Sensors and communications gear seemed to be OK. It would be nice to incorporate the personal radio into the more powerful radios so nobody would have to carry two radios, but that's it.
What I would sacrifice for more GPMG in certain missions? Mobility. Some missions don't require much foot mobility.
My view on classic infantry is very much WW2-like because I split infantry into two groups in my mind; classic infantry for very closed terrain (forest, settlements, mountains) for WW2-like missions.
Completely different skirmisher infantry for screening & delaying actions with emphasis on stealth and indirect fires. The latter would be used to screen efficiently terrains that provide some concealment and cover, but also long lines of sight in some directions.
I took this as a conversation about classic infantry. The platoon didn't look at all like a platoon for my concept of skirmishing (which is still maturing). That's why my demands look old-fashioned at times.
I doubt that suppression can be modeled. I've seen such modelling in papers, and it looked like nonsense.
Consider the OCSW suppression claims, for example. They claimed a huge suppressive effect for a munition that cannot be evaded.
To stop shooting and to lie down to eliminate exposure to direct fire bullets doesn't help against OCSW, so why should it suppress? It would either not suppress anymore as soon as the opponents understood the weapon or it would make them run - both isn't suppression.
In the worst case all enemies would have a ghillie-suit with 20 layers kevlar base and would become almost immune to OCSW.
Some other modelling was not as much nonsense, but still not convincing because too many training and morale factors contribute that cannot be modelled ex ante.
Bookmarks