It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Combined Troop weapons

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Best Close Combat Weapons:

1. Rifle that kills reliably, first round, every time.
2. Radio that works after you drop it.
3. ROE to use 2 with impressive effects.
4. Enough grenades to keep the bad guys from seeing your movement phase. And out of where you want to go. Or short of overrun.
5. NCOs that have seen it all and so can keep everybody focused on using 1-4 in an effective manner.

Rifleman should never have to haul more into battle than they can run to thru or away from any overmatch to the above 'basics' with.

Explosive fires as an element of SUW usually implies one of three things:

A. Open field and the ability to use LAW as light artillery.
Don't go there. This ain't the bloody Civil War. If they have explosive fires in place, they probably have mines and you don't need to fight both and an infantry threat.

B. Fortified position with all it's attendant signature problems.
Use something else to blow a hole in the defenses. And pin enemy fire teams moving to cover the breaches.

C. Armor in the mix.
You'd better be in prepped positions with heavy weapons and passage denial systems to channelize into preregistered killing zones. Or just fade and let them go.

My first desire in today's MOUT fight is to get under cover and start 'making my own doors' through walls as a function of securing buildings by fire. Because if they can't see me, they can outrange me with a explosive weapons fire (and they /probably/ won't waste rounds shooting up their own hooches).

Which is important because an RPG launcher by itself weighs 15-18lbs. Any one of the projectiles for it weighs 5-10lbs.

NOBODY RUNS WITH THAT KINDA CRAP STRAPPED TO THEIR HIDE.

Nor will an RPG will ever outmuscle a TOW or indeed /any/ ATGW.

Comparitively, I can get 2 smokes and 4-6 frags or a satchel on every man in trade and let the advance-by-fire system work that way.

Since Infantry are basically only good for (say superior skill-set survivable in) the Assault and Fixed Defense 'Security' missions, where THEY get to choose the moment, axis and onset rate of _initiative_. Making them suck up huge amounts of unnecessary weight is frivolous at best.

Either drive them to the fight in weapons carriers which can support their advance or penetrate them (shock and maneuver) directly to the objective.

Or call down the lightning from above.


KPl.


P.S. Keep in mind that, in the current idiocy, we are pulling Vietnam style 'assault but don't occupy, patrol but don't own' tactical insanity for want of people-on-ground saturation. This means that Ali Baba can /throw away/ his gun/launcher and then pick up another as he goes back to his cache`.

Since we can't tell the sheep from the goats once they drop their guns and hike their skirts to run away.

How bad would you feel if your fellow insurgents demanded that you toss your super-duper tricked out mega weapon into a ditch?

Conversely, how /good/ would you feel if your weapon fell into their hands because they blew an explosive charge that dumped half a building on your walking-by head, just to get it?

Infantry are throwaway assets. Best to keep the game simple and let trained skill shine through where firepower on a radio tether cannot.




posted on Mar, 3 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
CH1466, this is not a debate on modern military doctorine (which is what you try to turn most topics into), it's a forum for ideas. Most of the greatest discoveries in modern times were based on ideas that were seen to be radical or impractical at first, but were re-hashed by forward thinking individuals into workable solutions to real problems.

Lets not shoot these people down, lets give people the opportunity to present some origional thoughts. OK, so some of these aren't too practical, but there may be the workings of something workable here. You knock the "SMG mounted under an explosive launcher" idea, but the US government has spent countless millions into the same idea with the OICW (albeit with a grenade launcher instead of an AT weapon), so I say lets not knock these suggestions, but bring them on!

[edit on 3-3-2006 by PaddyInf]



posted on Mar, 4 2006 @ 06:15 PM
link   
PaddyInf,

>>
Lets not shoot these people down, lets give people the opportunity to present some origional thoughts. OK, so some of these aren't too practical, but there may be the workings of something workable here. You knock the "SMG mounted under an explosive launcher" idea, but the US government has spent countless millions into the same idea with the OICW (albeit with a grenade launcher instead of an AT weapon), so I say lets not knock these suggestions, but bring them on!
>>

War is too expensive a knight-sport to just 'bring it on' for no cause. If people saw it as a really stupid way to trade our youth's 300,000 dollar lives for a bullet 'that will always cost 25 cents'-

www.ausa.org...

They might think twice about how easy it is to die /because/ we are not optimized for killing.

Mix a little _Once and Future King_ in with your '5th Element' and it becomes clear that the all-doing vunder-gun is nothing compared to a straight shot to the forehead by someone who doesn't care if he lives or dies.

Because he was and always will be, too stupid to think about what little he has to lose.

Or too contemptuous of equal-fight engagement to offer it up when he could leave an IED calling card in his place.

You want a 'super gun'?

You invent for me a bullet that runs on micro-tech* that can fly out of the barrel with no more noise than a bee, run 200-300m downrange _under power_ and around corners (guided). To apply a variable lethality electrostatic or toxin payload to a specific vulnerability point on a victim.

While sending me a video picture of the engagement so that I can say yay or nay before it caps his a$$.

Then you put it on a robot chassis like a toddler's first go-car. So that I don't have to be so predictable in _my_ habits as to /drive/ to where I think he is. And he KNOWS I am coming. Because he created the initial signature which got my attention.

Then we'll talk.

As is, it's obvious that man's hunter-gatherer evolution has left him with an urge to kill and no socially useful (quick release) means of sating the instinct among all the compressively 'responsible' civilized behaviors he is expected to engage in but for which 70-80% lack the brains to do more than badly.

So he 'invents' ever more nonsensical means to /look good/ while playing at a game that only a moron would be caught _dead_ in. Because there is ABSOLUTELY NO SKILL AT ALL in pulling a trigger. Or dialing a cell phone. At eithers 'common tactical engagement distances'.


KPl.


*As an example, imagine a fixed compression path mazelike construct of less than half-hair diameter feature size which literally wound down to a central venturi/turbine in taking a fuel-air mix down to a single molecule opimized stochiometrically perfect burn state. All on a 'chip' only half the size of a dime. If just two of these could power a laptop computer /for hours/ using crystalized sugar-hydrogen based fuel imbedded in the very walls (heat to release) of the turbine, imagine what a stack of them could do in a projectile whose center core was a hollow plenum with them at the center.

And NO MASS to support as a KE kill mechanism effect on the total weapon footprint, recoil, magazine loadout and carry weight problem.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Or, we could make suggestions that will still allow the government to finance the employment soldiers to use said weapons without putting the country into another economic recession.



posted on Mar, 9 2006 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ch1466
Because there is ABSOLUTELY NO SKILL AT ALL in pulling a trigger.


That might be true if shooting a target only invloved pulling a trigger. It of course does not. Untrained and even trained people have missed people in the same room at about point blank range then more people realize. Even cops which are trained to shoot and have skill at it miss something like 70 percent of the shots fired in a shootout and the average distance of a officer shootouts is close range less then 20ft

Hitting what you shoot at is not as simple as some try to make it seem. It requires skill to hit a moving or stationary target even at a close distance and a great , great deal of skill to hit a target far off.

Anyone that implies it requires NO skill to properly use a gun at even close range is wrong



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
and if he was alluding to guns you'd be totally accurate in chastising him... however he wasn't.

He was referring to aegis cruiser type weaponry cruise missiles and their ilk... which have more in common with web surfing than boots in the dirt soldiering.

And his point was inherently valid...



posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 12:22 PM
link   
inherently valid??

So you think working some of the most advanced weapons systems in the world dont require any skill


At least with a gun a average person could figure out the jist of the basic concept of how to use it by himself. The same is not true for a cruise missile.

Its so much more then pushing a button its not even funny.

Picking targets, choosing the best flight route to avoid detection and counter measures, coordinating attacks, which type of warhead, to use so on and so on.

I really dont know where people get this over simplified version of how these weapons are used from.

If you simplified the action of shooting down a enemy plane in a dogfight into "pulling the trigger". Yeah it might seem like it dont require any skill to shoot down a Mig-29 in F-16.

The truth however is far from that



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Is there any other country that will be issued the OICW/AICW?



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 03:47 PM
link   
Most likely not.
Since they're:
1)expensive
2)heavy
3)bulky
4)overtly complicated



posted on Apr, 18 2006 @ 04:41 PM
link   
...and most importantly:

5)NOONE uses them because both systems are prototypes



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Browno
It would have to be fitted in the 'Sten' fashion underneath the RPG/Anti tank weapon.

There is another version of the RPG 7 but with a longer barrel so it would be easier to fit the MAC 10/PDW or a UZI in front of the trigger housing.

A Sterling SMG could be useful for this since it has a side fed magazine

[edit on 3-3-2006 by Browno]


Ive found it, Its the RPG16

world.guns.ru...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join