Ideas for Light Infanty Upgrades.

I've heard complaints over the last decade that our light infantry Army troops do not have adequate firepower to engage an enemy out around 500 yards. The Jarheads have long barreled M-16's and train out to this distance, but the M-4 carbines the Army widely uses don't seem to cut it. Without going into all the fire support artillary and air cover, and vehicle mounted weapons, what combination of light infanty (ground-pounder) weapons would work best out in the open and in close in fighting?

Some like the larger firepower of the 7.62X51 in the form of old M-14 rifles or newer AR-10's. Other say use ACOG's or better optics, increase training and stick with what they have. Others say try the newer 6.8 Grendel rounds in AR platform weapons.

As far as man-portable support, what are the best weapons to fire at these guys out at 500 yards? M2 Carl Gustav rocket launcers? 5.56mm SAW's, M-60
's. or upgraded AR's? How often are 60mm morters used on combat patrols---and are these effective in firefights in "the Stan?"

Any of you with combat experience know what the best weapons for a 9 person infanty squad on patrol would be---within reason? For the price of a 31 million F-15, 100,000 troops could be upgraded with new rifles.

 

I'm curious as to why everyone is joining the bandwagon to slam the Air Force.
Please tell me when is the last time a Navy submarine has been in combat?
Maybe the occasional tomahawk is launched, but how about an attack sub?

How long do you think troops on the ground would last without air superiority in the skies overhead?

Not long.

and why pick on the F-15?

It's an aging fighter, with many airframes approaching the end of their service life...and it's performed
well for the U.S.

The strike Eagle was used in Iraq and Afganistan.

What the military is dealing with is having to prepare for conventional warfare again...after
a decade of urban and/or close quarter asymmetrical warfare.

With Afghanistan winding down, the emphasis is being placed in the Pacific now...and ground troops trained in urban
warfare are not needed..what's needed are surface ships, carriers, and tankers to gas the carrier borne aircraft
to extend their range...even subs might come in handy for once.

Amphibious Marines are sufficient for our ground forces in the Pacific, and you could give them rubberbands and sticks and they'd come out on top I believe.

I don't think we need new rifles for the entire Army...my opinion anyway..

 

The Marines I know don't like the M4.

Marines train to shoot with iron sights to 500 yards. The army trains to shoot to 300 yards. Most of the fire fights in Afghanistan are beyond 300 yards. For the most part, Afghanies don't have any medical and cannot be trained to not use automatic fire so with bad eyesight often shoot above our troops, but there are those that are trained snipers that take their toll. I vote for the 7.62x51 for snipers but for close quarters, the M-16 is fine.

 

I don't know why I randomly chose an F-15 to make a cost comparison point---maybe because my old job years ago was to blow enemy aircraft out of the skies. I couldn't have used a sub because my brother served on one. I'm well aware of the need for combined arms and supply---but my focus here is on small arms.

 

And this is the exact problem.

In every single marksmanship course I have ever had in the Army, they train the soldiers that the maximum effective range of 300 meters. They don't shoot at any targets beyond that range either. They all range from 25 meters to 300 meters.

In the Marines, we would have laughed at that idea. There we shot at targets from 200, 300 and 500 meters for qualification. I remember having conversations about that, and having NCOs inform me that it is impossible to hit a man sized target with the M16A2 from 500 meters. He thought I was lying when I then informed him I was able to easily do it with the M16A1.

The Army does not train most Soldiers for precision, simply for blowing as many rounds downrange as possible. And far to much stress is put on rapid target acquisition and in putting rounds down range, and none at all about the proper use of the sights, and adjusting target point based on range.

This has nothing at all to do with the weapons, but how the differing branches are trained. The Army puts almost no emphasis at all on "The Basics", and real good "Basic Marksmanship". And it shows, and would show no matter what weapon they used.

Want to see how this is? Compare both services going to the range:

Army: First Sergant calls off some names, saying "Meet up here at 0430, you are going to the range tomorrow." You are at the range by 0800, and try to finish by 1200. If you fail, no biggie, just go back and shoot again (and again and again) until you get a score you like.

Marines: You are told 2-3 weeks in advance that at the beginning of the next month you are going to the range. Normally about 1-2 weeks prior your squad-platoon has a small Markmanship session, spending a few hours "snapping in" to ensure you can hold the appropriate positions for the needed amounts of time. Then on Range Week, you go and fire a string on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday you have Pre-Qualification. Finally on Thursday everybody qualifies, at the 200, 300 and 500 meter lines. If you fail, you get to go back again Friday, when no matter what you shoot on that day, you are recorded with the minimum passing score, and get to wear the "Pizza Box" for the next year.

 

You have to admit that giving a brigade new gear is worth the cost of an airplane. Yes the Airforce is an important part of the military but at the end of the day it's the infantrymen who will take and hold ground. Having good gear is as necessary as having air cover, indirect fire, armor, etc. I would love to see one less sub, 20 less F-15s, or whatever to see the infantry get new weapons, coms, and gear. I don't know where they are now but back when I was in we were lucky to have coms between squads. Training could use more funding as well. The Miles laser system sucks, and most units still have the old stuff that rarely functions. In my four years I don't think I once had a functional miles laser. Even when they do work they don't mount to the weapon right so it's off the second you move. We should be using simunitions more often. Problem there is you can't use them in machineguns, leaving me and my 240b to goto sleep on a hilltop.

Anyway point is that while all assets are valuable, the infantry are the key to battle. You can blow up anything all you want, but it's not yours until you have men on the ground holding it. That's why I agree that they should have top performance gear at all times, even if that means we lose a few planes, a sub, or whatever.

 

It's true you guys shoot farther and take qualification more seriously. 500m sounds like a nightmare. IIRC at 300m the target is about as wide as the front sight post, going out to 5 would be like firing on a spec. The machinegun range is different, we engage out to 800m IIRC. After 500m the targets become double targets though. Still with a scope (M1xx, can't remember) I could easily hit the 800m target with 1 round from my 240b. That thing is just awesome.

Anyway like you said it's different philosophy. I'm not sure how the Marines are but for the Army it's all about gaining fire superiority and flanking the enemy, or if they're way out just call for fire. You don't need to be that accurate, just keep their heads down until you get on them and deal with them.

 

laser rifles

 

The Marine Corps uses primarily M-4s now.

For ranges out to 500 yards, M-4s can still be effective, provided you're trained how to shoot. In your average light infantry platoon the following weapons can reach 500 yards.
M4 (500m range)
M240B (1800m+ range)
M249 SAW (1000m range)
SAM-R (1000m)
AT-4 (500m)

Your average patrol is probably going to have at least 3 of these systems, if not more.

The M203 and M32MGL also have ranges just under 500 yards.

To my knowledge, every active duty Infantry unit in the U.S. military issues ACOGs/RCOs to everyone.

When you go up to the company level your gonna find 60mm mortars, M2s, MK-19s, and maybe even Javelines, all of which can sneeze 500 yards.

 

Scopes are nice on Machine Guns, but I'd take my M122 tripod with a T&E any day of the week. You can absolutely snipe targets at 1000m+ if you know how to use it.

 

It is all training and confidence. The Marines train from the first time they fire on a range that they can and will hit 500 meter targets, so they do. The Army tells you that you can't reliably hit anything past 300 meters, so you can't.

Heck, at my last duty station we had a range that measured in yards, and dated to pre-World War I (was built for qualification of the M-1903 Springfield). And we actually had a 600 yard firing line. On qualification day if there was enough time and extra rounds we would let the Marines go back to the 600 yard line (550 meters) and fire off 10 rounds. And normally they fired within a couple of points of their score at 500 yards.

An interesting point of history about my old rifle range. It was ordered after a 1911 House hearing Committee on Naval Affairs, when they learned that there were no rifle ranges on the West Coast. One of the members (Congressman Thomas Butler of Pennsylvania) was slightly dumbfounded, and helped push the construction of both a Rifle Range, as well as the establishment of a Recruit Training Camp there (MCRD Mare Island operated from 1912-1923).

Thomas Butler was the father of Marine General Smedley Butler, and we used that range until the base closed in 1996 (I worked on the range from 1990-1993).

 

In fact, if you want to see what 600 yards looks like, this shot is taken from just about where the 600 yard line was at.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.0927...edKUC2xVxaKjCy1hW0xkLg&cbp=12,238.47,,0,-6.44

I really shold try and take some time to go out there one of these days and take a look at my old stomping grounds.

 

SOCOM is retofitting M-4s and M-16s for the big, heavy manstopping .458 SOCOM round. Kinda a .45 ACP on steroids.

I don't see anything from Afghanistan or Iraq stating a need for long-range rifles beyond what the squad sharpshooters carry. US snipers have ruled in both places.

Yes, we need to replace the F-15 and F/A-18. They are 60s designs fielded in the 70s. Pilotless aircraft are worth pursuing but are not proven in big-time war.

 

A few suggestions: 6.8 SPC carbines (preferably Remington ACR's or a licenced 6.8 version of the TAVOR), 7.62 SDM rifles in each squad for long range engagements, Cheytac rifles for army snipers to bridge the gap between sniper rifles and anti-material rifles, and upgrade SAWs to Mk 48 which are basically a blend between the SAW and 240B.

Instead of Carl Gustavs, I'd issue SMAWs or B-300's. And get the XM-25 into normal issue.

 

How many air superiority missions did the Air Force need to do in Afghanistan again?

Or Iraq?

 

Here you are really talking about very different weapons.

The CG is just another recoiless rifle, like the RPG-7. No real advantage here, basically the same thing as they used 60 years ago.

The B-300 is another, disposable like the old LAAW. Might as well bring that back.

The XM-25 is a grenade launcher. Good against personnel, not so good against hardened positions.

The SMAW is already in the US inventory. The Marines have used it for decades, and I have trained with it. Really a nice weapon, it not only has an 83mm rocket, but also a 9mm spotting rifle. Iron sights, as well as a variety of laser, infrared and low light sights available for it. And each Marine Rifle Company has between 8-10 SMAW teams in it already.

I have long wondered why the Army never adopted it. But with the weapon and training already in the US aresnol, this would by far be the easiest solution if you want to add more armor penetration/hardened position capability.

 

B-300 might not have been the right designation. I meant the Israeli version of the SMAW. It's a B-something.

The XM-25 doesn't have great AP, but it is meant to go around that. It doesn't matter how thick the walls of your bunker are if someone shoots a XM-25 airburst round into the firing slit.

Edit: I was right. The B-300 is the Israeli SMAW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-300

 

Javelins and TOWs are getting used a lot more to bust bunkers in Afghanistan. There really aren't any bunkers out there capable of stopping those systems. It's not a big deal to attach an anti-armor section/team to each company.

 

The topic of the thread is light infantry. They don't have the same number of Javelins or TOWs that a Mech unit would.

 

I was talking about Marine Corps Infantry BNs, which are typically considered light infantry. An entire dedicated platoon of anti-armor assets easily dispersed through the BN is a pretty solid presence. All it takes it 2 guys to man a Javelin. The B-300 doesn't provide much more than a LAW, AT-4, or SMAW in terms of range/power.

 

We're out of Iraq, and we'll be out of Afghanistan within 2 years.

The infantry may need new rifles, but to cater them specifically to situations similar to what is being experienced in Afghanistan would be imprudent.

These asymmetrical wars are winding down...and the military has largely ignored preparing for conventional war in the past decade or so...as a result our battle readiness has suffered in terms of conventional warfare.

 

The B-300 and SMAW are effectively the same.

And the SMAW does have one advantage over the others: multiple ammo types.

 

Conventional warfare lasts at most a couple weeks and most of that is handled by the Air Force and Navy. The unconventional warfare that follows lasts years and leans hard on the Army. I think the Army should be prepared for that, not the conventional fight.

Why should the Army invest in fighting an enemy tank division when a single pass by a B-1 equipped with a bombbay full of Sensor-fused Munitions could wipe out every tank in the formation?

 

I never said the Army should get new tanks, I just don't see the point in investing in rifles that can shoot behind corners
at this point...

The problem appears to be range, with the smaller .223 round, so I say bring back the M1 Garand...
or at least the round, if not the rifle.

30.06

Tried, tested and true.

 

The question is whether or not these asymmetrical wars are the future? Clearly before Iraq we were into the Cold War big ships/planes/tanks mindset too much. Our forces weren't really prepared for low-intensity dynamic COIN operations. I think we need to slip back somewhere between the two extremes.