05-24-2011, 04:35 PM
Gents,
It seems important to recognize the different types of duty positions that have been brought up in these threads. Here are some basic categories of jobs in the military land forces components:
A. Dismounted Light Infantry/Airborne/Airmobile Combat Arms Soldiers & Attachments who will seek to close with and destroy the enemy
This includes dozens of duty positions that have a role that is not what a rifleman's is. The rifleman's job is roughly: to provide direct small arms fire on enemy soldiers and equipment while closing with and destroying the enemy using fire & maneuver or direct close combat. These attached or organic combat support personnel will be right next to or somewhere in the order of movement within an Infantry Platoon, but will have duties that focus their attention on tasks other than using a carbine to individually shoot enemy soldiers. This includes combat medics, assistant gunners, radio operators, key leaders (although they usually carry what riflemen carry), anti-armor missile gunners, forward observers for managing indirect and Close Air Support assets, etc.
B. Motorized/Mechanized Infantry who dismount from vehicles and work with vehicles as their fire support elements
C. Combat Service Support Personnel (now called Sustainment): Those who would be served well with a PDW, as they are not directly seeking to locate, fix, close with, and destroy the enemy, but have crew-served weapons on their vehicles for convoy security, and traditional rifles currently for personal defense.
I think everyone would agree that the M16A2 is not a good fit for all these personnel, and many units have replaced it with the M4. I could argue in favor of an even shorter barrel for the M4 for the majority of dismounts in a Light Infantry unit who are not riflemen, and most of them would welcome that from a strictly carry/weight/profile perspective.
The argument could be made without much protest that whatever standard service weapon is good for riflemen in Light Infantry is good for riflemen in Mech Infantry, since they basically function like Light Infantry for short durations once they exit the vehicles, and shorter weapons facilitate better interoperability from vehicles as well.
The requirements for individual weapons for support personnel can be argued in both ways, since reliance on the crew-served weapons for distance is negated when they are forced from their vehicles. The M4 is a good balance currently of profile/weight and range, since most support personnel couldn't exploit the effective range of even the M4, but they could put up good resistance at maybe 100-200m with individual weapons on a good day. We could get carried away from what our primary focus should be though, and I submit that focus should be with the ground-pounders first and foremost.
Then we have to identify the different types of weapons that dismounted Infantry soldiers carry, and how they work together to achieve the maximized casualty results on enemy forces, as well as their ability to engage and defeat light-skinned vehicles.
While there are tens of thousands of soldiers currently deployed to Afghanistan, we also have to remember that they are fighting irregulars who use tactics that don't involve the logistics, vehicles, and combined arms teams of modern armies. We should be careful about forming any requirements for weapons that tailor to that situation more than others, but still keep in mind that small arms are probably not so negatively influenced by either the unconventional and conventional battlefield requirements.
Looking at the various duty positions in a dismounted Light Infantry unit, I have to come to the conclusion that there will in fact be several types of ammunition issued, and at least 2 chamberings for shoulder-fired weapons, to include machineguns. It also makes sense that some of the weapon profile requirements for a support MOS could overlap with a Combat Medic, a Forward Observer, a Radio Operator, and even some key leaders like 1st Sergeants, Company Commanders, etc. In the Infantry, I could easily be swayed with an argument to replace the sidearm with a modern PDW with a more effective cartridge as seen with the 6.5x25 CBJ.
That would create a 3-caliber system for the Infantry Platoon replacing 9mm simultaneously, leaving the other two chamberings for riflemen and machinegunners. That would be the leanest and most practical move going forward, and we have seen this approach developing in China and Russia, with the small bottle-necked PDW cartridges at least.
LRRPF52
It seems important to recognize the different types of duty positions that have been brought up in these threads. Here are some basic categories of jobs in the military land forces components:
A. Dismounted Light Infantry/Airborne/Airmobile Combat Arms Soldiers & Attachments who will seek to close with and destroy the enemy
This includes dozens of duty positions that have a role that is not what a rifleman's is. The rifleman's job is roughly: to provide direct small arms fire on enemy soldiers and equipment while closing with and destroying the enemy using fire & maneuver or direct close combat. These attached or organic combat support personnel will be right next to or somewhere in the order of movement within an Infantry Platoon, but will have duties that focus their attention on tasks other than using a carbine to individually shoot enemy soldiers. This includes combat medics, assistant gunners, radio operators, key leaders (although they usually carry what riflemen carry), anti-armor missile gunners, forward observers for managing indirect and Close Air Support assets, etc.
B. Motorized/Mechanized Infantry who dismount from vehicles and work with vehicles as their fire support elements
C. Combat Service Support Personnel (now called Sustainment): Those who would be served well with a PDW, as they are not directly seeking to locate, fix, close with, and destroy the enemy, but have crew-served weapons on their vehicles for convoy security, and traditional rifles currently for personal defense.
I think everyone would agree that the M16A2 is not a good fit for all these personnel, and many units have replaced it with the M4. I could argue in favor of an even shorter barrel for the M4 for the majority of dismounts in a Light Infantry unit who are not riflemen, and most of them would welcome that from a strictly carry/weight/profile perspective.
The argument could be made without much protest that whatever standard service weapon is good for riflemen in Light Infantry is good for riflemen in Mech Infantry, since they basically function like Light Infantry for short durations once they exit the vehicles, and shorter weapons facilitate better interoperability from vehicles as well.
The requirements for individual weapons for support personnel can be argued in both ways, since reliance on the crew-served weapons for distance is negated when they are forced from their vehicles. The M4 is a good balance currently of profile/weight and range, since most support personnel couldn't exploit the effective range of even the M4, but they could put up good resistance at maybe 100-200m with individual weapons on a good day. We could get carried away from what our primary focus should be though, and I submit that focus should be with the ground-pounders first and foremost.
Then we have to identify the different types of weapons that dismounted Infantry soldiers carry, and how they work together to achieve the maximized casualty results on enemy forces, as well as their ability to engage and defeat light-skinned vehicles.
While there are tens of thousands of soldiers currently deployed to Afghanistan, we also have to remember that they are fighting irregulars who use tactics that don't involve the logistics, vehicles, and combined arms teams of modern armies. We should be careful about forming any requirements for weapons that tailor to that situation more than others, but still keep in mind that small arms are probably not so negatively influenced by either the unconventional and conventional battlefield requirements.
Looking at the various duty positions in a dismounted Light Infantry unit, I have to come to the conclusion that there will in fact be several types of ammunition issued, and at least 2 chamberings for shoulder-fired weapons, to include machineguns. It also makes sense that some of the weapon profile requirements for a support MOS could overlap with a Combat Medic, a Forward Observer, a Radio Operator, and even some key leaders like 1st Sergeants, Company Commanders, etc. In the Infantry, I could easily be swayed with an argument to replace the sidearm with a modern PDW with a more effective cartridge as seen with the 6.5x25 CBJ.
That would create a 3-caliber system for the Infantry Platoon replacing 9mm simultaneously, leaving the other two chamberings for riflemen and machinegunners. That would be the leanest and most practical move going forward, and we have seen this approach developing in China and Russia, with the small bottle-necked PDW cartridges at least.
LRRPF52