CONUS T2K Infantry Team Weapons

[schnickelfritz]

Something occured to me in that perhaps it may be beneficial to have a rifleman or two per infatry squad for CONUS campaigns equipped with a semi or full auto long rifle, like a M1 Garand or M14. My thought is that in rural areas where people actually know how to shoot well and learned on a 30 caliber class rifle (.30-06, .308, .300 Win Mag, etc), an infantry squad equipped soley with .223/5.56 weapons may be at a disadvantage. I've read stories over the years of the Soviets being at such a disadvantage versus Afghans using Lee Enfields in the 80's.

I would think that having a couple of guys who could shoot well (marksman or sharpshooter rated, not snipers) may give you an advantage over certain types of oposition (New American forces especially) and be at less of a disadvantage versus marauders/hostiles with hunting rifles.

With rare exception, I would think fire discipline would be a way of life except in dire emergencies in 2000 AD for infantrymen.

M1 garands to this day are still available due to their reliability and the sheer numbers produced and can be had in both .30-06 and .308/7.62N. M14's would be nicer (more due to magazine capacity, ease of scope fitment, and the whole Garand *PING* ejection than any full auto capability), but may not be as available at times, depending on the area.

Any thoughts

[schnickelfritz]

And yes, this thread has nothing to do with fuel of any kind. Huzzah!

[Abbott Shaull]

I really think end of 1997 the effects of units armed with the 7.62 at squad level on their enemy would be an object lesson and learned quickly at least by NATO. Now filter down to Squad and Fire Team level after the TDM Well it all depends on many units are listen to their higher HQ.

[schnickelfritz]

My basic premise is that the charachters/unit in question is comprised largely of ETO infantry vets that learned these lessons the hard way. Pin the enemy down with weapons that have a range advantage and flank them.

[Legbreaker]

Any units raised late in the war are going to be equipped with whatever they can lay their hands on. Ideally it will all be the one calibre to ease resupply and sharing ammo between unit members, but a rifle is a rifle when it comes down to shooting the enemy.
Very late on you might find that civilian ownership of semi and fully automatic weapons is illegal - all weapons even resembling military issue may have been "requisitioned for official use". Depends a lot on the area though.

[HorseSoldier]

A .30 caliber rifle with iron sights is not much of an advantage over a 5.56mm rifle or one of the Soviet x39s -- you'll almost never be able to acquire and positively ID a target for the added range to matter, and then no one, even with lots of training, manages to make those longer range shots with iron sights with anything more than statistical static on two way ranges.

There is, ultimately, a reason why everyone on the planet quit using 30-06/308/8mm/etc full power rifles in favor of assault rifles. Assault rifles just work better for real combat. At the ranges where you can actually pick out a target who is not being really cooperative in assisting you in killing him (i.e. walking towards you in open order, WW1 1914 style) the assault rifle/intermediate round combo has all the range and hitting power you need.

I've read stories over the years of the Soviets being at such a disadvantage versus Afghans using Lee Enfields in the 80's.

Mostly just mythology. The Afghan Muj took to the AK like junkies to a free supply of heroin, once we started getting serious about supporting them and shipping them real weapons. When they were armed with Lee Enfields (which they had and which we gave them before we were serious about screwing the Soviets) the Soviets mostly mopped the floor with them anywhere they raised their heads.

With rare exception, I would think fire discipline would be a way of life except in dire emergencies in 2000 AD for infantrymen.

They also do a lot more walking than real life infantrymen, and being able to carry twice the basic load of ammo for the same weight means a whole lot.

M14's would be nicer (more due to magazine capacity, ease of scope fitment, and the whole Garand *PING* ejection than any full auto capability), but may not be as available at times, depending on the area.

Without the Cold War ending, the US government would have still had most of the million-odd M14s it bought in storage instead of blow torched and/or given away for free to new NATO members in the Baltic. I doubt they got recycled into DMRs in the Twilight War timeline a la real life, but would guess they might have gotten handed out extensively to local law enforcement, militia/state defense force units, and such (i.e. the guys the Small Arms Guide say got M16EZ kits). Maybe some on the late war USAR divisions as well, and some could have found their way to other units along the way, especially as the war gets hinkier and more disorganized.

Garands would be more problematic -- lots out there through CMP, but on the .gov side, not so much, and 30-06 was not a particularly supported caliber any more by the 1990s, militarily speaking. 30-06 ammo is real common on the civilian side, but loads that don't replicate the USGI load can bend the op rod on a Garand and deadline it completely, so it's not a weapon where you can shoot anything you can scrounge without aftermarket alterations.

Any thoughts

Optics make a long range gun more than caliber. TA01NSN ACOGs were in service IRL before '96 in the SOPMOD kit and elsewhere, they could have been adopted more broadly in a Twilight era timeline where the Advanced Combat Rifle program fizzled but there was still Cold War style money floating around to try and improve service rifle lethality.

Basis of issue could have been greatly expanded on those, and the earlier Vietnam era Colt x4 power scopes might have been (re) adopted as well.

[schnickelfritz]

Having researched a bit on the Garand action, it seems that they are a bit sensitive to load/propellant type and bullet weight. I think they work well when converted to .308, which is what I would assume would be the case, but .30-06 is a pretty common civillian round here in the States.

You make sone very good points on optics, but I am assuming they are not available in real numbers except for M21's and the like.

I am assuming a few things for the scenario I had in mind:
1) Most of the party are experienced infantry vets returned from Europe with their basic weaponry.
2) The missions they will undertake are basic recon/light strike missions for MILGOV and will follow the usual routine for equipment and ammo loadout. The goal is to locate and harrass NA forces in a variety of CONUS locales.
3) Optics will not be available in any real numbers, although captured scoped rifles will be available from encounters. Two two-man scout/sniper teams will be available armed with M21's.
4) Ammunition will be reasonable...fire discipline and good judgement will be key.
5) Transport will be via horse/mule or light vehicle (jeep, M880, CUCV, perhaps civillian 4x4).
6) Support weapons will be somewhat limited to a handful of M203 or M79 and a M60 team.

The scenario I had considered from a weaponry standpoint is that at a MILGOV base the character group's CO is given some choices for small arms, including trading M16A2's for some M1 or M14 rifles. GL's are limited...and even if they weren't, you don't have the ability to carry a large quantity of grenades anyway.

Thanks for the tips and background information!

[Panther Al]

*hrms* As far as the Afghans go, I'd say about 50-50 on the whole myth vs. fact thing on how they was scary good with the long rifle. Historically, they never had a lot of firearms, and even less ammo. Hence, the older generations was very very good at taking those single shots and making sure that they hit: they couldn't afford (literally) a missed shot. Now, that changed in 70's and 80's, and as it was said, the younger generations took to the AK like addicts to a free lifetime supply of crack. And Spray and Pray became a favoured method of shooting. After all, they now had ammo coming out of their ears. However, enter NATO: And the standing up of a new Afghan army. Various countries Spec-ops units are helping stand up Afghan versions of the same, and part of that is the art of the long range shot. And from what I have heard first hand from some of the trainers, is that give one a modern state of the art rifle, solid training in how to use it, some sort of racial memory kicks in, and they become scary good - scary fast. One person I talked to says he knows of two that he thinks if they showed up at Camp Perry would make the Marines look like boyscouts learning out to shoot, and the Army team look like they are playing with airsoft.

[Raellus]

If your boys are expecting most engagements to be fought at ranges over 100m, then it might pay to arm them with M-14s or Garands. But in thickly wooded, urban, and/or suburban terrain, 5.56mm weapons are going to be a lot handier. In other words, I think it depends on the mission and the type of terrain that these teams would be operating in. I mean, the M-16 is far from a perfect weapon, but there are some legitimate reasons why the U.S. military moved away from the M-14 and the whole "battle rifle" concept. Weapon and ammo weight, and recoil, especially during full auto fire, being at the top of the list.

I think you'd have a more flexible load-out by arming one man per squad with an M-14 (i.e. the designated marksman), one with a SAW or LMG (to provide a base of fire), one with a GL (either an M79 or underbarrel M204) and the rest with plain ol' M-16s/M-4s.

[Panther Al]

As much as I go on about common ammo throughout an organisation as much as possible, I do agree in that in general, you do need a mix of close range firepower, and the ability to reach out and touch someone. Even my personal Fav, the 6.8, while much better than the 5.56 in almost all ways, just doesn't reach as far as the 7.62 or other similar chamberings. So, getting that right mix (and a blooper is just about required) is going to be the key thing in a squad formation.

[Legbreaker]

...no one, even with lots of training, manages to make those longer range shots with iron sights with anything more than statistical static on two way ranges.

Speak for yourself!

Hurrumph!

They also do a lot more walking than real life infantrymen, and being able to carry twice the basic load of ammo for the same weight means a whole lot.

Again, speak for yourself. My unit was essentially foot mobile and only rarely travelled by vehicle. Everything we needed was carried on our backs for up to several weeks - you didn't pack it, you went without.
At best we had a truck and landrover attached to CHQ loaded up with additonal water, food, and ammo stores.
I say arm them all with 40mm grenade launchers and sawn off shotguns...

[Targan]

Again, speak for yourself. My unit was essentially foot mobile and only rarely travelled by vehicle. Everything we needed was carried on our backs for up to several weeks - you didn't pack it, you went without.
At best we had a truck and landrover attached to CHQ loaded up with additonal water, food, and ammo stores.

Yup. Australian infantry. Walking, oh so much walking. With two-thirds of my own bodyweight on my back, not counting a whole lot of water depending on where we were operating.

[Legbreaker]

You obviously weren't a machinegunner like me then - I got almost my own body weight to carry, but on then I was only about 65kgs and never had a No2 worth feeding...
No wonder my knees wore out so quickly.

[Abbott Shaull]

If your boys are expecting most engagements to be fought at ranges over 100m, then it might pay to arm them with M-14s or Garands. But in thickly wooded, urban, and/or suburban terrain, 5.56mm weapons are going to be a lot handier. In other words, I think it depends on the mission and the type of terrain that these teams would be operating in. I mean, the M-16 is far from a perfect weapon, but there are some legitimate reasons why the U.S. military moved away from the M-14 and the whole "battle rifle" concept. Weapon and ammo weight, and recoil, especially during full auto fire, being at the top of the list.

I think you'd have a more flexible load-out by arming one man per squad with an M-14 (i.e. the designated marksman), one with a SAW or LMG (to provide a base of fire), one with a GL (either an M79 or underbarrel M204) and the rest with plain ol' M-16s/M-4s.

It part of the reason why back in WWII it was common to find BAR, rifle/carbine, and SMG in the same squad.

[Legbreaker]

Actually, the weight issue is one thing that drives me insane in RPGs. Experience has shown me that there is no way an infantryman is likely to carry under their listed Load stat under most circumstances. Even dropping a pack is likely to leave many characters, providing they're carrying everything they should be, at something like 30 kgs of gear. An average character of say STR 5 and CON 5 has a Load of 30 kgs so it seems unreasonable for most players to complain about being overloaded - everyone is supposed to pull their weight in the military (literally in this case).