View Single Post
  #24  
Old 04-26-2011, 07:51 AM
simonmark6 simonmark6 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Swansea, South Wales, UK
Posts: 374
Default

Sadly, the politicians aren't as effective as you guys on the ground, if they were you probably wouldn't have to be putting it on the line in our name...

You have my respect for that.

Back OT, you make some interesting points there, LAW, traditionally, Afghan mountains tribesmen were good shots but that was with single shot rifles often for the pot, if you missed you went hungry. Nowadays this isn't the case and I woul have to agree with your assessment of their marksmanship since automatic weapons have been introduced.

As for what would be the typical loadout for CONUS Infantry squads, there are several issues that may preclude the need for longer ranged weapons anyway:
1) How many troops in a squad will be able to effectively engage targets at greater than 500m anyway.
2) Training: Law once pointed out his experience that combat doesn't necessarily lead to better troop quality (I think he mentioned his experience with Shining Path guerrilas, sorry if I'm wrong Law). Troops constantly in the line and not having a chance for rest, refit and retraining may become less effective over time. This certainly seems to be born out by WW2 reports, line units that were in combat a lot degraded over time, the crack units were troops with high levels of training that were honed in sharp intensive combat and then pulled out for more training. Troops in CONUS units may end up being honed to the bone. This means that troops may well rely more on the more user friendly lighter calibres despite needing greater firepower.
3) Different weapons for different ranges.
It would make sense to me to arm the unit with the most effective compromise weapon (probably 5.56mm) and have a range of support weapons to engage at different ranges and circumstances, a grenade launcher for people in cover, a DMR for countersniper work, a machinegun for suppression and longer range work, that way the heavier rounds are used for what they are best at rather than being "wasted" with grunts shooting them at the 500m or less ranges.
4) Ammunition compatibility seems to be important, but throughout history troops have tended to plump for the best weapon for teh job rather than cinging to ammo compatibility.

All of this of course is counter-intuitive to me, I want my ubersoldier honed by endless combat hitting the enemy at three miles with his huge calibre rifle. That however is not the reality of war, something I've been lucky enough never to have experienced for myself.

Glad to see you back and safe LAW.
Reply With Quote