Infantry Discussion Thread 10: Shovel Edition [NO FWORDS]

[Purpelia]

2. I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this.

That's my mistake, again. Basically the "what kind" from #1 is referring to physical objects. Like you have goggle things, one eye only things, sights you put on rifles... what else? But I've seen these three kinds at least. So the #2 is referring to the interaction between those. Like for example if I have an ACOG and NV goggles do I now effectively have a NV ACOG?

3. Buy both. The US Army wants to roll out combined image intensification/IR monocles as widely as it can, and then add a second sight to the gun itself which can project its image onto part of the screen of the helmet-mounted unit and thus allow troops to see where their gun is pointed at all times. Most future soldier systems have tried to integrate some form of this point-and-shoot capability and have the goal of rolling out night sights of some form as widely as the budget allows.

What exactly do you mean by project? Like are we talking about just looking through both at the same time and it works or like a video game style HUD and hip firing or...?

[Yes Im Biop]

You can buy a decent IR Headset for less than 40 bucks, the spygear one is surprisingly decent. Replace the plastic case with metal and tada night vision on a budget

[The Akasha Colony]

That's my mistake, again. Basically the "what kind" from #1 is referring to physical objects. Like you have goggle things, one eye only things, sights you put on rifles... what else? But I've seen these three kinds at least. So the #2 is referring to the interaction between those. Like for example if I have an ACOG and NV goggles do I now effectively have a NV ACOG?

The problem with head-mounted units like monocles and goggles is that you usually can't look down a sight while wearing them because if you were to put the gun to your cheek, the sights would not align with the gun itself since unlike your eyeball, they can't rotate. This means that while you're free to look around with the helmet-mounted monocle, accurately aiming your gun can be a complicated proposition. In the case of monocles though, most modern ones can simply be clipped onto the gun itself via the gun's rail mounting system so you can use it like a regular optical sight. The downside to this though is that you now need to point the gun to look around, rather than just turn your head.

Which is why the US Army's solution is to just buy two sights, one for the helmet and one for the gun, and then project the image from the gun to the helmet to eliminate the need to try to peer through the gun sights in the first place while still knowing where your gun is pointing.

What exactly do you mean by project? Like are we talking about just looking through both at the same time and it works or like a video game style HUD and hip firing or...?

More video game-style. The ENVG-III/FWS-I program is supposed to allow the gunsight (FWS-I) to project the image that it sees onto a part of the ENVG-III monocle's screen, allowing the soldier to always see where the gun is pointed and what the gun "sees," whether that be pointing the gun around a corner or even allowing hip-firing without having to shoulder the weapon and physically look down the sight itself.

[Purpelia]

The problem with head-mounted units like monocles and goggles is that you usually can't look down a sight while wearing them because if you were to put the gun to your cheek, the sights would not align with the gun itself since unlike your eyeball, they can't rotate. This means that while you're free to look around with the helmet-mounted monocle, accurately aiming your gun can be a complicated proposition. In the case of monocles though, most modern ones can simply be clipped onto the gun itself via the gun's rail mounting system so you can use it like a regular optical sight. The downside to this though is that you now need to point the gun to look around, rather than just turn your head.

What if I had one of those one eye only things for the left eye and than some sort of night sight on the rifle so the soldier could use his left eye for walking and right eye for shooting? Or like if I had a two eye system but it's actually two separate one eye ones and the soldier can pick if he wants to clip one onto the rifle or not?

Which is why the US Army's solution is to just buy two sights, one for the helmet and one for the gun, and then project the image from the gun to the helmet to eliminate the need to try to peer through the gun sights in the first place while still knowing where your gun is pointing.

More video game-style. The ENVG-III/FWS-I program is supposed to allow the gunsight (FWS-I) to project the image that it sees onto a part of the ENVG-III monocle's screen, allowing the soldier to always see where the gun is pointed and what the gun "sees," whether that be pointing the gun around a corner or even allowing hip-firing without having to shoulder the weapon and physically look down the sight itself.

That sort of thing strikes me as generally a bit 20 minutes into the future. Especially the wireless thing does not give me too much confidence. Like is this in use now? Or is it something that will eventually be in use in like a decade? And if its not in use today what do armies use today?

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

i just threw out a number for the sake of making a point

And what is that point? That troops should be equipped like ISIS fighters on the off chance they get killed and might risk some mildly expensive equipment?

The point is McDonalds should be running your military.

e: or perhaps better stated, you should be running your military like a McDonalds.

[Puzikas]

China wears about 7k of gear of which the most expensive is their gun and helmet (or boots if their helmet is surplus steel).

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.

You can buy a decent IR Headset for less than 40 bucks, the spygear one is surprisingly decent. Replace the plastic case with metal and tada night vision on a budget

This tells me you've never used good IR gear.

And what is that point? That troops should be equipped like ISIS fighters on the off chance they get killed and might risk some mildly expensive equipment?

The point is McDonalds should be running your military.

[The Akasha Colony]

What if I had one of those one eye only things for the left eye and than some sort of night sight on the rifle so the soldier could use his left eye for walking and right eye for shooting? Or like if I had a two eye system but it's actually two separate one eye ones and the soldier can pick if he wants to clip one onto the rifle or not?

The first one seems like it might be awkward because the soldier is now forced to navigate using their non-dominant eye, assuming they still intend to shoot with their dominant eye. They also have to figure out how to shoulder their gun and peer down the sights without their helmet-mounted unit hitting the gun-mounted unit. Or flip it out of the way each time they want to aim their gun. Hardly a deal-breaking problem though.

The latter is basically what the US Army is doing but with more capability.

That sort of thing strikes me as generally a bit 20 minutes into the future. Especially the wireless thing does not give me too much confidence. Like is this in use now? Or is it something that will eventually be in use in like a decade? And if its not in use today what do armies use today?

ENVG-III has already been in use for several years, and FWS-I is now in production. The wireless element could probably be replaced with a wired solution if desired.

This sort of system has been rolled out to at least some extent before, but the major differences with the US Army system is that it's wireless (older systems were generally wired), much more compact, and has both image intensification and IR capabilities in a single unit.

Older systems like the French version tended to be quite huge:

[Purpelia]

How does this all connect to magnified or unmagnified day optics? Do you clip it on behind a day sight? Do you use it day and night? Do you replace all other sights with it? Questions I don't know enough to ask but still should?

[Yes Im Biop]

China wears about 7k of gear of which the most expensive is their gun and helmet (or boots if their helmet is surplus steel).

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.

You can buy a decent IR Headset for less than 40 bucks, the spygear one is surprisingly decent. Replace the plastic case with metal and tada night vision on a budget

This tells me you've never used good IR gear.

Nowhere did i say good. You can see out to about 100 feet and they last 19 hours on 5 LI AA's, for under 40 bucks, what's the next step? Over 400?

[Gallia-]

What does Austrasien use as platoon level REC, though?

Galla only goes down to company level organically, but with platoon attachments. I've pretty much decided on basically a Barsuk-type GSR, Wolfhound ESM system, and a Headlamp-style mmW ESM system for the company-level REC. No offensive attack systems, unless there's something missing in my pantheon so far, like a cybernetic attack system or microwave jammer for counter-UAS. I figure that those goofy gun delivered jamming shells and the M16 should be adequate for those last two things though.

I'm still sort of interested in JAMPACK though, TBH. ):

Usually, a direction finder which is bolted to a roof of one of the platoons tanks or IFVs. This functions more or less automatically and provides the platoon with the direction and classification of any radios or data links it detects.

A backpack kit that can be worn by a member of the command squad but it is naturally less capable.

Bearing only then? Or do platoons integrate their ESM for triangulation?

The US Army claims that Wolfhound is the only manpackable triangulation/TDOA system for ground troops though, so I suspect it can't?

I guess in Galla the Wolfhound's TDOA is only used in low threat REC environments and during contact, when the intermittent emission of the Wolfhound units is less relevant than locating enemy ground troops.

It hears the radio. It compares what it records to a library of known signals and either identifies the specific emitter type or at least classifies it. The contact is then reported to the operator as a type and direction, accurate to within a few degrees.

This information serves two purposes: First, it gives the platoon a degree of situational awareness of things which are normally invisible. Radio signals are likely to be the first indicator the platoon has stumbled into an ambush, is about to make contact with a hostile column, or that a UAV is operating nearby. Second, it can be used to trigger the employment of a cyber weapon if there is one available which is applicable to the threat. Though a platoon would not have an organic cyber specialist they can still make use of "script kiddie" type cyber weapons that don't require any specialized knowledge. Cyber weapons, unlike jammers, don't require specialised hardware to employ beyond a transmitter which can also interface with the target.

This is good.

I think Wolfhound can do this, but also can talk to other Wolfhound units for a triangulation/TDOA localization of an emitter.

I guess this means Galla has manpack systems exactly like this in its light infantry platoons who follow the lieutenant around, but they're kept at company for reasons of logistics and maintenance. Presumably the company commo SGT is responsible for maintenance and oversight of the company's radio network and electromagnetic combat equipment. In a mechanized platoon it might just be a manpack system in someone's track.

I'm still trying to figure out if I want a JAMPACK-type system for a library of cyber algorithms. Basically a manpack cyber attacker who can do what Panther threat simulator does (imitate enemy radios), but send malicious code to disrupt radio commo links like Suter, but for ground troops. But if enemy ESM detects him, they classify him as their own radio I guess? That might be a bit too elaborate and it would work both ways.

That would make Wolfhound-"Manpack Cyber Attacker" sort of analogous to the Rivet Joint/Compass Call reconnaissance-strike complex of the USAF.

[Purpelia]

Bearing only then? Or do platoons integrate their ESM for triangulation?

Do you really need triangulation? If you know the bearing and the type of transmitter than you know how strong the initial signal is going to be at the transmitter. And thus you should be able to get the range by measuring signal strength. At least in theory.

[Gallia-]

Bearing only then? Or do platoons integrate their ESM for triangulation?

Do you really need triangulation?

You'll need it eventually.

AFAICT Wolfhound is intended to be agnostic to the unit size that is using it. An infantry platoon might manpack one for bearing location. A rifle battalion might have a few scattered around for TDOA triangulation of VHF/UHF commo, and a brigade might use them too since it won't have things like MLQ-40/CHALS-X for High Speed Targeting of UHF/VHF emitters. They're managed in ATO by a brigade (401st Army Field Support Brigade) that reports to the 4th Sustainment Command, so it's very close to being at the tippy-top of the ATO's Corps Support Command/Sustainment Command structure. Units request Wolfhounds through paperwork and the 401st AFSB sends them to them, acts as the technical support/help desk for when they break (read: soldiers don't know what they're doing), and receives them back when the unit is finished with them. And that unit can be anything from a brigade to a rifle platoon.

I'm not sure if this means a rifle company is scattered enough for accurate TDOA, but it might be?

If you know the bearing and the type of transmitter than you know how strong the initial signal is going to be at the transmitter. And thus you should be able to get the range by measuring signal strength. At least in theory.

And this is probably how it is normally used in small units.

Wireless network for TDOA would let a rifle company or battalion triangulate VHF/UHF signals, though.

[Husseinarti]

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.



This tells me you've never used good IR gear.

Nowhere did i say good. You can see out to about 100 feet and they last 19 hours on 5 LI AA's, for under 40 bucks, what's the next step? Over 400?

You said decent. That can be seen as attempting to say good. Is English your second language?

Also, 100 feet is terrible for anything short of just using a giant image intensifier instead. Modern NVGs can see hundreds of meters out.

[Gallia-]

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.



This tells me you've never used good IR gear.

Nowhere did i say good. You can see out to about 100 feet and they last 19 hours on 5 LI AA's, for under 40 bucks, what's the next step? Over 400?

A decent infrared scope costs about $7,000-8,000. Coincidentally, this is about the same price as a decent I² scope.

[Free-Don]

China wears about 7k of gear of which the most expensive is their gun and helmet (or boots if their helmet is surplus steel).

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.

Fucked up on remembering numbers budget for chinese soldiers is around 1800 euro with their new rifle series being between 500-700 euro.

https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/12/08/the-minuscule-cost-of-equipping-a-chinese-soldier/

[Yes Im Biop]

Nowhere did i say good. You can see out to about 100 feet and they last 19 hours on 5 LI AA's, for under 40 bucks, what's the next step? Over 400?

You said decent. That can be seen as attempting to say good. Is English your second language?

Also, 100 feet is terrible for anything short of just using a giant image intensifier instead. Modern NVGs can see hundreds of meters out.

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

[Gallia-]

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.

Fucked up on remembering numbers budget for chinese soldiers is around 1800 euro with their new rifle series being between 500-700 euro.

https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/12/08/the-minuscule-cost-of-equipping-a-chinese-soldier/

This is how China beats the United States in war. It spends its money on useful things, like warships and fighter aircraft and tanks. The US Army spends its money on a new helmet every 5 years and a new body armor every 10, for a 0.25% increase in survivability and 25% more money. The Chinese are closer to the United States in the middle Cold War than the United States is today, anyway, which was the peak of American power.

Once a society begins to spend money to outfit its individuals to the expense of the whole, you know it has entered terminal degenerate stage.

[Husseinarti]

You said decent. That can be seen as attempting to say good. Is English your second language?

Also, 100 feet is terrible for anything short of just using a giant image intensifier instead. Modern NVGs can see hundreds of meters out.

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

I would actually rather just go without.

Being able to see 30~ meters on a good, clear night is worthless when all you'll see is the distant muzzle flash of some dude who just killed you.

[Puzikas]

...how expensive do you think that gun is?
Because I've gotten a figure of about $400 USD.

Fucked up on remembering numbers budget for chinese soldiers is around 1800 euro with their new rifle series being between 500-700 euro.

https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/12/08/the-minuscule-cost-of-equipping-a-chinese-soldier/

>$700

Hm. Back when I was in China I recalled it being less.

Maybe ive been converting it wrong. Damn shame but oh_well.

You said decent. That can be seen as attempting to say good. Is English your second language?

Also, 100 feet is terrible for anything short of just using a giant image intensifier instead. Modern NVGs can see hundreds of meters out.

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

You can spend $500 and get a NV scope that will actually let you see more than the same range as a flashlight.

The USs current standard issue NV Binocs run about $3,500. Last generations can be got for $1200-1800.

When you say "decent", I assume you mean "not trash".

[Yes Im Biop]

Fucked up on remembering numbers budget for chinese soldiers is around 1800 euro with their new rifle series being between 500-700 euro.

https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/12/08/the-minuscule-cost-of-equipping-a-chinese-soldier/

>$700

Hm. Back when I was in China I recalled it being less.

Maybe ive been converting it wrong. Damn shame but oh_well.

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

You can spend $500 and get a NV scope that will actually let you see more than the same range as a flashlight.

The USs current standard issue NV Binocs run about $3,500. Last generations can be got for $1200-1800.

When you say "decent", I assume you mean "not trash".

WHich is the same as not good not bad

[Federated Kingdom of Prussia]

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.

[Rhodesialund]

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...

[Gallia-]

Using WW2 statistics for modern day is about as relevant as using WW1 statistics for WW2. Or worse. GEN Gorman specifically mentions night vision and body armour in his discussion of S.L.A.'s weight concerns in his 1991 monograph about the PITMAN body armor suit and the SuperTroop concept.

But that dude was obsessed with Marshall. His solution was cribbing Jeff Moore's Body Armor, Powered. He showed the concept and briefed GEN Gorman on the idea at LANL, around 1985.

It is clear that the infantryman will not be able to exist very long on the battlefield if he is subjected to the entire spectrum of nonnuclear weapons currently available to the U.S.S.R.

Current Marine Corps doctrine held that the average lifespan of the unarmored infantryman on the battlefield was 6 seconds. - Paraphrased from Star Corps, WHK

[Versail]

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

[Rhodesialund]

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