Iceman_ABN
04-10-2002, 06:18 AM
INFANTRY: Insufficient Firepower in Afghanistan
April 9, 2002; Once more, there are complaints from the front about inadequate infantry weapons. Every American war seems to have problems like this. In the Spanish American War it was underpowered pistols. World War I it was the CSRG automatic rifle. In World War II there were several dubious weapons and in Vietnam it was the early models of the M-16 rifle. In Afghanistan there have been problems with the stopping power of the 5.56mm fired from the M-4 rifle. The M-4 is basically an M-16 with a shorter barrel. This means a slower bullet. This is made worse by the lightweight (62 grain) bullet. Not only is the M-4 bullet less likely to knock down enemy troops (especially determined ones), but it would not go through many barriers (like stout doors or thin walls). Some troops have tried to get a 77 grain bullet with a larger propellant load whenever they can. While this is not much better a hurting enemy troops, it does a better job of going through barriers. The new 9mm pistol (that replaced the century old .45, or 11mm, design) has proved unreliable and it's bullet much less effective in knocking down (and keeping down) enemy troops. This is the first combat workout for both these weapons. While the 9mm round has been in combat for nearly a century, it pales in comparison to the old Army .45 caliber pistol. The "45" was first introduced a century ago to stop Moslem fanatics in the Philippines.
March 26, 2002; The Royal Nepalese Army has chosen the German G36E 5.56mm rifle to replace its AK47s, FN-FALs, and Israeli Galils. Nepal will buy about 65,000 of these rifles; it has 45,000 troops but is expanding this to 55,000; the other rifles will go to police special tactical units.--Stephen V Cole
March 22, 2002; Like a page from Robert Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel, the US Army awarded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a five-year, $50 million dollar grant to develop a new armored uniform that can morph to improve camouflage, stiffen to provide splints for broken limbs and store energy that can be tapped later to increase the wearer's strength. On 13 March, MIT said it is up to the task of designing such an armored uniform, which could detect threats and protect soldiers against projectiles and biological or chemical weapons.
The average American foot soldier in Afghanistan carries around 140 pounds (64 kilograms) of body armor and equipment into battle. In December 2001, US Army command decided that they wanted to lighten this burden by redesigning the equipment from the atomic scale up. Ned Thomas of MIT's Department of Materials Science told the press that many existing nanotechnologies already had the potential to be scaled up into full suits of armor. - Adam Geibel
March 15, 2002; The deadliest form of warfare for infantry is fighting in built up areas. Think cities and towns, although a large industrial plant, a compact village or a shopping mall would also qualify. There are plenty of places for the enemy to hide and everything is up close and deadly. Out in the open, you have time and space that gives you time to think and react with more care and preparation. Not so in built up areas. Everything happens fast and in your face. The smallest mistake can quickly kill you. During the last decade of the Cold War, it was noticed that much of the potential battlefield in Central Europe was built up areas, and that a lot of fighting was likely to take place there. So for the past two decades, a lot of work has gone into making urban warfare easier for our troops.
Out of all this has come several areas that need attention. First is communications, especially for the individual troops. Experiments were made with off the shelf radios that allowed all members of a squad to talk to each other and their squad leader. This improved matters enormously. Next came reconnaissance, which was addressed with the development of remote control ground and air vehicles. The former look like miniature tanks, or very rugged (and odd looking) wheeled toys. In the air, there have been some really small remote controlled aircraft, which carry cameras. Perhaps equally useful is plugging the troops on the ground into the video feed from the larger recon aircraft, or even satellites. That's another discovery made over the last decade; information on what's happening at the front often doesn't get to the guys who are doing the fighting. Sure, the recon aircraft and satellites can see all sorts of stuff, but it often goes back to the CIA or the Pentagon and never makes it to the battle zone in time to do any good. So no everyone is now preaching "real time reconnaissance for the troops." Tests of the concept have proven highly successful, so there's hope that in a real city fight, the combat troops will get the battlefield information first.
And then there's the matter of access. When the anti-tank rocket launcher (bazooka) was introduced during World War II, the troops quickly adapted it for street fighting. Not just for shooting at tanks, but for blasting enemy infantry out of buildings. Combat engineers, and all the explosives they had, found themselves very popular. The engineers could use the explosives to create new entrances into buildings, or brings structures down. Over the decades it was realized that the infantry needed a special bazooka for fighting people in buildings (rather than armored vehicles), and training with explosives so they could quickly create additional entrances into buildings.
Finally, there is the benefits of having some friends among the locals. This bestows many advantages. It gives you someone to warn the civilians to get out of the way in their own language. A local guide may be able to negotiate with the locals for more cooperation, to the detriment of the enemy. This can lead to more information on where the enemy troops are, how their defenses are set up and, perhaps, and inside track on getting the enemy troops to surrender.
More...
Discussion Boards
The Latest Comment On This Topic:
From: Dr. Know 4/10/2002 1:41:47 AM
Subject: RE:Woman in the infantry?
All I have to say about this post is "AMEN" "AMEN" and "AMEN" again. I don't know why the hell "Feminazies" are always demanding that women be sent into combat... Except for the fact that they're obviously crazy. [But everybody already knew that.]
http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTINF.HTM
April 9, 2002; Once more, there are complaints from the front about inadequate infantry weapons. Every American war seems to have problems like this. In the Spanish American War it was underpowered pistols. World War I it was the CSRG automatic rifle. In World War II there were several dubious weapons and in Vietnam it was the early models of the M-16 rifle. In Afghanistan there have been problems with the stopping power of the 5.56mm fired from the M-4 rifle. The M-4 is basically an M-16 with a shorter barrel. This means a slower bullet. This is made worse by the lightweight (62 grain) bullet. Not only is the M-4 bullet less likely to knock down enemy troops (especially determined ones), but it would not go through many barriers (like stout doors or thin walls). Some troops have tried to get a 77 grain bullet with a larger propellant load whenever they can. While this is not much better a hurting enemy troops, it does a better job of going through barriers. The new 9mm pistol (that replaced the century old .45, or 11mm, design) has proved unreliable and it's bullet much less effective in knocking down (and keeping down) enemy troops. This is the first combat workout for both these weapons. While the 9mm round has been in combat for nearly a century, it pales in comparison to the old Army .45 caliber pistol. The "45" was first introduced a century ago to stop Moslem fanatics in the Philippines.
March 26, 2002; The Royal Nepalese Army has chosen the German G36E 5.56mm rifle to replace its AK47s, FN-FALs, and Israeli Galils. Nepal will buy about 65,000 of these rifles; it has 45,000 troops but is expanding this to 55,000; the other rifles will go to police special tactical units.--Stephen V Cole
March 22, 2002; Like a page from Robert Heinlein's classic sci-fi novel, the US Army awarded the Massachusetts Institute of Technology a five-year, $50 million dollar grant to develop a new armored uniform that can morph to improve camouflage, stiffen to provide splints for broken limbs and store energy that can be tapped later to increase the wearer's strength. On 13 March, MIT said it is up to the task of designing such an armored uniform, which could detect threats and protect soldiers against projectiles and biological or chemical weapons.
The average American foot soldier in Afghanistan carries around 140 pounds (64 kilograms) of body armor and equipment into battle. In December 2001, US Army command decided that they wanted to lighten this burden by redesigning the equipment from the atomic scale up. Ned Thomas of MIT's Department of Materials Science told the press that many existing nanotechnologies already had the potential to be scaled up into full suits of armor. - Adam Geibel
March 15, 2002; The deadliest form of warfare for infantry is fighting in built up areas. Think cities and towns, although a large industrial plant, a compact village or a shopping mall would also qualify. There are plenty of places for the enemy to hide and everything is up close and deadly. Out in the open, you have time and space that gives you time to think and react with more care and preparation. Not so in built up areas. Everything happens fast and in your face. The smallest mistake can quickly kill you. During the last decade of the Cold War, it was noticed that much of the potential battlefield in Central Europe was built up areas, and that a lot of fighting was likely to take place there. So for the past two decades, a lot of work has gone into making urban warfare easier for our troops.
Out of all this has come several areas that need attention. First is communications, especially for the individual troops. Experiments were made with off the shelf radios that allowed all members of a squad to talk to each other and their squad leader. This improved matters enormously. Next came reconnaissance, which was addressed with the development of remote control ground and air vehicles. The former look like miniature tanks, or very rugged (and odd looking) wheeled toys. In the air, there have been some really small remote controlled aircraft, which carry cameras. Perhaps equally useful is plugging the troops on the ground into the video feed from the larger recon aircraft, or even satellites. That's another discovery made over the last decade; information on what's happening at the front often doesn't get to the guys who are doing the fighting. Sure, the recon aircraft and satellites can see all sorts of stuff, but it often goes back to the CIA or the Pentagon and never makes it to the battle zone in time to do any good. So no everyone is now preaching "real time reconnaissance for the troops." Tests of the concept have proven highly successful, so there's hope that in a real city fight, the combat troops will get the battlefield information first.
And then there's the matter of access. When the anti-tank rocket launcher (bazooka) was introduced during World War II, the troops quickly adapted it for street fighting. Not just for shooting at tanks, but for blasting enemy infantry out of buildings. Combat engineers, and all the explosives they had, found themselves very popular. The engineers could use the explosives to create new entrances into buildings, or brings structures down. Over the decades it was realized that the infantry needed a special bazooka for fighting people in buildings (rather than armored vehicles), and training with explosives so they could quickly create additional entrances into buildings.
Finally, there is the benefits of having some friends among the locals. This bestows many advantages. It gives you someone to warn the civilians to get out of the way in their own language. A local guide may be able to negotiate with the locals for more cooperation, to the detriment of the enemy. This can lead to more information on where the enemy troops are, how their defenses are set up and, perhaps, and inside track on getting the enemy troops to surrender.
More...
Discussion Boards
The Latest Comment On This Topic:
From: Dr. Know 4/10/2002 1:41:47 AM
Subject: RE:Woman in the infantry?
All I have to say about this post is "AMEN" "AMEN" and "AMEN" again. I don't know why the hell "Feminazies" are always demanding that women be sent into combat... Except for the fact that they're obviously crazy. [But everybody already knew that.]
http://strategypage.com/fyeo/howtomakewar/default.asp?target=HTINF.HTM