Small Arms/Explosives (was "Your Personal Unit ORBATS")

[Legbreaker]

You just can't go past the usefulness of explosive weapons. Machineguns are great, but they can't really effect anything behind cover - lob a grenade behind or beside the target and boom, they're done for.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

You just can't go past the usefulness of explosive weapons. Machineguns are great, but they can't really effect anything behind cover - lob a grenade behind or beside the target and boom, they're done for.

I agree that explosive weapons are terribly useful. Getting them to the target can be the tricky bit, though. Machine guns and mortars or 40mm grenade launchers operating together provide the infantry a synergistic effect.

Webstral

[kalos72]

I personally love the idea that a expert shot with good bolt action rifle in conjunction with some automatic fire could subdue a larger, more powerfully armed force. That sort of ability would be key in the days to come since machine guns would be getting hard to support for most communities or smaller units.

I always thought that a squad or perhaps even platoon having multiple machine guns/SAW's was more then the average unit would have up and running...

[Legbreaker]

The beauty of explosive weapons (new thread Kato?) Is that almost anyone can make them. Naturally to move them any real distance, you need something to project them.
However the actual charge is relatively easy to create out of components usually easy to acquire and so are likely to be amongst the more common weapons available, particularly to militias and other civilians (such as caravan guards).
The usefulness of such weapons will make them fairly widespread through the military too, and these may be of a higher qiality (possibly made from military issue explosives rather than home made recipes).

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The beauty of explosive weapons (new thread Kato?)

Normally wait for 5 posts but that was signifigant drift.

-kato

[Brother in Arms]

Legbreaker wrote:
"....Machineguns are great, but they can't really effect anything behind cover"
that depends on what your cover is. An MG can turn cover into concealment pretty quickly. for example .30-06 M2 ball will penetrate 12" oak at 200 yards.


Kalo72 wrote:
"I personally love the idea that a expert shot with good bolt action rifle in conjunction with some automatic fire could subdue a larger, more powerfully armed force."

in this case it wasn't even automatic fire...but accurate semi-automatic fire supporting the sniper and then backed by grenadiers. This combined fire technique along with having a better position, they had us dead to rights. Not to mention they got jump on us. The ambush was opened by the sniper first man hit was the PKM gunner and they were very clever to eliminate him because I believe if we could have ever gotten the PKM into action, it could have actively suppressed them making it difficult for there riflemen to fire and nearly impossible for grenadiers to ready there rifle grenades. He could have even sucessfully lit up the sniper who was at a greater distance and there by broke up the whole combined effort.

at the end of the engadgment the score was: (KIA) 1-PKM gunner (WIA)4-rifleman. Two of which where caused by exploding rifle grenade shrapnel and 2 by rifle fire. One was wounded while trying to get the PKM into action and another while trying to hit the grenadiers. The two shrapnel injuries were minor..and one of the rifle wounds superficial. But the one who was hit trying to return fire with the PKM we left behind with the dead PKM gunner.

As for them, we know there sqaud leader took a good hit because they imediatly broke contact and disapeared, leaving an imense amount of blood and an M59 with bullet holes all through the stock. He probably died soon after the engadgement. But can't say for sure if we wounded any of the others.

after that we drew lots to see who would carry the PKM!


Kalos72 wrote:
"I always thought that a squad or perhaps even platoon having multiple machine guns/SAW's was more then the average unit would have up and running..."

I think if the ammo was there to support them they would be in use. But its less wasteful to arm more men with rifles less ammo than one man with a machinegun and a lot of ammo.

Depends on your doctrine but compare the Germans vs. US in ww2. and you can see a major difference. I think you would see increased trend in marksmanship because its only the ones that hit that count.

Brother in arms

[kato13]

Little instructional tip here. See the little next to "quote" at the bottom of each post. It allows you to quote multiple posts in your reply.

Just click on that for each post you want to quote. (it should change to orange)

[Legbreaker]

While it is true most decent GPMGs can chew through cover, it often takes a little time, time in which the enemy may (and damn well should) move elsewhere.
A machinegun also cannot fire around corners.

Rifle grenades and grenade launchers have the ability to bypass cover completely. Just drop the round long or to the side of your target and let the blast and shrapnel do the job for you.

There will always be a place for machineguns and every section/squad should have at least one, but you just can't go past the flexability of HE.

[Brother in Arms]

leg breaker

I totally agree about explosives and GPMGs...

heres a sweet link that really made me think of the fire fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtGwy...eature=related