Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
Going back as far as we do Reed, I think we've always agreed on the merit of something more than bullets. I'm really not worried which weapon it is, as long as 3-5 can effectively carry and employ it. You may want to look at the ALCOTAN-100

Mix of a AT-4 LAW type weapons with a Fire Control System. Goes to 600m. M-32 with MV 40mm with go to 800m. Do you care?
Wilf, I finally found out our major sticking point. Recognized policy for most counties small unit tactics reduce (maybe to almost nothing) the value of the individual rifleman except to keep the enemy from disrupting the crew served weapon. This comes straight from WW2. The Germans kept rebuilding the 10 man squad with its embedded M34/m40 LMG. It proved its effectiveness over and over. The American squad with its BAR wasn't the killer it was supposed to be. I won't go into the supply problems that a normal squad/platoon went through because of all the cartridge types that the squad/platoon had. The M1 rifle was effective but the BAR proved less than spectaclar. It was too light and fragile to be used as an effective LMG. The platoon's M1919 30 cal MMGs were effective but there weren't enough of them in a platoon.

So today, it matters little what the cartridge or rifle is as long as it can keep the bad guys at bay. The real killing will be done by crew served weapons.

In this case, you're right in your convictions. It fits the prevalent operational mission of the squad/platoon. The SAW is sort of a aberation. All the minimum parameters of the inefficent rifle round and all the requirements of a crew served weapons. No wonder so many feel that it is a pile of sh*t.

I on the other hand work with nonstandard requirements and getting the best bang for the buck. Most of my clients are knowledgeable about the effect of crew served weapons but they feel the need to put them under the control of more experienced (and politically correct) officers and ncos. So I have a reason to try and get the most out of thier riflemen and see a need for a family of weapons that has a greater effective range, reliable, semi and controllable auto fire and needs less training. They have to take up the slack of the fewer crew served weapons and those that they have are usually older and proven reilable. For the most part if they'e using the American system (High overal cost is a disadvantage) this means the "pig" (M60) and there is really no answer to the RPG7v2-3 unless they fall back on a recoiless rifle of some sort. Most American weapons are expensive, cumbersome and need a lot of expesive training.

I sort of see it as a view of the future. We are going through cost cuts and restructuring of our military to fit a smaller profile. maybe it's time to look at all our assumptions and see if changes need to be made.

Actually I will take it one step further. While foot powered units show weaknesses, there are more than a few countires that are seeing a tendency of using less tanks (expensive and too big to ship easily) and instead of going to a more and more effective IFVs caring a section of Infantry. In Russia, this means the new BMP 4 with its 100mm gun and (hopefully) fanatical soldiers, that can be shipped easily to the point of conflict. The Contract Soldier program has been a failure for it is no more effective than their present conscript program. So there go the "fanatical" soldiers. But the creation of more intense squad weapon assets on the IFV show a need for more simple riflemen, IAR and SDM (SVD rifle) specialists.

The Americans tried this and is failing. The Bradley was effective for a while but now there are a larger and more powerful weapons packages out there. Also, the Bradley was never that easy to pack up and ship anywhere. Also it didn't fit our squad profile of 9 men easily. Under such conditions, it is cramped and in the case of long rides/confinment, it is very taxing.

I have studied the Israeli system and while it is more effective in most areas, it show a certain weakness in urban environments. ESP. in anti-terrorist insurgency missions. I have my masters in the international relationships though my specialty was in insurgency and non traditional forms of government. So I'm a bit sensitive to the effects of world wide political opinion on the actions of the individual state.