Bashing of the M4

pardus

Verified Military
Joined
Sep 7, 2006
Messages
9,923
I am not saying that 7.62 is not another tool to keep in the bag, every rifle comapany has a few... I am saying there is no reason to put that kind of weight and recoil on a riflemen. Besides it will never mean shit anyway unless you train them to be better shooters!!!:cool:

Every Squad should have one 7.62 rifle IMO.

This always swings back to one thing, better training, regardless of what caliber we are talking about.

There is NO excuse for poor weapon skills, none!

Officers, listen up, this is your responsibility!
 

HOLLiS

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,509
Location
Where it is wet, wet, and more wet
I am not saying that 7.62 is not another tool to keep in the bag, every rifle comapany has a few... I am saying there is no reason to put that kind of weight and recoil on a riflemen. Besides it will never mean shit anyway unless you train them to be better shooters!!!:cool:

Good points, that is why there are squads, platoon, company, etc size weapons. It is not a individual carrying everything. It is a unit of soldiers carrying what is needed. The load is divided up among the members of the unit. If there was one perfect weapon, then that would be all we would see carried.

I carried 35 20 rd magazines. I also carried a can of gun ammo (M60) and a few 60 mike mike. Maybe even some blooper (M79) ammo among other stuff in my pack. I don't think anyone like when 81s where with us. We sure liked the fire support, but not humping that stuff. This is a issue of resource and preserving that resource. This gets into squad, platoon and company tactics. What weapons are used and when. How to preserve your resources while exhausting the enemies. All that adds up, whether you come home or not.

The military makes the choice what is best for the unit, if we make the choice it would probably be, what is best for me. Often this is the bases of disagreements because what is best for the unit may not be best for me.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
IMPROVED TRAINING to include improved tactics, lessons learned, etc.

We sure liked the fire support, but not humping that stuff. This is a issue of resource and preserving that resource. This gets into squad, platoon and company tactics. What weapons are used and when. How to preserve your resources while exhausting the enemies. All that adds up, whether you come home or not.

The military makes the choice what is best for the unit, if we make the choice it would probably be, what is best for me. Often this is the bases of disagreements because what is best for the unit may not be best for me.

Right there is the basis of the issue. Well put Hollis.
That's my point. We cannot say 5.56 is better than 7.62 is better then 6.8, until we look at the tactics of each situation...and to my understanding, there is no TYPICAL firefight. The emphais is supposed to be (rhetric) switching to Afghanistan, but does that mean we screw the guys in Iraq with Big Army wide changes? Or, visa-versa?

Consider this:
If most of the fight is suppression fire until a gunship arrives, then hell, just hump something light (.22 long rifle? (just kidding, but you get the idea)) that is good for MOSTLY suppression fire.

If the situation is for long distance rifle shots (with no backup on the way) then I would think you surely would want something to reach out and kill at range, or punch thru a barrier.

There may be no "typical" firefight, but we (and Big Army) DO have to look at the commonalities, and make huge sweeping training and equipment changes based on those "common/typical" tactics.

As Hollis said, it's a lot about compromise. Trying to cover every situation with one issued rifleman's piece of kit. And what I'm hearing is that what most of the trigger pullers want is (mostly) 5.56, with a 7.62 or two thrown in.
And, MORE IMPORTANT an increased emphasis on training training training with whatever the tool, and I'm hearing it's the 5.56 that's wanted the MOST!!!

All that adds up, whether you come home or not.
Well put Hollis. Tactics, suppression fire, etc...all have to be an improved part of an increased training agenda. As Pardus said, OFFICERS have to ensure that this takes place. And, THAT'S not just a matter of increased range time...but discussions of improved tactics, lessons learned, etc. My gut still tells me that we're missing something important though...or we're still not on top of it. Something still bothers me about what I'm hearing.
:2c:
 

HOLLiS

Verified Military
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
1,509
Location
Where it is wet, wet, and more wet
My gut still tells me that we're missing something important though...or we're still not on top of it. Something still bothers me about what I'm hearing.
:2c:

Maybe the hardest part of all. Death(not always the worse outcome) is a part of combat. No guarantees. Even doing everything right, things go wrong. Until it is over, one never knows what price was paid. That always promotes second guessing. Some of it is good, some is just part of our natural human desire that things should not have happened.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
Maybe the hardest part of all. Death(not always the worse outcome) is a part of combat. No guarantees. Even doing everything right, things go wrong. Until it is over, one never knows what price was paid. That always promotes second guessing. Some of it is good, some is just part of our natural human desire that things should not have happened.
Amen, Bro! Well put (again) H! :cool:
Still, we gotta do what we CAN do. But, logic is still not adding up on all this. Something about the "suppression fire" concept still bothers me. There may be no "typical" firefight, but we DO have to look at the commonalities, and make training and equipment changes based on as much "common/typical" tactics data as we have.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
Great links PB, and need to be read several times.

I guess it boils down that we have to make training and equipment plans based on current operational data, lessons learned data, current (trained)tactics, as well as predictions about future terrain and tactics. I guess all I can do is try to help get the resources to the folks that are doing the training and making those decisions.
Perhaps with a little oversight, to make sure it actually GETS to Joe.

But, what I'm asking is Afghanistan's most common occurance of a firefight happen "on patrol" or while stationary in a "firebase" type of environment. (or both?). And is that patrol on foot, or out of a vehicle? Is the getting out of the vehicle (CQB carbine size) type fight more common than trying to be shooting at the shitbags from 500 yards behind rocks on the side of the ridge? Is it "mountain goat hunting", or more of an up-close (beltbuckle distance) CQB thing? Or, a lot of both? Again, just thinking out loud...about something I can only wonder about..and will probably never really know.
 
A

arizonaguide

Guest
New letter to Senator:

Dear Senator,

The boys need more freakin ammo.
Emphais on lots of training ammo, and Mk262.

Also send a bunch of piston uppers.
Other than that, quit fuckin with shit, and send ammo.

(me)
 

Diamondback 2/2

Infantry
Verified Military
Joined
Jan 24, 2008
Messages
6,985
Location
Tejas
SSMP
Military Mentor
A

arizonaguide

Guest
Dammit. Everytime you guys mention that gayness shit...I have to go and find something like this:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPYL6-SoBc4&feature=related"]YouTube - Women shooters[/ame]
And it's not easy sorting thru all that related youtube stuff.:cool:
 
Top