Tweet
your weapons have the same MOA targan. thats why I said we were going to get more bang for the buck and put heavy free floated barrels on our service weapons and make them 1 moa guns. it would be a trend setter in my mind. already have the aussie and brit exchange guys talking about how they could improve there stuff. we have a very robust exchange program with thoose countrys. Army sgt is right about his statements that is doctrine for most armys in a convential fight. read Paddy griffiths forward into battle. it talks very well on this point . I beleave its a UK book.
-
-
Which would in my book mean the machinegun is good enough with 4 MOA. Over in this part of the world, it's the machinegun and artillery that's used for supressing and the riflemen who close with the enemy and kill them in any way possible.Originally posted by ArmySGT. View Post
We have a saying here: "One round, one kill".If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudoremComment
-
Well that's what I was taught when I did the infantry course, that the job of the Australian infantryman is to locate, engage and destroy the enemy. The instructors would also talk about how armoured vehicles can kill the enemy and take ground but it takes infantry to hold that ground.Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
I guess it also has to do with the Australian military having to do more with less. Australian infantrymen often don't have the luxury of being able to call for artillery or air support. Hell, in Afghanistan Australian forces can't even call in their own helicopters for insertion, extraction or medivac - we have to rely on our allies for that.sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo MachiavelliComment
-
The 20th Century generally bears out the ideas that machine guns and artillery do the bulk of the dirty work. There are, of course, exceptions. We did no work to speak of in Baghdad with MG. All rifle work, all close range. Things I didn't care to put in Adagio for Strings because my wife and family also read that stuff. If I fired six rounds in a single day, I don't remember when that day was. The Triangle, on the other hand, was pure MG territory. Very few confirmed kills in the whole battalion on the truck patrols in the Triangle, though. Lots of 7.62 sent downrange, but when the enemy disappears into the irrigation canals in a cloud of dirt, it's hard to say whether he's KIA, WIA, changing positions, or calling it quits. No one in the whole battalion got out to check, and you can be certain that when the Apaches arrived to provide supporting fire they claimed credit for everything. No arty, either. Shades of Vietnam.
That was a while ago.“We’re not innovating. We’re selectively imitating.” June Bernstein, Acting President of the University of Arizona in Tucson, November 15, 1998.Comment
-
I'm guessing that in the last decade, the machinegun has only been predominate simply due to the doctrine of the force who have the vast bulk of the manpower on the ground - ie the US.
If you look at it on a case by case basis, and put aside the HUGE number of US troops, I think you'll find that marksmanship is the key to sucess and the truckloads of bullets sent down range by automatic weapons really only serve to suppress the enemy until that one "lucky" round strikes home.If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudoremComment
-
Mission of the Marine rifle squad is to locate,close with and destroy the enemy with fire and manuver and to repell the enemys assault with fire and close combat. Targan get forward into battle. If you cant find one or cant afford it. PM me and I will send you mine to read ....Just send it back. one of my fav's for back in the day.Comment
-
Targan is this near you if so you should go and watch....PUCKAPUNYAL, AustraliaComment
-
A few things here, my experience in the Australian Army Reserve was mostly in Infantry. I was in from the 1980s to the 1990s, my instructors where mostly combat veterans from Vietnam. Most of those instructors stressed that while individual marksmanship was something to strive for, the killing power of the Section/Squad was the machinegun - rifleman pin the target and the machinegun destroys it.
I guess what this goes to show is that doctrine changes over time like everything else. I know from my experience we never got enough live ammo time to be as good at individual marksmanship as we should have been but I did get plenty of time on the M60 and with grenades of various sorts.
As for people saying the Minimi/M249 SAW is too heavy... how do they think their fathers felt when they were lugging around MG3, M60 or MAG58 MGs Or their grandfathers when it was Browning M1919, Vickers or Bren Guns I carried the M60 for about half a decade, I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who complain that a 5.56mm weapon is too heavy to carry around - can you tell!
As for Puckapunyal, unfortunately it's over the other side of the country from Targan, a trip by air of about 2700km (1700 miles)!Comment
-
$15 on Amazon. I think I can afford thatOriginally posted by LAW0306 View Post
From the review it looks like a really interesting read.
sigpic "It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo MachiavelliComment
-
'Twas a fascinating book-- changed my gaming style.Originally posted by Targan View Post$15 on Amazon. I think I can afford that From the review it looks like a really interesting read.My Twilight claim to fame: I ran "Allegheny Uprising" at Allegheny College, spring of 1988.Comment
-
In weapon weight sure they had it hard, but they carried less rounds and equipment back then too. Body armour didn't really come into play until Korea. Look at the guys of today compared to the guys of yesterday. Today the guys can't even run! They trot and jog. The guys of yester year ran, because they didn't have to carry much compared to what they force on troops of today. So bitch about a M249 being to heavy God damn right I will. It's not like you just through on some duece gear with water, a chow, and your ammo, and grap your weapon. They load you down with a bunch of shit. When your foot mobile weight is your enemy.Originally posted by StainlessSteelCynic View PostLast edited by waiting4something; 08-31-2011, 06:08 PM.Comment
-
Machineguns do provide suppressive fires for the Infantry Squad. This is for the Infantry to move forward and secure a new location for the MG.Originally posted by Legbreaker View Post
The MG is situated to take advantage of the most open terrain and the greatest distance one can gain depending on local. MGs properly sited, fed, and nurtured will dominate that terrain unless removed by Artillery.
The Artillery is the "King of Battle" and will remain so...
Artillery can do in one salvo what a squad can not in a year. Enemy own the hilltop Remove the top ten meters and they do not.
What is combat ineffective now for a unit 10% 25% KIAComment
-
I agree that firepower in the form of artillery, tanks, aircraft or whatever is of vital importance on the modern (or any) battlefield, but it still takes boots on the ground to get the job done.If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives.
Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect"
Mors ante pudoremComment
-
I understand what you're saying but I do have some level of disagreement. Back then they didn't always carry less gear or ammo and I fully understand that once the military makes one thing lighter they give you more crap to carry so the weight ends up being the same.Originally posted by waiting4something View Post
When my father went to Vietnam to the time that I was in the Reserves, we carried about the same weight of gear despite the decade or so of time difference. I carried a pack, sleeping bag, 2 x Claymores, entrenching tool, the M60, 300-rds of ammo for it, four litres of water, 3 days worth of rations, a couple of smoke grenades, a steel helmet and a bunch of other crap I can't remember at the moment.
That was my unit, other units had different ideas of what the gunner should carry but believe me, nobody was running like a sprinter, it was a slow, tedious jog - the Army wants packhorses not racehorses and we were all foot mobile.
I'm not trying to get into a "who's got the bigger dick competition" with you but it seems that the weight of gear you're carrying was pretty much the same amount that I was carrying when I was in during the 1980s - they used to joke that if you could carry all the required gear and still run then you had obviously left something out of your kit. I understand the bitching about the overall weight carried but I still have little sympathy for bitching about the weight of a 5.56mmN compared to a 7.62mmN MGComment
-
The point of the 5.56 LMG was that the Soldier could carry twice or three times the ammunition.Originally posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
Then they added other crap so your back to carrying the same round count but at one third the effectiveness.Comment
Comment