Daysack / webbing / Armour - Are we getting overloaded?

[trellheim]

What seriously ? can that 5.56mm LMG pump out enough power to do that . Assuming its a mech dismount and advance to contact with no outside support. Is the GPMG not a Direct fire weapon though in the light role ?
or are we talking about mortars

[apod]

Belt fed weapons AND light mortars.
Anybody who has read the Project payne presentation knows that the case has been well made against having so many different types of ammo and the scales carried due to the burden placed on the individual soldier.
The USMC went back to suppression by accurate fire a few years back and got rid of the belt fed SAW at section level and replaced it with a magazine fed HK416 variant the IAR. IBS Brecon is now teaching the same doctrine and so this review ties in with that.

[trellheim]

okeydokey, interesting. So still 5.56 ? I thought it was by-and-large not enough for decent surpression and that was why the GPMG was retained.

Fully take the point about ammo scales though after 30 years Infantry !

[ropebag]

i'm still deeply cynical about this stuff - IBS (or ITC as they then were..) were peddling this line while the L85/L86 was being introduced in the 1980's, everyone went over to suppression and destruction by accurate fire and then GW1 happened and every armoury in the UK and Germany got stripped of GPMG and distributed down to Pln or Section level, as soon as that little unpleasentness was got rid of we went back to the proper way of doing things, then Bosnia happened and the GPMG's got dug out again, then back to proper soldiering, then Kosovo, then back to proper soldiering, then Afghanistan and Iraq, and now they are out of the way we can go back to how IBS tell us is the proper way to fight...

one is reminded of the apochraphal tale of the Guards RSM who, on the 12 November 1918 said, 'well, now thats over, we can get back to some proper soldiering...'

if i were you, i'd take this stuff with a bucketful of salt. i know we do...

[paul g]

I thought that under army 2020 infantry companies are going to three rifle platoons, (2 regular 1 reserve) and a manoeuvre support platoon with 6 gmpg.

Makes perfect sense, Afghanistan is the exception, every other conflict since 1991 have been fought in urban areas and there suppression by accuracy is all important.

[trellheim]

suppression by accuracy

so we are on the same page, whats your definition of that - sounds to me like shots to the face ?

[DeV]

Wasn't that why the SLR didn't have auto?

[apod]

Apparantly IBS is teaching the use of "Watch and shoot" as a fire order after the initial firefight has been won(open to correction from our BA members here) as opposed to the FSG just firing away(The enemy may have been taken out with initial return of fire)so why waste ammo?Liken this to having 2 Points of fire as opposed to one and a FSG.By reducing the amount of ammo fired you reduce the amount that needs to be carried and you reduce the resup burden on the CS.

As an aside I was looking at a video of the current cadet class doing SIA today.Not a daysack in sight on the final assault! Looks like this thread has come full circle.

[Bam Bam]

Where did they drop the daysacks. FSG? or left in the cars?

[apod]

Where did they drop the daysacks. FSG? or left in the cars?

With the depth security at the FAL. Less stuff for the FSG to drag with them and only a short distance for the flank security to bring them up on reorg.
Having said that if they had gators following behind with the CS's group they may have left them behind with him/her if doing a deliberate attack.

[Bam Bam]

Not a lot of savings ditching them at the FAL, practically finished at that stage. Unless Reorg-ing at the FAL instead of the OBJ.

[SwiftandSure]

Watch and Shoot after winning the firefight was used back in my day. Is it really a new concept? Unless it changed and changed back? It featured in most range practices too.

While I see the merit in the less ammo argument, I do think that by and large, Western armies have often had the tactical advantage in recent conflicts where they enjoy numerical, technological and air superiority in COIN operations generally against AK wielding no-hopers in flipflops. Would the precision suppression concept really help in the conventional warfare context where there is more parity between opposing forces?

[DeV]

Watch and Shoot after winning the firefight was used back in my day. Is it really a new concept? Unless it changed and changed back? It featured in most range practices too.

Yes & no - you don't want to give them the opportunity to raise their heads

While I see the merit in the less ammo argument, I do think that by and large, Western armies have often had the tactical advantage in recent conflicts where they enjoy numerical, technological and air superiority in COIN operations generally against AK wielding no-hopers in flipflops. Would the precision suppression concept really help in the conventional warfare context where there is more parity between opposing forces?

Yet even when it is advance to contact it's an "ambush"

The precision concept is more likely to work in the Afghanistan type environment IMHO, single accurate rifle shots are possibly going to be quicker, more effective, more efficient, cheaper and more economical than 15,000 rounds, 2 Javelins and a JDAM from a coy against 5 guys with AKs and RPGs

[trellheim]

oh for fk sake.

------------

APOD that is interesting. I'm not entirely sure what goal IBS are aiming at. What else have they got ? A ton of CBA

[Flamingo]

The precision concept is more likely to work in the Afghanistan type environment IMHO, single accurate rifle shots are possibly going to be quicker, more effective, more efficient, cheaper and more economical than 15,000 rounds, 2 Javelins and a JDAM from a coy against 5 guys with AKs and RPGs

To quote Field Marshal Slim (to my mind, the best Allied commander of WW2), "There is nothing wrong with using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if you have a sledgehammer and you don't care what the nut looks like afterwards"...