Quote Originally Posted by AlexTX ret View Post
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.
Not sure of your point here. Yes, some weapons are disproportionately effective in breaking the enemies will. Obviously how you sustain, manoeuvre and apply those weapons within your tactical doctrine, is extremely important.
The German Squad of 1940 was 13 men, not 10. Treat with extreme caution what folks say about German infantry organisation. By mid 1944 almost all German infantry units task organised and threw the TOE in the bin.
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.
Like Ken, I'd dispute the BAR as fragile.
The M1 and BAR fired the same cartridge from the same barrel length. The BAR had a bi-pod, was fully automatic and useable by 1 man (the MG-42 was not) - so the BAR was an enhanced M1. It was a true Light Automatic Rifle, and it was a very good idea in 1919. Not so great by 1940, but in terms of what it was designed for, more than adequate.
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.
That's too simplistic, but yes you need a combination of weapons in the platoon. Heavier weapons will have heavier effect.
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.
Thanks, and that is essentially mine, Ken's, Reed's and many others case. Convictions and a body of empirical evidence are not the same thing.
  • 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.
  • 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.
Well that's another can of worms, and it comes down to what you actually want the infantry to do. I think IFVs are not good for infantry. APCs are however essential.
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.
What system? Almost everything the IDF does makes extremely good sense, if you see the problem in the way they do. This is very hard for modern Brits and Americans because few if any have ever fought a war within 100km of where you were born.
So I'm a bit sensitive to the effects of world wide political opinion on the actions of the individual state.
Individual states like the US or smaller non-Christian individual states?