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.

 

Modern american soldier

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by stgeorge
How can you sight one sight in for ALL ranges? The idea is a light compact "close ranged" weapon,which the M16 was supposed to be.

no im saying they dont need to swap from like 400 to battle sights.
also i would say it would be handy for up close fighting.




posted on Aug, 30 2004 @ 10:46 PM
link   
Well I know this is about American soldiers but didnt want to start a new thread just because I would like to share what a Danish soldier is equipped with, so here goes.

1st we are divided in groups with different weapons for different needs just like yours, I am currently in the royal dragoon regiment as a scout, we do reconnaissance, infiltration, scouting and extractions, to name a few we can also be used in regular combat, but our groups are small only 6 men in 1 group.

Weapons:



For the scout leader and second in command, with optical sights, and a 30 shot 5,56mm clip.



For the two drivers also optical sights and a 30 shot 5,56mm clip.



For our two light support soldiers, this LSW with optical sights, bipod and a 30 shot 5,56mm clip.



All carry a Glock 17 as sidearm contains a 17 shot clip with 9mm bullets.



An 84mm anti-tank weapon carried by one of the drivers the other carries the collie bag containing 3 rockets.



This is a fire and forget weapon used for anti tank purpose it fires an 84mm rocket, we carry as many as we need but standard is 4.

Now as for the m203 grenade launcher they are used by the squad leader and second in command.
We also use standard hand grenades called m-54, they contain about 400 grams of explosives and are very potent, and they can take down a concrete wall.
We also carry a flare gun and laser distance equipment, I mention them here as they are treated as weapons.

Now for the more basic equipment first I will list the group equipment and second the individual equipment.


Group Equipment:

Binoculars, night observation goggles, BC equipment (for detecting and measuring any bio or chemical agencies in the air, water or earth), extra rations, ammunition, water and gasoline, and not to forget camouflage nets and first aid bag.

Personal equipment:

Besides all the clothes which I am not mentioning here, but a soldier always has with him the clothes he need for the mission i.e. if its in Iraq not much is needed, but if its on Greenland you need more.
Backpack:
Sleeping bag, rations, ammunition, waterproof press (for sleeping under), rope and spikes, ABC suit, personal/toilet bag, extra boots (very important).

Basis: aka combat vest



Extra magazines, maps, compass, watch, combat knife, Swiss knife, atropine, morphine, id card, id tag, maintenance equipment for weapon and boots etc. bandages, grenades, break lights (actually not sure what you call them, but little green sticks you break and the they glow), camel bag, canteen, ABC mask, ABC gloves, water purification kit, anti chemical pills, flash light and blood plasma.

Kevlar vest and a Kevlar helmet.



Our primary vehicle a Mercedes gd.



And we drive an eagle in urban environments its a light armoured vehicle.

Now I probably forgot something but its at least the basic of our equipment you should be able to make a picture of the stuff we got.

Finally a picture of a Danish combat soldier:



Now as a scout we dont wear the helmet, but we do have it in our car in case of urban combat or trench line combat.

Bilbo

[edit on 30-8-2004 by NeonHelmet]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 12:19 AM
link   


There was a magazine article,"Soldier of the Next Millenium" I think it was called.He had a visor with imaging equi[pment on it.It was also attached to sighting equipment on the rifle.You needed no sights (except as backup). Wherever you pointed the gun,a crosshair appeared on your visor superimposed on your view or target.


The Australian Army use these. It was in heavy use during Timor. I don' think regular INF got these, just the Commandos. Correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 07:46 AM
link   
Excuse me...I just laughed at loud when I saw that picture of their "light support weapon" version of the M16. They just keep adding garbage onto it!!
Maybe these Danish soldiers should all wear dragon suits ja?

[edit on 31-8-2004 by stgeorge]

[edit on 31-8-2004 by stgeorge]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:38 AM
link   
its not an m-16, try doing some research.


world.guns.ru...

Diemaco, say it again Diemaco its a new rifle.

Bilbo

Ps: what is a dragon suit?

[edit on 31-8-2004 by NeonHelmet]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 09:57 AM
link   
By the way if you want to discuss the quality and efficiency of our new LSW, be my guest.
While I have been in NATO service with both our light machine gun and light support weapon I must say that I would take the old one any time. Only problem is our old LMG is a modified MG-42 *LOL* you probably say, but that LMG is the best to ever see the world it takes your m-60 any time in range and penetration and reliability, but my problem is you cant replace an LMG with an LSW, our support crew has 1/5th the ammunition ready and half the range. (If the LMG was mounted on a tripod or eagle)
But saying its an m-16 makes me laugh and wonder what you are doing in a weapons forum.

Bilbo



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:06 AM
link   
Not an M16? Sure looks like one no matter who makes it. M16 furniture,except for the barrel shields and vertical grip. M16 trigger group,reciever,barrel (not a heavy barrel is it?). Ejection port cover and the unbiquitous "forward assist" just in case the bolt fails to close!



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
neon i need to do this sorry but i am gona do britsh weapons.


the L85 Individual Weapon
Calibre 5.56 mm
Weight 4.98 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 785 mm
Barrel Length 518 mm
Muzzle Velocity 940 m/s
Feed 30 round magazine
Effective Range 400 m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute


L86 Light Support Weapon

Calibre 5.56 mm
Weight 6.58 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 900 mm
Barrel Length 646 mm
Muzzle Velocity 970 m/s
Feed 30 round magazine
Effective Range 1000m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 610-775 rounds per minute

One new Under slung Grenade Launcher (UGL), designed to be mounted beneath the barrel of the IW, will be issued to each fire team, replacing the Rifle Grenade General Service (RGGS) and 51mm mortar significantly reducing the ammunition load the infantry section carries, while enhancing its capabilities. The UGL will be able to fire 40mm High Explosive (HE), smoke and illuminating rounds out to a range of 350 m to destroy, obscure or indicate enemy positions.


heavy machine gun.


general purpose machine gun

minimi machine gun


the l96 sniper rifle.
well thats my lot im not going to copy the whole british army page.








[edit on 31-8-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:33 AM
link   
sadly the british soldier is given the widely know SA80


they should be given G36's




G36
Caliber: 5.56x45mm (.223 Rem)
Length (buttstock open / folded): 998 / 758 mm
Barrel length: 480 mm
Weight empty: 3.6 kg (3.3 kg G36E)
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds standard
Rate of fire: 750 rounds per minute



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard
sadly the british soldier is given the widely know SA80


they should be given G36's




G36
Caliber: 5.56x45mm (.223 Rem)
Length (buttstock open / folded): 998 / 758 mm
Barrel length: 480 mm
Weight empty: 3.6 kg (3.3 kg G36E)
Magazine capacity: 30 rounds standard
Rate of fire: 750 rounds per minute

lol
i would like an MP5 or MP7 mmm MP7



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:39 AM
link   
agreed... the SA-80 is a poor weapon in comparison to many others available.. are these used by British special forces still?

SA-80 issues



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Klepto
agreed... the SA-80 is a poor weapon in comparison to many others available.. are these used by British special forces still?

SA-80 issues

no all british use MP5's and saws and m16's mostly hecklor stuff



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
no all british use MP5's and saws and m16's mostly hecklor stuff


by ''all british'' did you mean special forces or normal troops,
in the 'news coverage' I've seen, all the troops in iraq use SA80's

The MP5 isn't the best weapon to use in Iraq is it? I would have thought a more powerful rifle would be better.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:00 AM
link   
Good I see you love statistics I will bring you some then, by the way why are you sorry? (devilwasp)

LSW



We are currently negotiating with the army to get this instead, we have it but its only for Special Forces at the moment.

Now statistics on our LSW:

The provision of a hammer forged heavy barrel, bipod and forward grip, permits very accurate and controlled fire.
The LSW is also equipped with a hydraulic buffer which reduces the rate of fire for better accuracy and control.
The LSW shares training and parts commonality with the rest of the C7 family, with benefits to the user both in training and in combat.
The LSW reduces Infantry Section logistic requirements because the LSW uses the same nature of ammunition in the same magazines, the same parts, cleaning equipment, tools and maintenance training as other
C7 Family members.

Caliber 5.56 mm
Weight ca. 6.6 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 1000 mm
Barrel Length 500 mm
Feed 30 or 200 round magazine
Effective Range 800 m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 500-700 rounds per minute

Now I really dont think you can call it an m-16 I have tried both weapons and they are not the same different shields, lock*, heavy barrel, buffer mechanism and house**
Now I am not sure what you are saying about the forward assist you dont like it?
I find it very helpful its the only jam the weapon can have and you can bypass it with the forward assist.

* Lock = the piece the weapon cant fire without, we call it a bottom piece.
** House = the piece where the trigger is located.

C7A1:

Caliber 5.56 mm
Weight ca. 4,9 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 1000 mm
Barrel Length 500 mm
Feed 30 round magazine
Effective Range 400 m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 700-900 rounds per minute

C8A2:

Caliber 5.56 mm
Weight ca. 4,4 kg (with loaded magazine and optical sight)
Length 765 mm
Barrel Length 315 mm
Feed 30 round magazine
Effective Range 300 m
Cyclic Rate of Fire 500-700 rounds per minute


Now all above weapon come with the flat top system, and light enhancing optical sights.

The C7A2 Rifle has a Flat Top upper receiver with Canadian Standard Weaver sight rail and a TRIAD I Mil Std 1913 rail at the front sight position that provides 3 additional rails permitting the use of a full range of sighting and tactical accessory options. It is equipped with a Telescoping Butt stock and a serrated rubber butt pad. A single or double rear sling loop is provided at the rear of the lower receiver for the attachment of tactical slings.
This rifle can be operated either right or left-handed without modification or reconfiguration. It has an Ambidextrous Fire Control Selector that permits either single shot or full automatic firing, a 3 round burst option is also available. The rifle also features an Ambidextrous Magazine Catch manufactured by Diemaco under license from Norgon, LLC (USA).
Optional Ambidextrous Charging Handle Latch configurations are available to suit the mission and sights deployed.
The rifle is designed and configured to be operated and maintained easily under severe military service conditions. It is fully compatible with cold weather clothing, NBC equipment/protective gear, night vision sights/devices, and simulation/training systems.
All user maintenance can be performed without tools, and all armourer maintenance can be performed at the unit level, with a minimum of special tools and gauges.

All quotes from Diemacos homepage. (The ones with dots in front)

The only resemblance is the look and some of the design parts are stolen from m-16 I am not disputing that. But over all it is a new weapon. Or a very improved version if that makes you happy.

BTW. I dig the British l85 have tried it and wow, I wish we had those. But I think you can find the answer in cost/prize.


Bilbo

[edit on 31-8-2004 by NeonHelmet]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by UK Wizard


by ''all british'' did you mean special forces or normal troops,
in the 'news coverage' I've seen, all the troops in iraq use SA80's

The MP5 isn't the best weapon to use in Iraq is it? I would have thought a more powerful rifle would be better.

yeah
its really used for up close things. other wise they'll use m4 or what ever weapon is availible and the powerful is really what the minimi and saw are for.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
Good I see you love statistics I will bring you some then, by the way why are you sorry? (devilwasp)


dont want to get into an arguement about guns.



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:26 AM
link   
what our CT use

i would show u the stats but it wont let me post both pics!

[edit on 31-8-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeonHelmet
our old LMG is a modified MG-42 *LOL*


Why laugh at the MG3? The MG42 is widely considered to be one of, if not the best, LMGs ever made. The fact that it's still used today is a testament to its quality,



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:30 PM
link   


While I have been in NATO service with both our light machine gun and light support weapon I must say that I would take the old one any time. Only problem is our old LMG is a modified MG-42 *LOL* you probably say, but that LMG is the best to ever see the world it takes your m-60 any time in range and penetration and reliability, but my problem is you cant replace an LMG with an LSW, our support crew has 1/5th the ammunition ready and half the range. (If the LMG was mounted on a tripod or eagle)


Pls dont take what i say out of context i say that i would at any time choose the mg-42



posted on Aug, 31 2004 @ 11:41 PM
link   
Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying. Thanks for clearing that up.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join