Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Purpelia]

Given the new trend toward military use of suppressor like things do you guys think that it would be a good or a bad idea to just have them built into a rifle? Assume that the rifle is a new post 2010 design here.

[The Akasha Colony]

Decent to me and everyone i know means it's not good, but not bad.

Modern NVGs cost, apperantly, 200+ times this amount. I'm not saying it can compare favorably to something purpose built to help people kill people, but on a budget it would work so you can spend money on literally everything else

The only problem is that spending good money on night vision equipment is a fairly high priority. Because if you're limited to like 30 meters of vision, all the rest of the stuff you spent your money on is worthless when the enemy who spent more on his night vision equipment spots you a few hundred meters away and kills you before you even know he's there. Being able to see is a fairly fundamental capability, and seeing as how night takes up a significant portion of the day cycle, it is of obvious use to be able to see effectively during these periods.

It's a false economy. If you're that strapped for cash, you might as well just invest in a solid flashlight. At least you can try to blind someone with it.

In the essay The Soldier's Load by Col. S.L.A. Marshall, the author talks a great deal about how military planners consistently overestimated how much gear soldiers would need. GIs storming ashore on D-Day carried three day's rations when on the first day they ate and drank very little(likely due to all the fighting those first troops were seeing). Marines in the Pacific were carrying five to eight grenades each, when he cites the figure of only six percent or less of soldiers actually making use of the grenade. And in the war before that, troops often carried two hundred rounds each as recommended by von Moltke when outfitting his Prussians; American troops were required to be carrying that number even in quiet sectors with little fighting, with brutal results.

Are these findings corroborated elsewhere? As I understand it, giving troops more equipment actually increases mobility - more ammunition means you don't need to constantly need to go to the rear to resupply, more body armor means a soldier is harder to put out of action, night vision and similar optics means they can operate more hours of the day, etc. But I'm sure the temptation to give soldiers all the gear they could possibly need is very real.

Part of it is the soldiers themselves. Carrying lots of ammo is a psychological comfort and very often troops will take extra ammo above their assigned allotment into the field, stuffing extra magazines wherever they can find space. As has been discussed before, body armor is also a psychological force multiplier. It becomes a self-reinforcing mentality.

But the institutional part is a matter of caution, the mentality that it is better to have and not need than to not have and suddenly be caught short of ammunition in a long engagement. No one wants to be the guy who set policy as carrying only like 100 rounds and then find out that a unit happened to get into an engagement where they ran out of ammo and got wrecked because of it, even if such engagements are statistically extremely rare and the benefits of traveling more lightly are broadly useful. Or find that a unit ran out of food because they were told only a day's rations were needed but they happened to get stuck without supply for several days.

In most cases, you only need a few (or even a single notable) example of such occurrences to get policy to change, and it almost always changes upward, in favor of more gear. Because anytime anyone tries to revise it downward, [historical example] gets trotted out again.

There's always been interest in the opposite, those who push for lighter loads to extend marching distances and reduce fatigue and all that. The recent fighting in the Middle East has created a whole crop of advocates who see very lightly equipped ISIS fighters or Donbass rebels running around with a bare minimum of equipment compared to lumbering Western soldiers in heavy body armor with LBE packed to the gills with radios, magazines, grenades, batteries, canteens, and rations and turn green with envy. Hi-speed low-drag indeed.

[Fordorsia]

So considering recent events what use would infantry have in space based warfare?

As cannon fodder to retrieve the perfect specimen.

Weyland Yutani has the right policies

Weyland is a hack

[Rhodesialund]

Given the new trend toward military use of suppressor like things do you guys think that it would be a good or a bad idea to just have them built into a rifle? Assume that the rifle is a new post 2010 design here.

Kinda of a no-no depending upon the suppressor design. The optimal design would be similar to below, but the internal baffles can be unscrewed and removed from the front end of the rifle.

[Yes Im Biop]

So considering recent events what use would infantry have in space based warfare?

Meat for the grinder, or PDG's as the case may be

[Purpelia]

Given the new trend toward military use of suppressor like things do you guys think that it would be a good or a bad idea to just have them built into a rifle? Assume that the rifle is a new post 2010 design here.

Kinda of a no-no depending upon the suppressor design. The optimal design would be similar to below, but the internal baffles can be unscrewed and removed from the front end of the rifle.

Why? Will the thing fall apart before the barrel does?

[Yes Im Biop]

Kinda of a no-no depending upon the suppressor design. The optimal design would be similar to below, but the internal baffles can be unscrewed and removed from the front end of the rifle.

Why? Will the thing fall apart before the barrel does?

Get clogged if i remember right

[Purpelia]

Why? Will the thing fall apart before the barrel does?

Get clogged if i remember right

I see. Screw on it is. Does it count as part of the barrel length?

[Rhodesialund]

Kinda of a no-no depending upon the suppressor design. The optimal design would be similar to below, but the internal baffles can be unscrewed and removed from the front end of the rifle.

Why? Will the thing fall apart before the barrel does?

No, for maintenance reasons. The picture I included above is the best design because it allows for the easiest maintenance. You are gonna have your grunts clean their rifles, and you want that to be easy and simple. Not complex.

[Taihei Tengoku]

The answer to carbon buildup is regular cleaning, and newer suppressors can go longer before you need to clean it out. Integral suppressors are fine--you need to periodically break the weapon down to clean anyways.

[Puzikas]

There's also suppressors that you can quickly disassemble for cleaning.
H o w r e v o l u t i o n a r y

[Rhodesialund]

There's also suppressors that you can quickly disassemble for cleaning.
H o w r e v o l u t i o n a r y

Puz, didn't you get a Gemtech or?

[Purpelia]

My only real concern with detachables is how they would work with bayonets. So like, discuss.

[Gallia-]

Decent to me and everyone i know means it's not good, but not bad.

Modern NVGs cost, apperantly, 200+ times this amount. I'm not saying it can compare favorably to something purpose built to help people kill people, but on a budget it would work so you can spend money on literally everything else

The only problem is that spending good money on night vision equipment is a fairly high priority. Because if you're limited to like 30 meters of vision, all the rest of the stuff you spent your money on is worthless when the enemy who spent more on his night vision equipment spots you a few hundred meters away and kills you before you even know he's there. Being able to see is a fairly fundamental capability, and seeing as how night takes up a significant portion of the day cycle, it is of obvious use to be able to see effectively during these periods.

It's a false economy. If you're that strapped for cash, you might as well just invest in a solid flashlight. At least you can try to blind someone with it.

In the essay The Soldier's Load by Col. S.L.A. Marshall, the author talks a great deal about how military planners consistently overestimated how much gear soldiers would need. GIs storming ashore on D-Day carried three day's rations when on the first day they ate and drank very little(likely due to all the fighting those first troops were seeing). Marines in the Pacific were carrying five to eight grenades each, when he cites the figure of only six percent or less of soldiers actually making use of the grenade. And in the war before that, troops often carried two hundred rounds each as recommended by von Moltke when outfitting his Prussians; American troops were required to be carrying that number even in quiet sectors with little fighting, with brutal results.

Are these findings corroborated elsewhere? As I understand it, giving troops more equipment actually increases mobility - more ammunition means you don't need to constantly need to go to the rear to resupply, more body armor means a soldier is harder to put out of action, night vision and similar optics means they can operate more hours of the day, etc. But I'm sure the temptation to give soldiers all the gear they could possibly need is very real.

Part of it is the soldiers themselves. Carrying lots of ammo is a psychological comfort and very often troops will take extra ammo above their assigned allotment into the field, stuffing extra magazines wherever they can find space. As has been discussed before, body armor is also a psychological force multiplier. It becomes a self-reinforcing mentality.

But the institutional part is a matter of caution, the mentality that it is better to have and not need than to not have and suddenly be caught short of ammunition in a long engagement. No one wants to be the guy who set policy as carrying only like 100 rounds and then find out that a unit happened to get into an engagement where they ran out of ammo and got wrecked because of it, even if such engagements are statistically extremely rare and the benefits of traveling more lightly are broadly useful. Or find that a unit ran out of food because they were told only a day's rations were needed but they happened to get stuck without supply for several days.

In most cases, you only need a few (or even a single notable) example of such occurrences to get policy to change, and it almost always changes upward, in favor of more gear. Because anytime anyone tries to revise it downward, [historical example] gets trotted out again.

There's always been interest in the opposite, those who push for lighter loads to extend marching distances and reduce fatigue and all that. The recent fighting in the Middle East has created a whole crop of advocates who see very lightly equipped ISIS fighters or Donbass rebels running around with a bare minimum of equipment compared to lumbering Western soldiers in heavy body armor with LBE packed to the gills with radios, magazines, grenades, batteries, canteens, and rations and turn green with envy. Hi-speed low-drag indeed.

Rangers in Panama stuffed their rucksacks with belts and STANAGs.

Turns out they needed none of it and when the 7th Infantry Division showed up, they started telling them horror stories of how dangerous and bad the jungle was. Followed by swapping suspiciously unfired full magazines and belts for Skoal cans. Prior to that the Rangers resorted to sharing dip between each other, which is basically kissing, which is gay. Later, the 7th ID got twitchy when a sentry negligently discharged his rifle and a barrage of firepower from a light infantry battalion ripped through the jungle around the Rio Hata. Then the QRF showed up, which was probably a brigade, blasting all gats at the imaginary South American Nazi Army.

3d BN, 75th Rangers was in stitches inside the perimeter. Sides split wide open because they knew exactly what had happened.

True story.

My only real concern with detachables is how they would work with bayonets. So like, discuss.

Watch the USMC.

[Yes Im Biop]

My only real concern with detachables is how they would work with bayonets. So like, discuss.

Just clean it to get the gore out

[Purpelia]

My only real concern with detachables is how they would work with bayonets. So like, discuss.

Just clean it to get the gore out

That's not the problem. You are not going to be sticking the muzzle end into people. The problem I envision is that potentially the joint that holds the thing in place will not withstand being bent and twisted as you stab. I mean these things are basically screwed on to the end of the muzzle. And than you stick a bayonet on top of them like you would on top of the muzzle. So that connecting point is a potential point of failure.

[Yes Im Biop]

Just clean it to get the gore out

That's not the problem. You are not going to be sticking the muzzle end into people. The problem I envision is that potentially the joint that holds the thing in place will not withstand being bent and twisted as you stab. I mean these things are basically screwed on to the end of the muzzle. And than you stick a bayonet on top of them like you would on top of the muzzle. So that connecting point is a potential point of failure.

Eh, if it does, you now still have a perfectly working rifle that happens to be loud

[Purpelia]

That's not the problem. You are not going to be sticking the muzzle end into people. The problem I envision is that potentially the joint that holds the thing in place will not withstand being bent and twisted as you stab. I mean these things are basically screwed on to the end of the muzzle. And than you stick a bayonet on top of them like you would on top of the muzzle. So that connecting point is a potential point of failure.

Eh, if it does, you now still have a perfectly working rifle that happens to be loud

No, you don't. You have a rifle with a bent or broken thing sticking off it potentially obstructing the muzzle. I don't know anything about firearms but even I know that you are not supposed to put anything in front of the shooty end.

[Kazarogkai]

All this talk about costs of an individual soldier and not thinking about pensions, retirement packages, benefits, insurance, Federal Banking institutions set up for the enlisted and enlisted's family, etc etc...

I don't really worry about most of these things thankfully. When we did have an army of semi-professional conscripts it was before most of those things would be relevant(early modern period). The best you could hope for in that case was your "rewards", a combination lump sum of cash and a bit of extra land for your clan. In the modern period we have universal conscription as such we lack a need for such incentives.

[Yes Im Biop]

Eh, if it does, you now still have a perfectly working rifle that happens to be loud

No, you don't. You have a rifle with a bent or broken thing sticking off it potentially obstructing the muzzle. I don't know anything about firearms but even I know that you are not supposed to put anything in front of the shooty end.

yeah but you can remove the suppressor, even if you have to break it more

[Purpelia]

No, you don't. You have a rifle with a bent or broken thing sticking off it potentially obstructing the muzzle. I don't know anything about firearms but even I know that you are not supposed to put anything in front of the shooty end.

yeah but you can remove the suppressor, even if you have to break it more

Maybe? Or maybe you've broken it in such a way that it's now mechanically stuck to the barrel and you need to spend time ripping it off with tools. Or maybe you've done something to the threaded end of the barrel it self and now it's ever so slightly bent or deformed in which case you are holding a rifle shaped hand grenade. Or maybe the connection is infinitely more sturdy than it needs to be and my worries are wrong.

[Celitannia]

Integrated suppressors, doctrinally or mechanically, aren't something you should commit to on a service rifle just yet. At least, not until the USMC has finished its trials with them.

Edit: I've been thinking about integrated soldier systems and their dependence on battery power: Is it practical for airborne units? How would they recharge their ensemble/system/battledress?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Totally practical.

[Purpelia]

Integrated suppressors, doctrinally or mechanically, aren't something you should commit to on a service rifle just yet. At least, not until the USMC has finished its trials with them.

Edit: I've been thinking about integrated soldier systems and their dependence on battery power: Is it practical for airborne units? How would they recharge their ensemble/system/battledress?

I would imagine you could just issue some sort of recharging mechanism that connects to the local civilian electrical supply.

[Puzikas]

There's also suppressors that you can quickly disassemble for cleaning.
H o w r e v o l u t i o n a r y

Puz, didn't you get a Gemtech or?

Yah
GM22 and a YHM Phantom