Infantry Discussion Thread part 11: Gallas Razor edition.

[Barfleur]

Atrocity footage is important because (1) it weeds out recruits who aren't willing to face the reality of war and (2) it shows the public what wars are really like. Instead we have suburban moms who are too sensitive to see the reality of war but have no problem voting to send other people's kids to fight in some forever war half the world away. I know I sound cringe af but there are some civilians I just can't stand (yes, I too am a civilian).

But none of what I said above stops me from spending my free time looking at tanks and MGs and bombers, or trying to build the biggest arms industry for my nation.

[Cisairse]

Doesn't this challenge the role of the IAR, thus fucking up supply lines?


Yeah I kinda assumed I'd be designing my own here. That's fine though it fits ICly

Cisairsean military are very NIMBYlty whenever they can overcome budget cuts.
And IMO a modern-day 7.92x57 MMG is pretty cool.

Those boxes are already going to same address so that shouldn't be problem.
Also make squads have assault team and support team instead of two balanced fire teams and give iar to assault team and mmg to support team.*nods*

Hey I like this idea

Also gives me a nice way to hand out squad-level DMRs and not fuck up the aesthetic beauty of my org chart. Which is always important

[Kassaran]

Don't put lovers in the same frontline unit. Keep your soldiers calm and collected. Not emotional and unstable. The best stories of military accolade and accomplishment come from those who methodically and systematically identified, located, isolated, prosecuted, and subsequently neutralized threats of substantial nature, before repeating the process over and over again to beyond the perceived limits of human wherewithal.

You want a strong military, give them good housing, good food, good education and competitive wages. Make your health system be effective and efficient in identifying and supporting those impacted by PTSD, as every soldier will eventually suffer this to some degree after a long campaign or particularly rough tour of duty. Those that don't report psychological trauma or doubts should be placed on a specific refresher list for up to a year after, at which point they are reviewed by a psych board and cleared for that campaign/tour. People hiding shit is going to be the core problem to units that break under pressure, not those whom actively engage with their internal fears and doubts.

You think having soldiers take their loved ones into combat zones is going to help keep cohesion in the unit? Think fucking again, it's going to stress them out, make them worry more about breaking from their assigned position to protect the living quarters of the civilian residential housing rather than manning their places in the trenches or on the barricades. Then you have others running, deserting, and retreating.

If you can't understand this, or refuse to engage with the realities of human behavior in such events or situations, go ahead and handwave it with,' but we have warrior culture' or 'our honor code does not allow this sort of behavior'. People are not ultra-hardened badasses, they are weak, fearful, malleable creatures that have to be broken and reshaped into soldiers through their initial indoctrination and training, and can lose that form in the furnaces of war and battles. They will crack, warp, and shatter under the stresses they face if they are of weak constitution and that's through no fault of their own. They at least volunteered unless you're using conscripts at which point you really shouldn't give them reasons to desert or rout. Don't have anything they are particularly attached to outside of their teammates with whom they'll pack bond anyways because that's how humans work.

[Manokan Republic]

Those boxes are already going to same address so that shouldn't be problem.
Also make squads have assault team and support team instead of two balanced fire teams and give iar to assault team and mmg to support team.*nods*

Hey I like this idea

Also gives me a nice way to hand out squad-level DMRs and not fuck up the aesthetic beauty of my org chart. Which is always important

Well a DMR in the heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, since they would share the same type of ammunition, be used at long range, be in a somewhat similiar role (DMR's are often used for suppression), and the fact both will benefit from being somewhat stationary. So a DMR tagged along side a heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, and I think the russians do this in their squad.

Perfect symmetry isn't required, but you do want your squad to be able to perform leap frog maneuvers, where one provides covering fire and the other advances, as it's the bread and butter of the modern infantry squad. The problem with such a squad, that is one revolving around a heavy machine gun, is room clearing, as the heavy machine gun team isn't going to do much during this period, and asymmetric units have more trouble breaking down in to smaller teams for these purposes. The germans in WWII ran in to a lot of problems in urban warfare and had to restructure their entire squads in order to do it, as did the Russians in many conflicts. You can either create specialized urban warfare units, or try to make it so the two alternating fireteams can operate on their own without the heavy machine gun team, and the heavy machine gun team vice versa for their specific roles. So let's say you have a 4 man machine gun team and then two 3 man fireteams, you can split the squad in to pieces for urban warfare and use 6 man teams to clear buildings with the 4 man team doing overwatch or something similiar.

[Gallia-]

Atrocity footage is important because (1) it weeds out recruits who aren't willing to face the reality of war and (2) it shows the public what wars are really like. Instead we have suburban moms who are too sensitive to see the reality of war but have no problem voting to send other people's kids to fight in some forever war half the world away.

Suburban mothers actually vote to abolish the military because the drill sergeant was too rough on their child. Lol.

Showing footage of enemy atrocities is fine. Showing footage of your own atrocities just makes the voting public upset and experience severe cognitive dissonance.

[Cisairse]

Hey I like this idea

Also gives me a nice way to hand out squad-level DMRs and not fuck up the aesthetic beauty of my org chart. Which is always important

Well a DMR in the heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, since they would share the same type of ammunition, be used at long range, be in a somewhat similiar role (DMR's are often used for suppression), and the fact both will benefit from being somewhat stationary. So a DMR tagged along side a heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, and I think the russians do this in their squad.

Perfect symmetry isn't required, but you do want your squad to be able to perform leap frog maneuvers, where one provides covering fire and the other advances, as it's the bread and butter of the modern infantry squad. The problem with such a squad, that is one revolving around a heavy machine gun, is room clearing, as the heavy machine gun team isn't going to do much during this period, and asymmetric units have more trouble breaking down in to smaller teams for these purposes. The germans in WWII ran in to a lot of problems in urban warfare and had to restructure their entire squads in order to do it, as did the Russians in many conflicts. You can either create specialized urban warfare units, or try to make it so the two alternating fireteams can operate on their own without the heavy machine gun team, and the heavy machine gun team vice versa for their specific roles. So let's say you have a 4 man machine gun team and then two 3 man fireteams, you can split the squad in to pieces for urban warfare and use 6 man teams to clear buildings with the 4 man team doing overwatch or something similiar.

Would equipping my MMG gunner with a small carbine or PDW alleviate this issue?

[Post War America]

Well a DMR in the heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, since they would share the same type of ammunition, be used at long range, be in a somewhat similiar role (DMR's are often used for suppression), and the fact both will benefit from being somewhat stationary. So a DMR tagged along side a heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, and I think the russians do this in their squad.

Perfect symmetry isn't required, but you do want your squad to be able to perform leap frog maneuvers, where one provides covering fire and the other advances, as it's the bread and butter of the modern infantry squad. The problem with such a squad, that is one revolving around a heavy machine gun, is room clearing, as the heavy machine gun team isn't going to do much during this period, and asymmetric units have more trouble breaking down in to smaller teams for these purposes. The germans in WWII ran in to a lot of problems in urban warfare and had to restructure their entire squads in order to do it, as did the Russians in many conflicts. You can either create specialized urban warfare units, or try to make it so the two alternating fireteams can operate on their own without the heavy machine gun team, and the heavy machine gun team vice versa for their specific roles. So let's say you have a 4 man machine gun team and then two 3 man fireteams, you can split the squad in to pieces for urban warfare and use 6 man teams to clear buildings with the 4 man team doing overwatch or something similiar.

Would equipping my MMG gunner with a small carbine or PDW alleviate this issue?

Weight is also a concern.If you add a carbine, you'd probably also need to ensure that they are carrying ammo for it, in addition to some machine gun ammo, and the machine gun, cleaning kits for both, and then all of the equipment everyone else is carrying. In a lot of well equipped modern militaries there already exist concerns about how much the average infantry soldier is carrying.

[Immoren]

Just do away with permanent squad structure.
Permanently platoon consists of lieutenant, sergeant, couple corporals and assorted rifle teams, MMG teams and recoilless rifle/rocket launcher teams and couple marksmen.
When time comes lieutenant task organizes sections from the corporals and teams under guidance of their sergeant.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Does infantry officers being (compared to other officer ranks) being disproportionately from working-class backgrounds make sense?
(due to the high death rates and so promotion through the ranks)

[Grand Indochina]

Hi there fellas, I have some questions that in need of your expertise...

---

1) Is it better to let the military handle police affairs ? I don't mean the soldiers but rather the military polices, can they do law enforcing better than the civilian police ?

---

2) Is it a good idea to utilize the military reservists and trainees to do "community building activities" (building bridges, fixing roads, planting trees...) as part of their profession / training ?

---

3) When the German 6th Army was surrounded in the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviet would broadcast a voice over the speakers saying that a German soldier was dying every seven seconds and then followed it up with the sound of a ticking clock (don't click if you aren't ready). I wonder how effective this psychological attack would be in reality, let's say against the modern Chinese army in a scenario where their radio frequency was intercepted and this message (warning, very creepy) was broadcast over all their comm.

---

Thank you for reading friends

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

1) Is it better to let the military handle police affairs ? I don't mean the soldiers but rather the military polices, can they do law enforcing better than the civilian police?

Depends. Anti-terror stuff in a developing country, yes.
Anti-slavery stuff, probably.
Anti-drug stuff, maybe.
Shoplifting no.
Look at real life examples:
Guardia Civil, Gendarmeries in general, Caribinieri etc.

2) Is it a good idea to utilize the military reservists and trainees to do "community building activities" (building bridges, fixing roads, planting trees...) as part of their profession / training ?

As part of their training, yes (encouraging community-mindedness).
As part of their profession: maybe during COVID-19 or in in a third-world country or a recession or another national emergency (other than a war with another country) but not otherwise.

[Immoren]

Hi there fellas, I have some questions that in need of your expertise...

---

1) Is it better to let the military handle police affairs ? I don't mean the soldiers but rather the military polices, can they do law enforcing better than the civilian police ?

Military police aren't soldiers? And it depends on how you want to set it. I think there are countries where MPs have almost similar powers as civilian police, at least in certain geographic areas like garrisons, but then there's countries where MPs are little more than glorfied bouncers
on garrisons without many policing powers, when there isn't state of emergency declared.

2) Is it a good idea to utilize the military reservists and trainees to do "community building activities" (building bridges, fixing roads, planting trees...) as part of their profession / training ?

No, Maybe.

[The Akasha Colony]

1) Is it better to let the military handle police affairs ? I don't mean the soldiers but rather the military polices, can they do law enforcing better than the civilian police ?

It is neither better nor worse. It depends on the relative level of training for both forces.

2) Is it a good idea to utilize the military reservists and trainees to do "community building activities" (building bridges, fixing roads, planting trees...) as part of their profession / training ?

If this is what they are literally trained to do, then additional practice is useful. It may help military engineers to practice their trade by building bridges or whatever. But planting trees doesn't help an infantryman be a better infantryman and filling in potholes is a poor substitute for additional range time for a tank gunner.

3) When the German 6th Army was surrounded in the Battle of Stalingrad, the Soviet would broadcast a voice over the speakers saying that a German soldier was dying every seven seconds and then followed it up with the sound of a ticking clock (don't click if you aren't ready). I wonder how effective this psychological attack would be in reality, let's say against the modern Chinese army in a scenario where their radio frequency was intercepted and this message (warning, very creepy) was broadcast over all their comm.

Modern communications systems are usually encrypted so it is harder to just broadcast messages and hope the enemy hears them. If you can figure out how to get into the enemy's communications, there are much more effective things to do than broadcast some creepy noises. The best thing to do is probably not broadcast anything at all and instead just continue to intercept their messages.

The modern equivalent to radio propaganda broadcasts is the internet troll farm. The average soldier is far more likely to notice a Twitter DM or Facebook message than they are to tune in to Tokyo Rose or Baghdad Bob.

[Manokan Republic]

Well a DMR in the heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, since they would share the same type of ammunition, be used at long range, be in a somewhat similiar role (DMR's are often used for suppression), and the fact both will benefit from being somewhat stationary. So a DMR tagged along side a heavy machine gun team makes a lot of sense, and I think the russians do this in their squad.

Perfect symmetry isn't required, but you do want your squad to be able to perform leap frog maneuvers, where one provides covering fire and the other advances, as it's the bread and butter of the modern infantry squad. The problem with such a squad, that is one revolving around a heavy machine gun, is room clearing, as the heavy machine gun team isn't going to do much during this period, and asymmetric units have more trouble breaking down in to smaller teams for these purposes. The germans in WWII ran in to a lot of problems in urban warfare and had to restructure their entire squads in order to do it, as did the Russians in many conflicts. You can either create specialized urban warfare units, or try to make it so the two alternating fireteams can operate on their own without the heavy machine gun team, and the heavy machine gun team vice versa for their specific roles. So let's say you have a 4 man machine gun team and then two 3 man fireteams, you can split the squad in to pieces for urban warfare and use 6 man teams to clear buildings with the 4 man team doing overwatch or something similiar.

Would equipping my MMG gunner with a small carbine or PDW alleviate this issue?

In theory yes, however it depends very specifically on gear choices. The main issue fundamentally is weight and size, and so while carrying a basic carbine or PDW with your main machine gun can alleviate the issue, it really all depends on very specific gear choices. Weight is the main issue, and as a machine gunner the weight of the gun and ammunition will be a hindrance, so the load-out can be an issue. The key advantage though is, you wouldn't have to restructure your military very much from urban warfare to open terrain and vice versa, so the main thing you'd change is your load out. Load-outs vary from mission to mission and depending on terrain, so it's basically the same fundamental strategy with more or less ammunition carried for the main gun or carbine depending on the environment, which is not an incredible change. So I'd say it's very doable, although you'd have to be very weight conscious and be very specific in your gear selection. The main question is exactly what kind of machine gun to use, and a submachine gun, machine-pistol style submachine gun, or assault rifle, but it's not unreasonable to carry a back-up rifle along side a machine gun. In short, it depends on the weight of each gun and their ammunition.

One way around this is to be like me, and be a cheater-cheater-pumpkin-eater, and use weapons that are fairly light-weight, based on just emerging technology, such as polymer or caseless ammunition, which can not only cut the weight of ammunition potentially in half, but also the weight of the guns nearly in half. The various 7.62mm and 6.5mm weapons in competition right now are doing alright, and a few existing guns, such as from the LSAT series, are already really lightweight. The LSAT machine gun is a mere 10 pounds vs. 17 pounds for the m249, while the ammunition weight is cut in half, and so this lightens the load of the user by 25 pounds with the same load-out of about 1000 rounds, and the gun itself is a mere 10 pounds and far shorter, making it easier to maneuver in close quarters combat, being roughly the same size and slightly heavier than a standard rifle. A 7.62mm x 51mm NATO version, being comparable to the 8mm, is a mere 14.5 pounds, and also has ammunition that is roughly half the weight, allowing a soldier to maneuver it in close quarters if they need be, and carry a lot more ammunition. Similarly, the massive reduction in weight allows the soldiers to carry extra equipment, such as potentially an extra gun, who's ammunition would also be much lighter weight. The only issue is it's experimental technology that's not quite out yet, and so it would depend on what year your country is set in, mine is set slightly in the future, about 6-10 years ahead of modern times. The competition seems to be going towards a 6.8mm round, where as in mine my country chose a 6.5mm, but it's roughly the same. [1][2][3]

There are some modern options that are available though. The M240 is roughly 27.5 pounds at it's heaviest, while weapons like the browning machine gun are 31+ pounds, but the M240L (made of titanium) is only about 20.5 pounds, and the Mk48 is about 18 pounds, and both of these are far lighter and easier to carry. The tripod, which is typically 15 pounds, if made out of titanium or aluminum and skeletonized can be around 5-10 pounds, thus shaving off some weight there too. So, with modern equipment, of which for the M240L is already out in existence, you can have a far lighter gun. The PKM and Mk 48 are both full sized machine guns that are both lighter and shorter than heavier machine guns with the same caliber, and both are about 10 pounds lighter than comparative models, at around 18 pounds each. They are viable to fire from the shoulder, however the main advantage comes from shaving off 10+ pounds, which can be used to carry a carbine or PDW. You only really need 10-13 pounds shaved off to compensate for the weight of a typical carbine and 150 rounds of ammunition (if going by assault rifle standards), so this already gets you there, the main issue being, the fact these don't function as well as full sized machine guns. They tend to be far more reliable than a rifle, but still less reliable and heat resistant than larger machine guns, and not as capable of maintaining sustained bursts, among other things. They are a good balance in my opinion for infantry and likely worth the switch for most infantry squads, but you run in to the issue of it not performing as well as heaver machine guns. This may not be as much of an issue especially at close range. So, a really light carbine + a really light medium machine gun can do the trick. Both the PKM and the Mk. 48 have been around for a while, and a recent somewhat unproven weapon is the newer Knight's armament "Assault machine gun" series in 7.62mm, based on the stoner 63, which is supposed to be fairly light and have very little recoil, being a mere 14 pounds. So far only the PKM has been made in to a bullpup that is seriously used, but if you redesign the gun as being bullpup, this might also shave off a pound or so and 6-10 inches of length, which is not insubstantial especially for something already so big. Due to the comparative power and case sizes with 7.62mm NATO and 7.62mm x 54mmR, it's not hard to imagine these being chambered in 8mm or a similiar cartridge.

Finally there is the PDW itself. A light machine-pistol type weapon, particularly like the MP7 or PP-2000, would be the lightest option possible, while still giving you armor piercing abilities, and something like a 100-200 meter range, while performing similarly to pistols. Both are rather underpowered, but they are more or less the lightest option available, with the ammunition being roughly half that of the 5.56mm, or 1/4 that of a full sized rifle cartridge. The P90 is a great option, functioning more like a true rifle and being easier to control and fire, and the 5.7mm round is slightly more powerful than the 4.6mm like used in the MP7, but it runs in to the same problem of being rather weak and having roughly a 200 meter range. Still, a good option for CQB. For around 10 pounds, you could carry the gun and roughly 300 rounds of ammunition, more or less depending on the exact configuration or weapon chosen. The other option is something like a small assault rifle, which is probably the best option, although larger and heavier. The main reason why it would be better, other than power and range, is the ability to share ammunition with the rest of the squad, so your individual soldier doesn't need unique ammunition. Logistics wise and for practical reasons, it's better to have the carbine be the same round as your assault rifle, so you don't need to resupply soldiers with a bunch of different types of ammunition, and so in a pinch, especially since you won't carry much ammunition for it, you can share ammunition with the squad members, who can in theory carry ammunition for the gun, lessening the burden for this soldier. Typically your military will have two main rifle rounds, one for an assault rifle and one for machine guns and battle rifles (as well as sniper rifles), and so it's best to have an intermediate cartridge be your main round with your carbine. This will more or less halve or more the amount of ammunition you can carry for the same weight though, and make the gun heavier. There are in fact, 5 pound assault rifle/PDW's, such as the M1 carbine which actually goes all the way back to WWII and was made of wood, or super lightweight assault rifles, including some with polymer receivers (notably very lightweight AR-15's), being a little over 5 pounds. If you can help it, you want the gun under 7 pounds, and to carry between 150-300 rounds of ammunition, which would vary from 10-17.5 pounds. If it's main use is room clearing and as a back up weapon, you probably don't need that much ammunition, as it will be used sparingly and in CQC you can usually avoid needing tons of ammunition, as battles are shorter and accuracy improves. Even better is if you restock on ammunition each time you clear a building, or every few buildings, going back to a vehicle of some sort to do it. So, basically, with a light enough main gun, yes. Another option is, although somewhat crazier, a gun chambered in the same round as the machine gun, however such guns tend to be rather large and heavy, and shorter smaller guns usually can't directly feed belts, and usually can't expect to do well with very short barrels. This isn't really recommended unless you use light enough ammunition and a light enough gun for your machine gun.

[Purpelia]

Reconfiguring your squads for urban warfare or indeed any other sort of special condition is done by packing a few extra firearms in their IFV.

[Dayganistan]

So I've been looking at the F2000 and was wondering why it didn't really take off. It saw a few military adopters but it didn't really get that widespread. Not even its native country adopted it in significant numbers. Did it just not do anything significantly better than the Steyr AUG which essentially had the bullpup market cornered until the Tavor popped up?

[Manokan Republic]

Reconfiguring your squads for urban warfare or indeed any other sort of special condition is done by packing a few extra firearms in their IFV.

A key problem isn't just weapons but fireteam dynamics. If you are trained to clear rooms with 4 people but only have 3, or have 5, 6 etc. it changes everything. Too many people and you are shooting each other in the back, too few and no-one is guarding you. Ideally you have four or more, but then your fireteams might be too big or not properly designed for other strategies. Asymmetric fireteams have the issue of now not being able to clear rooms with the same training, if you ever went from being a machine gunner to a regular riflemen your entire set of training would have to be redone, all your tactics and strategies essentially change. You want to pick something and stick with it, rather than have 5 different methods for doing the same thing. Furthermore one guy trained to do one thing is now going to have to switch to doing a completely different other thing out of nowhere. The advantage of machine guns at the platoon level is that is their only job, but if they now are expected to do 3 things it changes a lot. You now need to excel at multiple different things. In addition, if you find yourself doing room clearing without a vehicle nearby, you run in to the problem of equipment restrictions.

The teams being interchangeable matters a lot, as you basically all want to be able to do the same thing. Messing with the group dynamic, particularly in how it effects strategies and tactics is always a bad idea. A number of well known mission failures had this issue, such as in the "lone survivor" scenario where navy seals teams used to operating in teams of 8 were cut down to 4, or a botched SAS raid in Iraq used to 15 man teams was cut down to 8, and a number of other situations. If you are trained and equipped for one thing and end up doing another, it can throw off the entire operation. For people that aren't special forces and that can compensate for it with raw skill, it compounds the issue further.

[Manokan Republic]

So I've been looking at the F2000 and was wondering why it didn't really take off. It saw a few military adopters but it didn't really get that widespread. Not even its native country adopted it in significant numbers. Did it just not do anything significantly better than the Steyr AUG which essentially had the bullpup market cornered until the Tavor popped up?

Well yes, you're basically right, and it was more expensive. It was unusually heavy and long for a bullpup, and didn't have a reputation for good reliability, so it wasn't clear what advantage it had over other guns. It also is known for not being very durable, and has parts break on it quite frequently which were expensive to replace. The shorter barrel that it was fixed to, combined with it's weird bulkiness, and the fact it can't use anything other than very specific magazines are all problems that make it useful only for specific military's or individuals. It's not really that bad, but it's also not really better than the Steyr, or definitely the Tavor that came out around the same time. It's a very finnicky gun that it's users swear by being great if ran well, but that has a terrible manual of arms. Here is a quote I remember from a user:

"There is no last round bolt hold open. The design of the gun doesnt allow it, and I dont believe it is necessary anyway. If you insert a mag but dont seat it all the way, the gun will jam. If you insert a mag on an open bolt and ride the bolt forward instead of pulling and letting it fly forward, the gun will jam. If you experience a jam and yank back and forth on the charging handle, you will compound your problem and add more jammed rounds into the mix. You MUST remove the mag, THEN rack the charging handle, then reinsert mag. I would guess that 90% of the malfunctions with this weapon are user induced."

[Grand Indochina]

The Akasha Colony, Immoren, Champagne Socialist Sharifistan, thank you all for answering

[Taihei Tengoku]

So I've been looking at the F2000 and was wondering why it didn't really take off. It saw a few military adopters but it didn't really get that widespread. Not even its native country adopted it in significant numbers. Did it just not do anything significantly better than the Steyr AUG which essentially had the bullpup market cornered until the Tavor popped up?

There is no "bullpup" market, there's a "5.56mm rifle" market, which is moving towards a 100% AR-15/18 equilibrium.

[Puzikas]

Based AR, protector of Western Ideals.

[Post War America]

Based AR, protector of Western Ideals.

AR 15 needs to get off the FALs lawn

[Dayganistan]

So I've been looking at the F2000 and was wondering why it didn't really take off. It saw a few military adopters but it didn't really get that widespread. Not even its native country adopted it in significant numbers. Did it just not do anything significantly better than the Steyr AUG which essentially had the bullpup market cornered until the Tavor popped up?

There is no "bullpup" market, there's a "5.56mm rifle" market, which is moving towards a 100% AR-15/18 equilibrium.

And I hate this aesthetic of every gun turning into a SCAR-alike.

[Gallia-]

SCAR is dead.

Defeated by M4.

[Puzikas]

God I wish that was me