Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Free-Don]

-snip-

My military is formed into two parts the independent militias that tend to roam around attacking each other and raiding each other's villages and towns and the professional standing nationalists that stop everyone from killing each other. Motorcycles and tricycles (it's funny that the filipino government's webpage mentions lacking food, fuel and resources as well as the possibility of getting kidnapped or robbed) are cheaper to maintain, can be more fuel efficient, and are supposed to be used for light patrols within the interior regions of my nation. Not necessarily a combat vehicles but as duty or utility vehicles and this applies to horses as well as many villages and bases are built in the mountainous regions and flood plains that have thin roads or really loose dirt roads.

[Allanea]

I don't know.

I think it has something to do with being able to move faster than the tracked vehicles, operationally speaking. Given they would both have large lines of sight, light motorized troops' advantage in speed means that they have a very slightly greater freedom of movement when combined with a decent level of intelligence that tells them where heavy tracked units are. They can use roads when possible and avoid contact with the mechanized troops.

The High Technology Light Division did this with Chenowth FAVs and HMMWVs in the 1980s against OPFOR regiments in the deserts of the Mojave and apparently the Russian "superlight" brigades were able to beat mechanized BMP/BTR mounted troops in desert/steppe terrain. Of course there is also the Toyota War, where the Chadians had superior battlefield intelligence to the Libyans and were able to outmaneuver them and attacked only when they could reasonably win. In close terrain like Europe and cities, armour protection and heavy firepower still wins the day, obviously.

As long as the light/superlight unit can avoid being pinned down, it can whittle an equivalent sized mechanized unit to destruction in open terrain. Or something like that.

There is probably some serious "but only if" type catchs, besides the artillery vulnerability of SUVs and light trucks, that is not being explained. Perhaps it only works if the motorized unit has better sensors and a better picture of the disposition of its enemies, which is easier in relatively flat and wide open terrain than close terrain. It also assumes a minimum level of technological advance over the opponent. A lot of the statements by 9th ID brigade COLs relates to stand-off distance and intelligence gathering being prime methods of survival for their motorized troops during OCTOFOIL FOCUS when fighting motor rifle regiments and tank regiments. Or perhaps it only works if you are delusional and willing to clap your hands if you believe in motorized spirit...

Libyans however were extremely incompetent however. I don't know if they count.

I also severely doubt that that motorized infantry on trucks can cover the hundreds of kilometers per day that these people claim, other than in very perfect conditions. The reason a battalion on BTRs cannot typically cover 300 km per day has nothing whatever to do with the road speed of a BTR, and of course we already have all sorts of truck-mounted military outfits and they cannot cover 300 km a day in combat conditions.

[Gallia-]

I don't know.

I think it has something to do with being able to move faster than the tracked vehicles, operationally speaking. Given they would both have large lines of sight, light motorized troops' advantage in speed means that they have a very slightly greater freedom of movement when combined with a decent level of intelligence that tells them where heavy tracked units are. They can use roads when possible and avoid contact with the mechanized troops.

The High Technology Light Division did this with Chenowth FAVs and HMMWVs in the 1980s against OPFOR regiments in the deserts of the Mojave and apparently the Russian "superlight" brigades were able to beat mechanized BMP/BTR mounted troops in desert/steppe terrain. Of course there is also the Toyota War, where the Chadians had superior battlefield intelligence to the Libyans and were able to outmaneuver them and attacked only when they could reasonably win. In close terrain like Europe and cities, armour protection and heavy firepower still wins the day, obviously.

As long as the light/superlight unit can avoid being pinned down, it can whittle an equivalent sized mechanized unit to destruction in open terrain. Or something like that.

There is probably some serious "but only if" type catchs, besides the artillery vulnerability of SUVs and light trucks, that is not being explained. Perhaps it only works if the motorized unit has better sensors and a better picture of the disposition of its enemies, which is easier in relatively flat and wide open terrain than close terrain. It also assumes a minimum level of technological advance over the opponent. A lot of the statements by 9th ID brigade COLs relates to stand-off distance and intelligence gathering being prime methods of survival for their motorized troops during OCTOFOIL FOCUS when fighting motor rifle regiments and tank regiments. Or perhaps it only works if you are delusional and willing to clap your hands if you believe in motorized spirit...

Libyans however were extremely incompetent however. I don't know if they count.

I also severely doubt that that motorized infantry on trucks can cover the hundreds of kilometers per day that these people claim, other than in very perfect conditions. The reason a battalion on BTRs cannot typically cover 300 km per day has nothing whatever to do with the road speed of a BTR, and of course we already have all sorts of truck-mounted military outfits and they cannot cover 300 km a day in combat conditions.

I think that's the point.

The metric is probably something like dollars/rubles:mile marched I guess, at the lowest. SUVs and HMMWVs are cheap even compared to Strykers/BTRs and have about the same survivability against IDF: none. The biggest driver would be cost and then maybe air transportability. I quoted the 1st Brigade commander for a reason: he sounded like a cult believer in that statement. It's probably not far from the truth.

There may be something more nuanced than that, though. Perhaps high-tech troops care less about the specifics of their vehicles? Light infantry have repelled their traditional foe, mechanized troops, with long sight lines and advanced weapons. Debecka Pass is probably similar in principle but the force was SFs with Javelins vs. tanks rather than trucks with Hellfires vs tanks. So my thinking is that the "superlight" formations are only good because of their superior intelligence gathering capabilities and the long sight lines of open terrain make traditional armour protection less valuable, because you are spotted at greater distances. Thus, size and signature become the major killers, and trucks have smaller signatures than tanks, in most spectra?

As the technological gap closes, the mechanized troops would regain the upper hand. The point of unity would tell you how inferior the motorized trucks are to tanks, ceteris paribus, for a given variable.

But that seems axiomatic.

It's probably just because trucks are cheap as hell for Russia and can be flown in by the dozens to the Middle East in C-5s for America.

[Puzikas]

I meant strategic, sorry
Easier to transport on rails
Easier to move fast on highways
Ect ect

Wheeled death truck for wheeled death truck needs

[Fordorsia]

I meant strategic, sorry
Easier to transport on rails
Easier to move fast on highways
Ect ect

Wheeled death truck for wheeled death truck needs

That truck is bad because it can't even run people over properly

[Gallia-]

I meant strategic, sorry
Easier to transport on rails
Easier to move fast on highways
Ect ect

Wheeled death truck for wheeled death truck needs

trik

[Crookfur]

I meant strategic, sorry
Easier to transport on rails
Easier to move fast on highways
Ect ect

Wheeled death truck for wheeled death truck needs

Russian mega truck SUVs are the biz. I totally didn't trace one for my horrid hummer/stalwart replacement/MRAP type thingy.

[Puzikas]

Sooper SUVs aside I'm sure you've all seen the speculation that the US will be ditching 5.56x45mm, and the M4, for a more powerful Infantry cartridge.

I think this is probably overhyped fever dream that brought those full bore/Full power fans out from the woodwork again after they had been throughly beat upside the head with facts and figures. We know that 5.56x45mm remains effective terminally and issues that it had in various theaters of combat have been addressed constantly throughout it's life. We know the Stoner/Armalight rifle design is serviceable, well insulated against foreign material and easy to clean and relatively simple to operate, and that most issues of jamming or malfunctions have been addressed (mags being the biggest, it seems). We know that the majority of infantry combat doesn't take place beyond 400 meters: indeed most of it doesn't take place further than the length of a city block, less than 140m.
As the world becomes more and more urbanized and combat increasingly takes place inside of cities and towns, so much so that many US TRAEDOC leaders and feild commanders are speculating and waxing philosophical on how modern wars will all be in urban centers, this might be the USs effort to search for a munition they do actually lack.

When Russia fought in Afghanistan, and then the first and second Chechen war, 5.45x39 and the AK-74 proved to be incapable of penetration the masonry of buildings, structures, and other solid structures. However, in their inventory was a tool that would solve this issue: the AKM and the 7.62x39mm cartridge.
The US lacks an equal to this. Without a true "heavy" cartridge like 7.62x39mm, this might be the US realizing it has a need for an infantry cartridge that is of a larger diameter than 5.56 with a heavier mass. 7.62x51mm NATO obviously offers this, but proves to be too heavy.

If the US chooses adopt a new cartridge, I'm willing to bet it uses some kind of PC technology. The ideal weight of an infantry projectile is probably not much higher than current 5.56; it's probably something like 70-80-90 grains, and the goal is for that cartridge to not exceed 16 grams.

It's possible, however, that the US already has their ideal in service in the Mk. 262 and Mk. 318.

Idk where I was going with this.

[Laritaia]

it's best not to give the .300 blackout fanboys anymore fuel

[Taihei Tengoku]

Sooper SUVs aside I'm sure you've all seen the speculation that the US will be ditching 5.56x45mm, and the M4, for a more powerful Infantry cartridge.

I think this is probably overhyped fever dream that brought those full bore/Full power fans out from the woodwork again after they had been throughly beat upside the head with facts and figures. We know that 5.56x45mm remains effective terminally and issues that it had in various theaters of combat have been addressed constantly throughout it's life. We know the Stoner/Armalight rifle design is serviceable, well insulated against foreign material and easy to clean and relatively simple to operate, and that most issues of jamming or malfunctions have been addressed (mags being the biggest, it seems). We know that the majority of infantry combat doesn't take place beyond 400 meters: indeed most of it doesn't take place further than the length of a city block, less than 140m.
As the world becomes more and more urbanized and combat increasingly takes place inside of cities and towns, so much so that many US TRAEDOC leaders and feild commanders are speculating and waxing philosophical on how modern wars will all be in urban centers, this might be the USs effort to search for a munition they do actually lack.

When Russia fought in Afghanistan, and then the first and second Chechen war, 5.45x39 and the AK-74 proved to be incapable of penetration the masonry of buildings, structures, and other solid structures. However, in their inventory was a tool that would solve this issue: the AKM and the 7.62x39mm cartridge.
The US lacks an equal to this. Without a true "heavy" cartridge like 7.62x39mm, this might be the US realizing it has a need for an infantry cartridge that is of a larger diameter than 5.56 with a heavier mass. 7.62x51mm NATO obviously offers this, but proves to be too heavy.

If the US chooses adopt a new cartridge, I'm willing to bet it uses some kind of PC technology. The ideal weight of an infantry projectile is probably not much higher than current 5.56; it's probably something like 70-80-90 grains, and the goal is for that cartridge to not exceed 16 grams.

It's possible, however, that the US already has their ideal in service in the Mk. 262 and Mk. 318.

Idk where I was going with this.

How much of this is just using 7N6, the M193 of 5.45, vice the newer AP rounds?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

it's best not to give the .300 blackout fanboys anymore fuel

the kinds of people who like shitty meme calibers are also the kind who don't need excuses to post about it.

[Puzikas]

Sooper SUVs aside I'm sure you've all seen the speculation that the US will be ditching 5.56x45mm, and the M4, for a more powerful Infantry cartridge.

I think this is probably overhyped fever dream that brought those full bore/Full power fans out from the woodwork again after they had been throughly beat upside the head with facts and figures. We know that 5.56x45mm remains effective terminally and issues that it had in various theaters of combat have been addressed constantly throughout it's life. We know the Stoner/Armalight rifle design is serviceable, well insulated against foreign material and easy to clean and relatively simple to operate, and that most issues of jamming or malfunctions have been addressed (mags being the biggest, it seems). We know that the majority of infantry combat doesn't take place beyond 400 meters: indeed most of it doesn't take place further than the length of a city block, less than 140m.
As the world becomes more and more urbanized and combat increasingly takes place inside of cities and towns, so much so that many US TRAEDOC leaders and feild commanders are speculating and waxing philosophical on how modern wars will all be in urban centers, this might be the USs effort to search for a munition they do actually lack.

When Russia fought in Afghanistan, and then the first and second Chechen war, 5.45x39 and the AK-74 proved to be incapable of penetration the masonry of buildings, structures, and other solid structures. However, in their inventory was a tool that would solve this issue: the AKM and the 7.62x39mm cartridge.
The US lacks an equal to this. Without a true "heavy" cartridge like 7.62x39mm, this might be the US realizing it has a need for an infantry cartridge that is of a larger diameter than 5.56 with a heavier mass. 7.62x51mm NATO obviously offers this, but proves to be too heavy.

If the US chooses adopt a new cartridge, I'm willing to bet it uses some kind of PC technology. The ideal weight of an infantry projectile is probably not much higher than current 5.56; it's probably something like 70-80-90 grains, and the goal is for that cartridge to not exceed 16 grams.

It's possible, however, that the US already has their ideal in service in the Mk. 262 and Mk. 318.

Idk where I was going with this.

How much of this is just using 7N6, the M193 of 5.45, vice the newer AP rounds?

Virtually all of the Ammunition in use at the time of the first Chechen war was 7N6. 7N10 was introduced in 1992 and hadn't yet made it to the mass adoption, and 7N6M was sparsely scattered through the supply lines.
7N10 was basically intorduce enmass because of the need for the ability to penetrate the obstacles that presented themselves, but 7.62x39mm was legitimately just better at penetration and barrier defeating for a number of reasons, not the least of which was a almost vietnam-type beleif that 5.45x39mm would ricochet off branches and shit. I have no idea why since most of the troops fathers and even the troops themselves had just used the same round in Afghanistan and didn't have any issues.

it's best not to give the .300 blackout fanboys anymore fuel

I don't know what caliber you're talking about.

[Spreewerke]

Now is the time to adopt 7.92x57mm IS if there ever was a time.

[Puzikas]

Spree on point with the memes
Never missing an opportunity to shill 7.92

[Gallia-]

.30-30 forever.

[Puzikas]

US adopts levergat as primary rifle
Cutting edge of 1861 at last

[Gallia-]

Potato digger assault rifle.

s_b army irl

[Rhodesialund]

it's best not to give the .300 blackout fanboys anymore fuel

You are forgetting the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC. Although me arguing against the 6.8 would be a bit hypocritical since I did make a 7mm "Not 6.8 Meme" Kurz.

[Fordorsia]

all ford rounds are superior especially .500 short

[Rhodesialund]

all ford rounds are superior especially .500 short

[Fordorsia]

and especially .500 froodoosian

[Puzikas]

all ford rounds are superior especially .500 short

How did you get this picture of me
DELET THIS

[Theodosiya]

So, "Heavy" intermediate round. Which makes me think. Would it make sense to develop a new AR, with modular parts (Could use 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm, several barrel length [12" to 20" inch])rail (Picatinny/M-LOK/RIS/Keymod), long/short stroke action or lever/roller delayed blowback and issue it as standard issue AR? Might as well accept 7.62x39mm as SPC, in use for certain elements (Assault Engineers, amongst them), without replacing 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm.

[The Akasha Colony]

So, "Heavy" intermediate round. Which makes me think. Would it make sense to develop a new AR, with modular parts (Could use 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm, several barrel length [12" to 20" inch])rail (Picatinny/M-LOK/RIS/Keymod), long/short stroke action or lever/roller delayed blowback and issue it as standard issue AR? Might as well accept 7.62x39mm as SPC, in use for certain elements (Assault Engineers, amongst them), without replacing 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm.

No. Regular infantrymen will never use or need the caliber-switching capability, so there's no sense incorporating the mechanism into their weapons. They'll be fine with your standard round and as their rifles make up the bulk of the orders, there's no reason to put features into the entire production line that only a small handful of users (SF, etc.) will ever need.

[Rhodesialund]

So, "Heavy" intermediate round. Which makes me think. Would it make sense to develop a new AR, with modular parts (Could use 5.56x45mm and 7.62x39mm, several barrel length [12" to 20" inch])rail (Picatinny/M-LOK/RIS/Keymod), long/short stroke action or lever/roller delayed blowback and issue it as standard issue AR? Might as well accept 7.62x39mm as SPC, in use for certain elements (Assault Engineers, amongst them), without replacing 5.56x45mm or 7.62x51mm.

The debate, in my opinion, is bullcrap.

Having a hard time reaching out to Goatfucker and his friend the donkey lover with PKMs? Use a GPMG team and Designated Marksman who use 7.62x51mm chamberings. The rest of the squad is good with 5.56x45mm.

For the MG team, I'd recommend the Mk48. Had a couple of jarhead friends who tried it out and they fucking loved it over the 240. But, because this is the US Military and it's thousand pound hemophiliac bleeding pig that is procurement plus every branch wanting to be snowflakes, I'd have to shove the 240L down the Marine's throats so they don't start doing an entirely new bullshit procurement program.

Designated Marksman, stick the Marines with the M110 hand-me-downs from the Army. The Army is getting the Kekler and Kek G28, so I'd just put that into each and every squad that's dealing with long distances such as Afghanistan.