The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[AlexTX ret]

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...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...

Yep, we really scewed the pooch on our small wars in Iraq and Afganistan. though I know quite a bit of what went on in the administration and the military on the ground, I can't say much about it. Let us say that we took weak intelligence and used it to further our objectives. Then we exacerbated our problems by confused and conflicting after action orders.

However, a real war would be really messy and possibly "frightening". I agree that we are headed for it and if we don't start acting properly with indepth intelligence that may not be politically correct, a lot of people are going to wake up with a hot round in their laps. *sigh*

I agree on the M4 though it would reguire a barrel change to optimize for the better 5.56 cartridge. The M262 requires a 1 in 8 spin optimally. Not to say the M262 is the optimum cartridge.

As for taking our time, I agree. However, there is a problem with our procurement system To simplify and take more control of the procurement system, the military decides ahead of time what the parameters of the weapon, etc should be. Yes, this is the perogitive of the Generals and their civilian advisors. However, it keeps designers from thinking outside of the box. And I've seen little such thinking by the "Tactical Generals". So who will step up to the plate and speak for those who have to accomplish the mission?

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.

I don't have an answer to the 9mm question. Would a 40S&W be the answer, I don't know because it isn't as acurate a round as the 9mm or the 45. Would a 45 be the answer, better accuracy but there would have to be more and better training for those men and women who are of a smaller stature to handle the recoil of the weapon. I'm not saying that they can't handle it, I just saying they would need more experience. However, that goes for any weapon. Without proper training and continued practice, any weapon might as well be a rock.

I would add the 40mm grenade launcher to the squad/platoon mix but I agree with your accessment. I'll bite my toungue and say that the M72 PI would also be a good addition to the squad/platoon mix since it is issued a single round and doesn't require a weapon to fire it. You either have it or not.

I think your also correct to most weapons requireing a crew be regulated to company level. In my years as a RA, I found such weapons confusing to both leaders who needed to field and fight them and to training of other members of the squad/platoon to pick up the weapon and operate it in an aggresive manner, when casualties occured. People get hurt out ther you know!

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?Yes and no.

Both China and Russia are showing much improved fighters than possibly we can field now. I don't know if they are just a handfull of protoypes in which we could be wasting money for nothing. However, we can't compete with the 2nd world countries in number of aircraft, so we need to create better aircraft that will give us air superiority. We need good intel more and more. it might be the best investment we can make now!?!

More range, less handy, more rounds per magazine, less lethal, more maintenance, less reliable. All weapons are compromises.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.

Agreed!

All weapons are compromises and the M4 is adequate but not as good a compromise as is possible.

Agreed! But when we try to fit weapons that don't fit their supposed mission then the "feet on the ground" suffers.

Good question, been my observation that those who spout such idiocy are rarely seen carrying the weapon they tout in combat.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.

My opposite number on one of my rotations was so disgusted with the M1 carbine that he cried when I got him a M16. It was kind of sad really. I thought the "Mattel" rifle was terrible but it was so much better than the M1 carbine. And so the story goes...