Firepower -vs- Mobility--a Study in Compromise...

[Volpone]

The big challenge facing the warfighter is that everything is a tradeoff. The more survivable a vehicle is, the less maneuverable it is. The more lethal a weapons system is, the heavier it is. The more protection a vest gives you, the more it tires you out to wear it.

Starting around 2003, the US military has been moving towards heavier is better. Threats of sniper fire and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) have pushed both the Army and the Marines to come up with heavier ballistic vests that cover more of the body and Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicles.

Well, as things have been stabilizing in Iraq and the focus is shifting more and more to Afghanistan, the "heavier is better" philosophy is breaking down. An MRAP is no useless if it can't traverse narrow, steep mountain trails. And more protection from a vest doesn't help you if it makes you too exhausted to function.

So the Marines have been shifting back towards increased mobility. Not only have they fielded the scalable plate carrier as an alternative to the new, bulky vest, now they are looking at ditching the M249 SAW in favor of a lighter automatic weapon.

The thinking is, it is better to have your automatic rifleman carrying a 10 pound gun with, say, a 30 round clip, than to have him lugging a 17 pound gun with a 100 round belt. It will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

(It should be noted that the Marines went the other way on medium machineguns. Back in the 1990s they were the first to ditch the old M60 in favor of the heavier, more reliable M240G.)

 

[shootER]

(It should be noted that the Marines went the other way on medium machineguns. Back in the 1990s they were the first to ditch the old M60 in favor of the heavier, more reliable M240G.)

I was in favor of that the first time I ever handled an M60. The M240 has been used in US tanks since the late 70s and is a far, far better weapon than the M60 (though there are old timers who swear by the -60).

The ease of maintenance alone makes the Belgian weapon superior IMHO (field-stripping an M60 is a royal pain in the ass compared to the -240).

 

[Volpone]

I've never fired or maintained an M60 (granted I had limited experience with the M240 and that was firing blanks almost exclusively), but I remember seeing a SEAL team member firing one offhand. Yeah he was a big boy, but I doubt you could fire an M240 while standing and I do know it's a pain in the ass to employ while moving (on foot).

And on the other end of the spectrum, I saw a female 2nd Lt carry an M240 on a hump. It was a little comical and I wish I had pictures. She was Japanese, maybe weighed 100 pounds, and the damned thing was almost as tall as her. At least they didn't make her carry the ammo. :lol:

 

[shootER]

I've never fired or maintained an M60 (granted I had limited experience with the M240 and that was firing blanks almost exclusively), but I remember seeing a SEAL team member firing one offhand. Yeah he was a big boy, but I doubt you could fire an M240 while standing and I do know it's a pain in the ass to employ while moving (on foot).

I only dealt with M60s for familarization (when I was in a cavalry unit and that's what the scouts used), but it was enough. Way too complicated.

Before the Army started adopting the grunt version of the M240, I always wanted to get some FN MAG furniture to keep on the tank. That way, if we went to war and had to abandon the tank, we could install the buttstock, pistol grip and foregrip and have some more mobile firepower. :ramen:

 

[Volpone]

This is one of the things the Marines do that is very smart.

They simplify everything to make the logistics as painless as possible. Rather than have the M60 and the M240, they only have the one. That way you only need one set of parts and your armorers don't need to know two different MMGs. That's partly why we still fly Cobras and Hueys too. The Cobra was originally a heavily modified Huey and if you look at them still, pretty much everything behind the main rotor looks identical. So you only need one set of parts for your powertrain (and maybe much of your electronics). And any mechanic that can keep a Cobra running can also keep a Huey in the air.

 

[Sadistic Bastard]

An interesting note:

During the Soviet invasion, the BEST vehicle for the Afghanistan canyons and area was the ZSU-23-4. Originally an AAA carrier, it was lightly armored, but had four 23mm cannon AND (most importantly), could elevate those guns to past vertical. The Russians continued to use them in mountainous areas of Chechnya too.

Light works in mobile warfare.

The problem is that the USA has become SO sensitive to casualties that there is no "acceptable" figure, hence the emphasis on "heavy".

Look at Mogadishu (as popularized by "Blackhawk Down"). The high-value prisoners that the task-group was sent in to get were evacuated, and we lost about...mmm...20 men (?) and 3 helicopters. In returned Somali casualties were estimated to be as high as 15,000, and caused the warlords to expend ammo and material that they couldn't easily replace. I say we won that one.

"Light" means less armor, higher casualties, but there is a "rate of exchange" that one has to look at. "Battle by remote" is a great idea, NO casualties, but is that a reality of war?

-SB

 

[Volpone]

And then Bubba threw away everything gained to that point in Somalia because he had no stomach for any American casualties.

As far as "battle by remote", dunno about YouTube, but I've seen more than one gun camera video of a Predator, frying Bad Guys. Robots are already in use in Iraq in a number of capacities, and they're moving along smartly on R&D of ones equipped with weaponry.

RISE OF THE MACHINES!

 

[Sadistic Bastard]

S.W.O.R.D

-SB

 

[Ancalagon]

Mobility Infantry FTW.

(Thats not me.)

 

[Ancalagon]

Obviously I like the happy medium. A Stryker with slat armor is going to be able to take most of anything an insurgent is going to throw at it. Each time the BC gives us a pep talk, the chances of us changing from Iraq again to Afghanistan shift (if they go to Afghanistan, that will suck. I'd like a star on CIB). It'll be interesting to see how the Strykers do overthere.

Word is that the streets are too narrow for cities, and the mountains too steep. So we'll be either up on the Plateau or light. If we're light, scratch what I said about wishing I were there. FUCK Light. :/

 

[Ancalagon]

Before the Army started adopting the grunt version of the M240, I always wanted to get some FN MAG furniture to keep on the tank. That way, if we went to war and had to abandon the tank, we could install the buttstock, pistol grip and foregrip and have some more mobile firepower. :ramen:

I know a guy that had to us a freakin AK over there. He was a Cavfag over there early on. One day they said 'It's not an armor war, here's your HMMWV' but didn't bother to give an M4/M16. All he had was his M9. :lol: So they just picked up AKs and kept them stashed in the vics.

 

[shootER]

Obviously I like the happy medium. A Stryker with slat armor is going to be able to take most of anything an insurgent is going to throw at it. Each time the BC gives us a pep talk, the chances of us changing from Iraq again to Afghanistan shift (if they go to Afghanistan, that will suck. I'd like a star on CIB). It'll be interesting to see how the Strykers do overthere.

There are obvious places that they can't (or shouldn't) go, but as long as they're employed correctly, they'll do fine.

The Canadians are using Leopard IIs over there just fine.

 

[Ancalagon]

There are obvious places that they can't (or shouldn't) go, but as long as they're employed correctly, they'll do fine.

The Canadians are using Leopard IIs over there just fine.

Where are they though? I don't know about Canada specifically, but most ISAF troops are in Northern and Western Afghanistan, which will safer, is also flatter IIRC.

 

[shootER]

Cool... so you gotten over your Stryker hate yet?

I've never "hated" them. From the beginning (way before you ever thought about joining the Army) I thought they were an interesting vehicle that could prove useful if employed properly.

 

[Volpone]

I haven't been to Afghanistan. And I'm not combat arms. But I am a smart guy who sees things at a big picture level. And the thing that strikes me about Afghanistan is that it is really the fucking Dark Ages. You want to understand what Afghanistan is about? Read about life in 675AD. You've got a very basic feudal culture and the only thing they hate more than the tribe living in the next valley is outsiders. Give them Royal, Soviet, or American soldiers and they will stop killing each other long enough to kill the outsiders. After they've done that they'll get back to killing each other.

I really don't know what we'll do there. Iraq has a radically different culture than us, but Afghanistan is completely alien. I don't understand what we can do to "win hearts and minds", so I don't understand what we can even accomplish there. :S: