Article

2008-07-31 Home Front: WoT

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tu3031 2008-07-31 13:02|| || Front Page|| [11130 views ] Top

#1 It's also easier to spot the enemy. He's usually the guy firing on automatic. The fellows firing one shot at a time are the Americans, and they are usually the last ones standing.

To go along that, and add one more pointless comment from me today, I remember reading two articles quite some time ago, about afghanistan, one (here) where it was mentioned the journalos could make out each side's position in nightime through muzzle flashes, as US forces would fire semi-auto, while taliban would fire full auto; and one (translated in french in a swiss military website) about a SAS team performing a counter-intuitive motorized frontal assault (which succeeded nonetheless without casualties) on a taliban compound, with again the brits taking aimed shots at the droogs, and the arab fighters holding their ak over their head, above the wall, and firing full-auto in the general direction of the attackers (and many doing so while on drugs, too IIRC, hence the droogs bit).

Anyway, the optic revolution must really have changed shooting in anger - hard to see a pic or a vid of an Us soldier without having the flat-top M16 variant mounting one optic or an another; with training updated so the weapon doesn't outperform the shooter, and the Viet Nam style rock & roll will be (is) left in the garbage can of anti-militarist clichés.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-07-31 13:56|| 2008-07-31 13:56|| Front Page Top

#2 And, still in my banter commenting, IIRC, a bit after the dust settled on the initial phase of the OIF, which turned into a pacification phase, there were reprots of Us soldiers acquiring ak as personal armament, mikhail kalashnikov himself made quite a big deal of that; it turned out that was done mostly by non-fighting personal who were at that time armed only with a M9 and were feeling naked in the assault rifle country that iraq was and is... and, IIRC, the trouble with many iraqi ak, chinese or local knock-offs, was that the trend over there was to have the stock removed, in order to use the weapons as a spray & pray type of "big, hip-shooting Smg" (anyone recall reading about the Us/western military instructors having to teach iraqi soldiers how to zero their rifle, back in the very early days of the rebuilding of the iraqi forces? Apparently, this was not done in saddam times!), so there was calls made by some Us soldiers to have relatives back in the USA send them suitable stocks to use the rifle as a rifle.

Posted by anonymous5089 2008-07-31 14:04|| 2008-07-31 14:04|| Front Page Top

#3 In Afghanistan

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-31 14:43|| 2008-07-31 14:43|| Front Page Top

#4 And the round is the venerable 7.62 NATO, my favorit.

This raises the question: if we are going with individual marksmanship, why are we still using 5.56 ball for our standard infantry round?

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-31 14:46|| 2008-07-31 14:46|| Front Page Top

#5 OS,

I think the key is load bearing. They're already loaded up the way it is. The kids are getting real good, focused on the value not just of hitting, but getting head shots. So, do you want to carry more of the 5.56 or less of the 7.62. Ask the troops on the ground who have to hump the stuff. I know many want something that will penetrate walls, but that's M2 country, not the individual weapon.

Posted by Procopius2k 2008-07-31 17:18|| 2008-07-31 17:18|| Front Page Top

#6 Proc, I humped an M16/M203 and an M-14 (humped a radio too at times). I know the weight difference. Just wondering if the troops would value more ammo or more one-shot stops.

I guess its really depends on the mission and support. All the one-shot stops in the world can't help you if you're way out in the boonies in a multi-day patrol/LP-OP and run out of your highly effective ammo; likewise all the ammo in the world doesn't help if you can't penetrate the cover or stop the hopped up enemy with your too small ammo.

I wonder if the "compromise" caliber rounds and some sort of electronic+caseless would be a better solution.

Posted by OldSpook 2008-07-31 19:36|| 2008-07-31 19:36|| Front Page Top

#7 I wonder if the "compromise" caliber rounds and some sort of electronic+caseless would be a better solution.

I wonder if it could have been researched, developed and distributed to all infantrymen for less than was wasted on the Crusader. Or the Commanche. Or the DDG-1000 Or...

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2008-07-31 20:36|| 2008-07-31 20:36|| Front Page Top

23:55 JosephMendiola
23:54 Barbara Skolaut
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:38 Abu do you love
23:36 Abu do you love
23:30 JosephMendiola
23:24 JosephMendiola
23:04 JosephMendiola
22:40 tipover
22:35 tipover
22:33 tipover
22:18 Sheba Sheamble5056
22:16 Chief
22:13 Pappy
22:08 Pappy
22:03 Pappy
21:56 Frank G
21:46 Hellfish
21:44 Bright Pebbles
21:43 Bright Pebbles
21:40 Frank G
21:37 tipover
21:33 phil_b
21:31 Grunter in Denver