The Infantryman’s Christmas List: How to Equip Our Men for Ground Combat

Discussion in 'Current & Former US Service Members' started by Viper53, Aug 10, 2017.

  1. Viper53

    Viper53 Pawpaw Staff Member

  2. Jack

    Jack Fearless Leader Staff Member

    I couldn't find the comments section, but I can guess what they were like. How that "author" got to be a Major General I have no idea, but if that's the quality of the minds at our war college then that explains so much.

    Half the stuff he suggested is already in use. Drones, rocket detection on armored vehicles, ATVs, body cameras (gopro). He's also wildly factually inaccurate. The .223 was not developed for varmint shooting. It was purpose built from the beginning to answer a request from the Army for a new lightweight assault rifle round.

    And why he arbitrarily decided the AR15 was a piece of crap I have no idea. I don't think he knows. It will fire to failure in adverse conditions more reliably than the AK47, and the AK12 by extension (that new wonderweapon the Russians have, chambered in 5.45, which is basically the same thing as .223 except that it's only a .20 cal and therefore even closer to being a varmint round). Not to mention it's lighter and inherently more accurate than any AK will ever be.

    And if he's thinking polymer case ammunition is a good idea then he needs to put down the bottle. They've been testing it, and there is a civilian company currently selling it. It's notoriously dangerous. I'm sure polymer case ammo could be made to work, but it's going to require radical change in case design, or require much stronger polymers. Either way, it's a ways off and will require purpose built cartridges and rifles.

    And giving every infantryman an ATV is insane. They have armored vehicles when they leave the base that protect them from IEDs. Where the vehicles can't go, they have helicopters to let them off and pick them up. There are very few places that an ATV can go that a hummer can't, but there are lots of places a man on foot can go that an ATV can't. They would be better off with horses and pack mules. BTW, part of Putin's Ratnik program is an exoskeleton, which is one of DARPA's focuses right now.

    What really gets me is suggesting they use digital scopes. That's all they need is one more piece of failure prone equipment that relies on batteries. I wouldn't take a 500 dollar scope into combat in the first place, and certainly not a digital one. One good bump or a hike in the rain would ruin its day. I don't even know what the advantage would be, or if he even knows what he's talking about. I'm guessing he's talking about the ones that have range finders built in. I would like to know what he proposes they do when faced with up close targets, which is more likely. Most ground troops have magnified optics as an option, and it seems like most of them opt for 1x red dots. Then there's the fact I don't know a single hunter who uses those newfangled range finder scopes. Most simply use duplex reticles. And what's wrong with good old fashioned mildots and BDCs?

    :facepalm:
     
    BadKarmaMiB and Viper53 like this.
  3. Viper53

    Viper53 Pawpaw Staff Member

    Well said.

    I took the thrust of the article to mostly mean spend more on the ground troops and less on toys. But, IMO, air superiority is crucial.
     
    Jack likes this.
  4. Jack

    Jack Fearless Leader Staff Member

    I was finally able to see the comments. I loved the ones suggesting bringing back the M1 and M14. We might as well just go back to the 1903 Springfield. Just to be on the safe side, ya know.:rolling2:

    What is needed is more autonomy, and more live fire training. Individual units need to have more say in what equipment they use and how they go about accomplishing their assignments. Tell them what needs to be done and let them pick the strategy and equipment they need to do it. That article proves one thing, and that's that only disaster can ensue when you let some egghead behind a desk dictate what equipment everyone should use. One size fits all solutions don't work, and work even less when an egghead is calling the shots.

    And they need to pay a lot more attention to the private sector. It's true that the M4 is a terrible weapon, and it's because it's the culmination of about fifty years of deeply flawed Pentagon logic. With currently available off the shelf components you can build something lighter, exponentially more accurate, and much more reliable.

    You can say the same thing for other equipment. Take the hummer for example. It's pretty terrible. An armored Toyota with a snorkel will outperform it in pretty much every category.
     

Share This Page