Thread: Ideas for Light Infanty Upgrades.

Originally Posted by My Fing ID

It's true you guys shoot farther and take qualification more seriously. 500m sounds like a nightmare. IIRC at 300m the target is about as wide as the front sight post, going out to 5 would be like firing on a spec.

It is all training and confidence. The Marines train from the first time they fire on a range that they can and will hit 500 meter targets, so they do. The Army tells you that you can't reliably hit anything past 300 meters, so you can't.

Heck, at my last duty station we had a range that measured in yards, and dated to pre-World War I (was built for qualification of the M-1903 Springfield). And we actually had a 600 yard firing line. On qualification day if there was enough time and extra rounds we would let the Marines go back to the 600 yard line (550 meters) and fire off 10 rounds. And normally they fired within a couple of points of their score at 500 yards.

An interesting point of history about my old rifle range. It was ordered after a 1911 House hearing Committee on Naval Affairs, when they learned that there were no rifle ranges on the West Coast. One of the members (Congressman Thomas Butler of Pennsylvania) was slightly dumbfounded, and helped push the construction of both a Rifle Range, as well as the establishment of a Recruit Training Camp there (MCRD Mare Island operated from 1912-1923).

Thomas Butler was the father of Marine General Smedley Butler, and we used that range until the base closed in 1996 (I worked on the range from 1990-1993).

In fact, if you want to see what 600 yards looks like, this shot is taken from just about where the 600 yard line was at.

https://maps.google.com/?ll=38.09277...38.47,,0,-6.44

I really shold try and take some time to go out there one of these days and take a look at my old stomping grounds.

SOCOM is retofitting M-4s and M-16s for the big, heavy manstopping .458 SOCOM round. Kinda a .45 ACP on steroids.

I don't see anything from Afghanistan or Iraq stating a need for long-range rifles beyond what the squad sharpshooters carry. US snipers have ruled in both places.

Yes, we need to replace the F-15 and F/A-18. They are 60s designs fielded in the 70s. Pilotless aircraft are worth pursuing but are not proven in big-time war.

Originally Posted by Greataxe

I've heard complaints over the last decade that our light infantry Army troops do not have adequate firepower to engage an enemy out around 500 yards. The Jarheads have long barreled M-16's and train out to this distance, but the M-4 carbines the Army widely uses don't seem to cut it. Without going into all the fire support artillary and air cover, and vehicle mounted weapons, what combination of light infanty (ground-pounder) weapons would work best out in the open and in close in fighting?

Some like the larger firepower of the 7.62X51 in the form of old M-14 rifles or newer AR-10's. Other say use ACOG's or better optics, increase training and stick with what they have. Others say try the newer 6.8 Grendel rounds in AR platform weapons.

As far as man-portable support, what are the best weapons to fire at these guys out at 500 yards? M2 Carl Gustav rocket launcers? 5.56mm SAW's, M-60
's. or upgraded AR's? How often are 60mm morters used on combat patrols---and are these effective in firefights in "the Stan?"

Any of you with combat experience know what the best weapons for a 9 person infanty squad on patrol would be---within reason? For the price of a 31 million F-15, 100,000 troops could be upgraded with new rifles.

A few suggestions: 6.8 SPC carbines (preferably Remington ACR's or a licenced 6.8 version of the TAVOR), 7.62 SDM rifles in each squad for long range engagements, Cheytac rifles for army snipers to bridge the gap between sniper rifles and anti-material rifles, and upgrade SAWs to Mk 48 which are basically a blend between the SAW and 240B.

Instead of Carl Gustavs, I'd issue SMAWs or B-300's. And get the XM-25 into normal issue.

Originally Posted by Herkdriver

How long do you think troops on the ground would last without air superiority in the skies overhead?

How many air superiority missions did the Air Force need to do in Afghanistan again?

Or Iraq?

Originally Posted by Questerr

Instead of Carl Gustavs, I'd issue SMAWs or B-300's. And get the XM-25 into normal issue.

Here you are really talking about very different weapons.

The CG is just another recoiless rifle, like the RPG-7. No real advantage here, basically the same thing as they used 60 years ago.

The B-300 is another, disposable like the old LAAW. Might as well bring that back.

The XM-25 is a grenade launcher. Good against personnel, not so good against hardened positions.

The SMAW is already in the US inventory. The Marines have used it for decades, and I have trained with it. Really a nice weapon, it not only has an 83mm rocket, but also a 9mm spotting rifle. Iron sights, as well as a variety of laser, infrared and low light sights available for it. And each Marine Rifle Company has between 8-10 SMAW teams in it already.

I have long wondered why the Army never adopted it. But with the weapon and training already in the US aresnol, this would by far be the easiest solution if you want to add more armor penetration/hardened position capability.

Originally Posted by Mushroom

Here you are really talking about very different weapons.

The CG is just another recoiless rifle, like the RPG-7. No real advantage here, basically the same thing as they used 60 years ago.

The B-300 is another, disposable like the old LAAW. Might as well bring that back.

The XM-25 is a grenade launcher. Good against personnel, not so good against hardened positions.

The SMAW is already in the US inventory. The Marines have used it for decades, and I have trained with it. Really a nice weapon, it not only has an 83mm rocket, but also a 9mm spotting rifle. Iron sights, as well as a variety of laser, infrared and low light sights available for it. And each Marine Rifle Company has between 8-10 SMAW teams in it already.

I have long wondered why the Army never adopted it. But with the weapon and training already in the US aresnol, this would by far be the easiest solution if you want to add more armor penetration/hardened position capability.

B-300 might not have been the right designation. I meant the Israeli version of the SMAW. It's a B-something.

The XM-25 doesn't have great AP, but it is meant to go around that. It doesn't matter how thick the walls of your bunker are if someone shoots a XM-25 airburst round into the firing slit.

Edit: I was right. The B-300 is the Israeli SMAW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-300

Originally Posted by Questerr

B-300 might not have been the right designation. I meant the Israeli version of the SMAW. It's a B-something.

The XM-25 doesn't have great AP, but it is meant to go around that. It doesn't matter how thick the walls of your bunker are if someone shoots a XM-25 airburst round into the firing slit.

Edit: I was right. The B-300 is the Israeli SMAW: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-300

Javelins and TOWs are getting used a lot more to bust bunkers in Afghanistan. There really aren't any bunkers out there capable of stopping those systems. It's not a big deal to attach an anti-armor section/team to each company.

Originally Posted by IgnoranceisBliss

Javelins and TOWs are getting used a lot more to bust bunkers in Afghanistan. There really aren't any bunkers out there capable of stopping those systems. It's not a big deal to attach an anti-armor section/team to each company.

The topic of the thread is light infantry. They don't have the same number of Javelins or TOWs that a Mech unit would.

Originally Posted by Questerr

The topic of the thread is light infantry. They don't have the same number of Javelins or TOWs that a Mech unit would.

I was talking about Marine Corps Infantry BNs, which are typically considered light infantry. An entire dedicated platoon of anti-armor assets easily dispersed through the BN is a pretty solid presence. All it takes it 2 guys to man a Javelin. The B-300 doesn't provide much more than a LAW, AT-4, or SMAW in terms of range/power.