Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker
Regardless of nationality, I would expect a commander would want approximately half his infantry with automatic weapons capable of sustained fire (ie belt fed or extended mags) and the other half armed with grenade launchers or similar explosive type weapons. This would go some way towards countering the lack of personell, but the loss of even a single soldier would significantly downgrade the units effectiveness.
|
As long as you didn't have to clear a building... if I had a squad with RPKs, GPMGs/M-60s and M-203s I'd be real reluctant to have them trying to pop around corners real quick! (And much of the battlefield late in the war would be in urban/ruins). Add in the burden of pulling endless guard mounts with a GPMG. While there are firepower arguments for going real heavy, there are "soldiering" concerns for doing otherwise. Of course, there might be enough excess weapons to go both ways... when I was in Bosnia I carried a M-9 around the base, a M-4 or M-16 on most trips outside the wire, unless we were "hunting for bear" and went out with 3 SAWs, 3 M-9s and a M-16/203 per HMMWV.
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end...
|