army fits into the spectrum, but it seems the rough equivalent of ranks (in responsibility and time to achieve the promotion) between US Army, USMC and Commonwealth is:

USArmy USMC Commonwealth
PVT Pvt PVT
PV2 Pfc
PFC LCpl
SPC LCpl
SGT Cpl Cpl
SSG Sgt
SFC SSgt Sgt
MSG GySgt/MSgt WO1
SGM/CSM MGySgt/SgtMaj WO2

[JMA]

A modern US Army "sergeant" is not the same thing as the "sergeants" I've seen in the Commonwealth armies I'm familiar with. I have no idea where the Rhodesian Army fits into the spectrum, but it seems the rough equivalent of ranks (in responsibility and time to achieve the promotion) between US Army, USMC and Commonwealth is:

USArmy USMC Commonwealth
PVT Pvt PVT
PV2 Pfc
PFC LCpl
SPC LCpl
SGT Cpl Cpl
SSG Sgt
SFC SSgt Sgt
MSG GySgt/MSgt WO1
SGM/CSM MGySgt/SgtMaj WO2

The photo comes from here, they are Marines, so you must help me understand the Marine rank structure.



E5 is the fifth rank level? Who (what rank) would be the platoon sergeant?

The Brit (Rhodesian) platoon sergeant would be the fourth rank level. How long does it take the average marine to make E5 or platoon sergeant? Five years? Seven years?

Look by the end of the war (1980) we had some pretty over promoted guys at all rank levels so don't take my comment the wrong way.

[JMA]

I think I am safe to say that I was pretty familiar with the content of that article before it was published, though I place no claim as to authorship!

I think it is a very good article. I had it emailed to me so can't provide a link here but if you can I'm sure it would be of interest around here.

[JMA]

I spend a lot of time playing with weapons optics. To discuss it seriously you need to talk specifics. "Red-dots" for example may have no magnification power what so ever.

Is there a need for short range stuff for troops in Afghanistan (other than special forces)?

And what impact has the general issue of optics to Brit soldiers on the kill rate per contact and the ability to lay down good old fashioned suppressive fire to win the fire-fight? Has it been positive by any stretch of the imagination?

What you have from the QLR is a snap shot opinion. Not operational analysis.

If that's the spin you want to apply then... OK

Given the six months of operations the QRL experienced in Helmand that particular troop of the squadron experienced just that. Lets take the report on its merits. 100 exchanges of fire, actually saw the TB twice.

Maybe it indicates the folly of deploying armour in a dismounted infantry role? No value in the optics? Lack of training? You tell me...

If you talk to audiences composed entirely of infantrymen recently returned from operations, then they have a very different perspective about optics and sensors.

We have been through this before Wilf. Everyone has an opinion but if you want to learn what really happened you need to know who to talk to... and not in an audience... but rather man-to-man over a cup of tea (no booze).

Go online and read this.

Hope that helps.

Yes it helps... that is the best motivation of the Rhodesian style Fire Force tactic I have ever read. I need to put your man Storr in contact with Group Captain (Rtd) Petter-Bowyer who is retired in the UK. The next RLI book (to be published July/August) will also have a section on the Fire Force.

Did you note the comment on the benefit of experienced soldiers being able to conserve ammo? You don't find experienced soldiers amongst a group of six month wonders. Been through this before as well.

As far as the shock of HE is concerned again the Rhodesian Air Force knew about that (speak to Petter-Bowyer) as that allowed us to go to Chimoio with 184 SAS/RLI to take on 5,000 plus.

I would make one further comment. Storr says "... ‘finding’ obviously involves movement..." Well yes and no. In the case where you employ small highly professional OPs to locate the enemy it is their movement that allows them to be found.

We have discussed this before. I maintained that high frequency patrolling (movement) by Brits plays into the Taleban hands through giving away location and being IED bait. What is the idea? To separate the Taleban from the villagers... surely? And there are many ways to skin that cat.

[82redleg]

E5 is the fifth rank level? Who (what rank) would be the platoon sergeant?

A rifle platoon sergeant is supposed to be a SSgt (E6). Specialty platoons (weapons, mortars, snipers, etc) are supposed to be GySgt (E7). Often may be a rank lower due to shortages.

The Brit (Rhodesian) platoon sergeant would be the fourth rank level. How long does it take the average marine to make E5 or platoon sergeant? Five years? Seven years?

Based on the Marines I've worked around, promotion at the minimum times (either service or grade) are not as common as in the Army.

2001 statistics for average promotion points in the USMC:
* Private First Class (E-2) - 6 months
* Lance Corporal (E-3) - 14 months
* Corporal (E-4) - 26 months
* Sergeant (E-5) - 4.8 years
* Staff Sergeant (E-6) - 10.4 years
* Gunnery Sergeant (E-7) - 14.8 years
* Master Sergeant/First Sergeant (E-8) - 18.8 years
* Master Gunnery Sergeant/Sergeant Major (E-9) - 22.1 years

Promotion to E2 and E3 are automatic, but above that it is based on vacancies. I would expect these numbers to have been reduced somewhat since 2001, based on expansion and wartime changes. These numbers appear somewhat lower than the equivalent Army positions (USMC Cpl = US Army SGT = fire team leader; USMC Sgt = US Army SSG = squad leader).

[Ken White]

at three words a minute (Hey, I'm old and never learned to type, takes longer with one or two fingers...), I submit this better late than never compost. Er, composition...

The 'E' designations below are Enlisted Pay Grades, 1 being the lowest, 9 the highest. Here are a couple of charts: LINK, LINK.

In the US, Marine LCpl (E3) and Army Spc [Specialist] (an E4) are effectively senior privates, normally not in leadership positions -- though the good ones become de facto leaders or 'acting' leaders on occasion. Marine Corporals are Team (4 man) Leaders and Sergeants (E5) are Squad (13 man) Leaders. The US Army does not use generally use the rank of Corporal and uses Sergeants(E5) as Team (4 man) leaders while Staff Sergeants (E6) are Squad (9 man)Leaders. A Marine Platoon has three rifle squads and a small Hq element; an Army Platoon has three rifle squads , a Weapons Squad with assigned or organic MG and ATGW as well as the small HQ element.

Note the Marines have lower rank leading more people. Or the Army rewards leaders with more pay...

In peacetime, Team Leaders in both services will normally have about three to five years service, Squad Leaders four to eight. In wartime, those periods will be less and will vary considerably depending on many factors. Marine Platoon Sergeants are as 82Redleg noted while Army Platoon Sergeants are by TOE, E7s and that rank is hit at about 10-15 years in peace time and only slightly more rapidly in war time. Obviously, persons one or even two ranks below the TOE or normal rank are sometimes leading units and often, Platoon Sergeants are acting Platoon Leaders in the absence of an Officer -- as a Platoon Sergeant for almost seven years, I spent about five of them as an Acting Platoon Leader in three different Battalions on three continents in war and peace.

I even ran across an Artillery Battery in Viet Nam that had a SGT (E5) as First Sergeant (Co Sgt Maj), normally an E8 position. The Kid was doing a good job, too. To top that off he was not a long service NCO but a graduate of the NCO Candidate Course, a Viet Nam era 90-day school to convert likely Privates to Sergeants to replace the high losses in NCOs in Viet Nam. Not present today.

A part of the problem is that our promotion system in all services must, by Congressionally written laws and pressure be totally 'fair.' As you can envision, that forces mediocrity.

It is also my opinion that our training is, while better than it has ever been, still sub-par in many respects. We try to cram too much in too short a period to "save money." As usual, penny wise - pound foolish...

That training shortfall is most apparent with initial entry people, officer and enlisted but it also applies to NCO training. That, too is better but it's still not adequate and it focuses on too many things not remotely germane to combat proficiency.

While many in the US Armed Forces have fought and are today fighting, the broader Armed Forces and the Nation missed that. The Nation and the bulk of the Forces have been at peace since 1945 -- and it shows...

[BushrangerCZ]

... and your army lets you modify your weapon (and presumably your kit) as you like?

It does to certain extent, depends on the regiment. But I was talking about my own rifle, for which I have a license and keep it at home (it´s the same one as issued in army). Well, for 300 bucks, it´s brand new assault rifle directly from factory, 3x cheaper than decent pistol, so it´s natural choice.
PS: Just a detail - guys on the picture are not US Army but USMC (it makes no difference I know).

[JMA]

It does to certain extent, depends on the regiment. But I was talking about my own rifle, for which I have a license and keep it at home (it´s the same one as issued in army). Well, for 300 bucks, it´s brand new assault rifle directly from factory, 3x cheaper than decent pistol, so it´s natural choice.
PS: Just a detail - guys on the picture are not US Army but USMC (it makes no difference I know).

OK, it was no catch question but what I was trying to establish was if soldier produced a fancy optic scope he had bought somewhere would he be allowed to use it in your army? Would he need to demonstrate his ability with it before being allowed to use it?

Kit wise we bought our own stuff or had it made up for us. Like in the early days we modified captured chest webbing to take FN pouches. Later chest webbing was made by local hunting and camping shops and eventually became general issue.

There were virtually no weapon mods in those days in terms of sights etc (although we did get a x3 power sight on limited issue for which there were few takers as our contacts were generally at such close range). One mod that was quite often done was to the change lever (safety catch) on the FN which people with short thumbs needed and that was to fit a (Brit) SLR change lever. Some even built up the button with a type of Pratley's Putty that was available at the time. While I do not have a short thumb I did have a problem with the FN change lever once. When flying into a scene one winter morning (Rhodesian winters are like your summers) there was a bit on wind chill through the open doors. Landed on the ground and while moving into a stop position had a gook run past. couldn't move the change lever even with both thumbs. The gook and I looked each other in the eye and he kept on running. Had to talk the gunship in to convert him to a martyr to their cause. It made me think. BTW... gloves? only pilots wore golves.

this as opposed to this

I'm sure certain units or patrols would find optics useful under certain circumstances. With local experience I'm sure that decision can be better made by those on the ground. I just question whether it is a blanket "good thing" for all units and soldiers (as in the case of the Queens Royal Lancers).

You may have heard me question the net value of the line infantry adopting the special forces one ear radio headset across the board? I do that because we tested such a one ear head set in 1976 (for stick cmdrs - fire team and above - the aim of which was to place a pressel-switch (push to talk) on the pistol grip so both hands could remain on the weapon when talking on the radio) and it was not adopted because of technical problems at the time and resistance from stick comds at having their one ear closed off). I continue to question the PRR on the same basis and especially that every soldier now has one ear closed off. I don't doubt that it is beneficial tactically but believe that a non restrictive headset would be a better bet. ... and remember what the intention of the special forces rig was in the first place.

[BushrangerCZ]

Thanks for a pics JMA, that´s a fine rifle. I never shot from that, but it´s capability seems similar to me like ours SVD Dragunov. And about ear pro, it´s 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, it´s crushing my skull, especially with shooting glasses underneath it (even if I have glasses with flat legs), or helmet over it, and I surely can´t 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 that´s 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 it´s 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 it´s 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 couldn´t find any non-restrictive, but effective ear pro, possible to wear for days on foot patrols, so far. About team radios - I agree it´s 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, someone´s 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 unit´s team leaders have to carry two personal radios, so they can talk in the same time to superiors and subordinates, switching frequencies doesn´t 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 team´s member) talks to him personally, and commander needs to issue some order over the other radio, and that´s just over one´s brain capability.

[Kiwigrunt]

One mod that was quite often done was to the change lever (safety catch) on the FN which people with short thumbs needed and that was to fit a (Brit) SLR change lever.

Is that an easy fit, given it is from imperial to metric? If it is, I'll have to get hold of one for my G1. I tend to find the L1 (imperial) magazine release preferable to the FAL type as well; not sure if they will be exchangeable.

[JMA]

Is that an easy fit, given it is from imperial to metric? If it is, I'll have to get hold of one for my G1. I tend to find the L1 (imperial) magazine release preferable to the FAL type as well; not sure if they will be exchangeable.

Not sure... I suggest its a job for the unit armourer. It took minutes.

[JMA]

Thanks for a pics JMA, that´s a fine rifle. I never shot from that, but it´s 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, it´s 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, it´s crushing my skull, especially with shooting glasses underneath it (even if I have glasses with flat legs), or helmet over it, and I surely can´t 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 that´s 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 it´s 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 it´s 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 couldn´t 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 it´s 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, someone´s 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 unit´s team leaders have to carry two personal radios, so they can talk in the same time to superiors and subordinates, switching frequencies doesn´t 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 team´s member) talks to him personally, and commander needs to issue some order over the other radio, and that´s just over one´s 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.

[BushrangerCZ]

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 don´t 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).

[Pete]

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.

[Pete]

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.