While we are considering bringing back older weapons, let's consider bringing back the four Iowa class battleships. Currently the Navy has no gun afloat heavier than the 5 inch (127mm). The most advanced 5 inch gun fires a 70 pound shell. The 16 inch 50 caliber guns on the battleships fire 2700 pound shells. On of these dats the Marines are going to have to make an opposed landing again and we will need soem real naval firepower.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Black Hawk Down-Part IV
- Thread starter Hard Ball
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
As a big gun fan, I'm all for reactivating one BB. Read the testimonial of GIs in Korea or 'Nam about those big guns saving their lives. I've one friend who, as a Marine Sergeant, called in for naval fire support and the New Jersey fired a salvo. One NVA company vanished and he came home in one piece.
This past year or so, there's been an article or two in the Naval Institute magazine Proceedings regarding surface fire support. The Marines want it but the Navy is faced with cuts which limits both the number of personnel and ships. We are, like the English before us, going towards a smaller fleet and littoral warfare may never see a battleship fire her guns in anger again.
Of the four Iowa class BBs, two are to be deactivated as museum ships and two are to be in reserve.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
This past year or so, there's been an article or two in the Naval Institute magazine Proceedings regarding surface fire support. The Marines want it but the Navy is faced with cuts which limits both the number of personnel and ships. We are, like the English before us, going towards a smaller fleet and littoral warfare may never see a battleship fire her guns in anger again.
Of the four Iowa class BBs, two are to be deactivated as museum ships and two are to be in reserve.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
masshooter
Moderator
When I saw this thread, I could not resist a repl. I don't know the different class of battleships from each other...but that's not the point. Just finished reading "Debt of Honor" by Mr Clancy. In brief, it describes the Japanese using our Naval weakness to invade the Marianas islands and cripple the american navy. Very good read, but seems especially scary in today's anti-military downsizing. What if there were a major conflict? You know our leaders are relying on the technical gadgetry such as cruise missils to save the day. Will it work? Will we win one or two(!) major conflicts? We certainly don't have the current manpower or horsepower, and though I think we would eventually win, we will have to start from so far behind that many american soldiers will needlessly die. Also, I doubt japan would be the agressor as inthe novel. For some reason the rhetoric of china over taiwan independence scares me... that government seems somewhat belligerent, and studies indicate they are building up their military while we downsize ours. The strange thing is that they face no significant external or internal threats so why are they building up? The chinese people I know are good people... but their government seems dangerous. I would love to know what any ex-chinese citizens on this board think.
While at fort Bragg, I started out on the M102 howitzer. While being a pain to emplace, that gun was stout! It was a simple piece that anybody could easily memorize the components (Nomenclature) of all the major parts. It was well suited to our airborne ops, and we also used it extensively in raids, and normal field use. We went to SWA with it and had no problems.
When we returned, we found that we were turning them in for a new Brittish piece (M119) that was sold with all sorts of wonderful improvements. I'm one of those guys who believes if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our old system wasn't broke, and indeed, the howitzer was used in viet-nam ect... It had many, many years of good solid service, and mechanical failures were few and far between. When we got the Brittish piece, we had to learn to air-drop it. I can't tell you how many times we busted major components of that howitzer. It had a weak link where the cariage met the cradle. The carriage was made of aluminum alloy, and everyone thought it was really great. I hated it. I didn't mind so much that we had to stake in the old piece, but this one came with a design, that required no staking, but seemed to pick up to much displacement over prolonged firing. Come to find out, the Brits had bought our M109, and they bought a bunch of them. So to reciprocate, we purchased their light arty system. I bet not one enlisted redleg went on that purchase trip. I swore that I would never go through another system turn-in. I transfered from the 82nd to the 1st Cav. I found out that we were upgrading to the M109A6 Paladin. aaaaaaaauuuuugh!!!!
When we returned, we found that we were turning them in for a new Brittish piece (M119) that was sold with all sorts of wonderful improvements. I'm one of those guys who believes if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Our old system wasn't broke, and indeed, the howitzer was used in viet-nam ect... It had many, many years of good solid service, and mechanical failures were few and far between. When we got the Brittish piece, we had to learn to air-drop it. I can't tell you how many times we busted major components of that howitzer. It had a weak link where the cariage met the cradle. The carriage was made of aluminum alloy, and everyone thought it was really great. I hated it. I didn't mind so much that we had to stake in the old piece, but this one came with a design, that required no staking, but seemed to pick up to much displacement over prolonged firing. Come to find out, the Brits had bought our M109, and they bought a bunch of them. So to reciprocate, we purchased their light arty system. I bet not one enlisted redleg went on that purchase trip. I swore that I would never go through another system turn-in. I transfered from the 82nd to the 1st Cav. I found out that we were upgrading to the M109A6 Paladin. aaaaaaaauuuuugh!!!!
You're right. They should bring back the big guns. One of the reasons that modern destroyers have only one five inch gun mount though is because the guns are served by automatic loading systems and can fire so fast that today's destroyer has just as much firepower (maybe more) than the WWII types. It's still no excuse to keep the big guns mothballed.
when you look at the evolution of naval combat ships of frigate to carrier size, you'll notice that we've gone from a variety of calibers from .50" to 16" on each ship to ships with essentially one main gun and then .50s or M-60s on pintle mounts.
what might happen if we get into it with some country that has modern antiship missiles like Exocet as well as a bunch of small, fast craft (i.e. like the WWII PT boats)? our current designs may not be able to defend themselves versus a small, quick, numerous threat. we are much better prepared to fight against a "modern" opponent who throws missile-laden aircraft and cruise missiles against our vessels.
the downside to putting a variety of guns on combat ships is that it increases the required ship's complement, but with autoloaders and other technology we could minimize the impact of the additional guns on a ship. for example, a destroyer might carry the main 5" gun, a multipurpose missile rail, vertical-launch farm for cruise missiles and ASW torpedoes, 2 or 4 small powered turrets with 25mm or 30mm chain guns, two Phalanx mounts, then the .50s.
for amphib assault support, nothing succeeds like excess. probably cheaper to build anew than to restore and man the 4 remaining Iowa-class ships. compared to the 1930s designs, new ships could be dramatically simpler and easier to maintain.
[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited March 03, 2000).]
what might happen if we get into it with some country that has modern antiship missiles like Exocet as well as a bunch of small, fast craft (i.e. like the WWII PT boats)? our current designs may not be able to defend themselves versus a small, quick, numerous threat. we are much better prepared to fight against a "modern" opponent who throws missile-laden aircraft and cruise missiles against our vessels.
the downside to putting a variety of guns on combat ships is that it increases the required ship's complement, but with autoloaders and other technology we could minimize the impact of the additional guns on a ship. for example, a destroyer might carry the main 5" gun, a multipurpose missile rail, vertical-launch farm for cruise missiles and ASW torpedoes, 2 or 4 small powered turrets with 25mm or 30mm chain guns, two Phalanx mounts, then the .50s.
for amphib assault support, nothing succeeds like excess. probably cheaper to build anew than to restore and man the 4 remaining Iowa-class ships. compared to the 1930s designs, new ships could be dramatically simpler and easier to maintain.
[This message has been edited by Ivanhoe (edited March 03, 2000).]
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
Should Black Hawk Down become its own forum?
Thinking about land support role of ship artillery, todays ship guns are of smaller caliber than the leading land artillery pieces. 155 mm (6.1 in) is the most common caliber of arty under development for longrange fire missions in land warfare in various countries. Heavy enough for real punch, but light enough to manually handle the ammo.
At the same time navies around the world install only 120 to 127 mm guns to ships. Since 5 inc guns have ammo weight of only about 1/3 of 6 inch guns that means the modern ships are not even capable to equal fire support as modern land arty gunhowitzers are. Battleships are expensive to run, but why do not modern cruisers or large destroyers (of same size as WWII cruisers) have even a single 6 inch gun? With modern autoload system that could give same fire support as a battery of manually loaded guns, and could also do serous damage to enemys modern cruisers/destroyers in (quite unlikely) ship to ship engagement.
Ossi
At the same time navies around the world install only 120 to 127 mm guns to ships. Since 5 inc guns have ammo weight of only about 1/3 of 6 inch guns that means the modern ships are not even capable to equal fire support as modern land arty gunhowitzers are. Battleships are expensive to run, but why do not modern cruisers or large destroyers (of same size as WWII cruisers) have even a single 6 inch gun? With modern autoload system that could give same fire support as a battery of manually loaded guns, and could also do serous damage to enemys modern cruisers/destroyers in (quite unlikely) ship to ship engagement.
Ossi
There are many, many Marines that have clamored for the return of the BB, however it will probably never happen. Less face it the Navy was 1 carrier short of sailor last year. An old BB would require 1500 or so sailors, plus the cost of modernizing the electronic of the system. The potential of having another gun explosion incident, which would hard on the Navies PR efforts. The fact that in fiscally tight times supporting old technology means new technology doesn’t get developed. The fact that although the Navy uses littoral warfare and power projection to get money from congress, yet uses that money to support its blue water navy. This all equities to the BB are a thing of the past.
We actually lost 5-RPM substation rate of fire when the navy went from the semi-automated Mk 38 to the fully automated Mk 45. With the Mk 45 5x62 firing Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) and or the Mk 172 ICM round the max rate of fire will almost get cut in half because of having to go to a double ram system to load the longer projos.
In addition to Mk 45 5x62 another potential weapons for the DD 21 land attack destroyer is the vertical 155-mm gun. It will however be limited to munitions like the M982 ERGM (developed concurrently for the 155 Crusader project) because of the dependence of round to self-orient and guidance to the target, because of a lack of aiming a weapon that shoots strait up.
KJM: The breaks are not half the problem with the M119, the whole having to traverse the tube over the trail for long road marches. The fact the gun is so light that it is balanced to have the gunner sit on the gunner seat of the trail or the weapon sight picks up cross cant. It is just not right to have a weapon without a lanyard, the whole lever to fire the gun was on of the first things that unsettled me. Instead of the M102, I really liked the M101A1. Was all steel, didn’t need to be staked down to fire. We could do like the ROK army and retube them and have modern range performance without the penalties of Al or Ti chassis. Also for Helicopter raids we the MEUs use to take the ballistic shield off the gun and roll it inside the bird, that way you couldn’t tell want was in the helicopter and the pilot couldn’t pickle the gun high and damage it. I saw quite a few guns damages doing helicopter raids when the pilot dropped them too high. It was the 82nd FA that just had some problem at Hood with firing 3200 mils out. There a whole list of errors made by that offending gun, it was down right criminal.
George:
I think that was Hard Balls intent behind a new Military/Defense Weapons Forum
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
We actually lost 5-RPM substation rate of fire when the navy went from the semi-automated Mk 38 to the fully automated Mk 45. With the Mk 45 5x62 firing Extended Range Guided Munitions (ERGM) and or the Mk 172 ICM round the max rate of fire will almost get cut in half because of having to go to a double ram system to load the longer projos.
In addition to Mk 45 5x62 another potential weapons for the DD 21 land attack destroyer is the vertical 155-mm gun. It will however be limited to munitions like the M982 ERGM (developed concurrently for the 155 Crusader project) because of the dependence of round to self-orient and guidance to the target, because of a lack of aiming a weapon that shoots strait up.
KJM: The breaks are not half the problem with the M119, the whole having to traverse the tube over the trail for long road marches. The fact the gun is so light that it is balanced to have the gunner sit on the gunner seat of the trail or the weapon sight picks up cross cant. It is just not right to have a weapon without a lanyard, the whole lever to fire the gun was on of the first things that unsettled me. Instead of the M102, I really liked the M101A1. Was all steel, didn’t need to be staked down to fire. We could do like the ROK army and retube them and have modern range performance without the penalties of Al or Ti chassis. Also for Helicopter raids we the MEUs use to take the ballistic shield off the gun and roll it inside the bird, that way you couldn’t tell want was in the helicopter and the pilot couldn’t pickle the gun high and damage it. I saw quite a few guns damages doing helicopter raids when the pilot dropped them too high. It was the 82nd FA that just had some problem at Hood with firing 3200 mils out. There a whole list of errors made by that offending gun, it was down right criminal.
George:
I think that was Hard Balls intent behind a new Military/Defense Weapons Forum
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
155 projo only weigh 95 lbs for M107 HE, 103.5 for DPICM family projos the heaviest projo is the M712 Copperhead at 138lbs. But with thal round only 13.75 pound is actual warhead, the rest is guidance and body.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
To George Hill
George:
I think that the Black Hawk down thread keeps going on because TFI members are using it as a substitute for the Military Weapons/Defence Policy new forum I suggested on 2-15-2000.
posted February 15, 2000 08:45 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading the varios threads flowing from "Black Hawk Down", Green tip m16 ammunition etc it seems to me that many members are interested in military weapons and national defence while others are not. TFL has some members who are very knowlegeable in these ares. I have learned a number of things in these discussions that I didn't know previously and found very interesting.
A forum on these subjects would appeal to many members and those members who are not interetsed could pass it up."
TFL has a considerable number of interested and very knowledageable members as you can see from Black Hawk Down I. II. III. and IV.
I would recommend that we do have a new Military Weapons/Defence Policy forum before we reach Blackhawk Down XXX!
Regards, Hard Ball
George:
I think that the Black Hawk down thread keeps going on because TFI members are using it as a substitute for the Military Weapons/Defence Policy new forum I suggested on 2-15-2000.
posted February 15, 2000 08:45 PM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reading the varios threads flowing from "Black Hawk Down", Green tip m16 ammunition etc it seems to me that many members are interested in military weapons and national defence while others are not. TFL has some members who are very knowlegeable in these ares. I have learned a number of things in these discussions that I didn't know previously and found very interesting.
A forum on these subjects would appeal to many members and those members who are not interetsed could pass it up."
TFL has a considerable number of interested and very knowledageable members as you can see from Black Hawk Down I. II. III. and IV.
I would recommend that we do have a new Military Weapons/Defence Policy forum before we reach Blackhawk Down XXX!
Regards, Hard Ball
Puddle Pirate
New member
The Navy seems to be going toward a collection of Carrier Battle Groups with a few subs wandering around counting whales. I'm not sure the Navy remembers that supporting amphibious landings is one of thier jobs. I think a few "Amphibious Landing Support Ships" (ALSS) is in order. ALSS's would be around 300' with a fairly shallow draft, (12' or so) so they could get in closer to the beaches than a WWII cruiser or BB. Two 8" gun turrets on the fo'c'sle and one on the fantail. Seems like a viable concept to me, but I doubt if the Navy will ever build anything like them, because they aren't CVN's or support ships for a CVN.
Eric
Eric
Puddle Pirate, I think it would take a lot of work to design the hull/deck structure of a 300' ship to withstand 8" turrets, especially for a long service life. if you stretch that sucker out to 500', keep the shoal draft and increase beam a bit, that could be pretty workable. there would have to be a lot of magazine space, as most cargo vessels couldn't get inshore enough to resupply the thing during long firing strings.
heck, you might get away with two 4 bbl turrets, especially if there was auto- or semiauto-loading mechanisms and barrel cooling. being that close to shore, serious armor plating might be required. dunno how much, but threat artillery includes 203mm (8") howitzers. either that, or have onboard anti-artillery radar linked to the drive system; if incoming shells are on a trajectory to hit, put the hammer down and scoot away. I know the current generations of destroyers with gas turbines have an awful lot of "get-up-n-go" so that capability might be transplanted to this ALSS.
heck, you might get away with two 4 bbl turrets, especially if there was auto- or semiauto-loading mechanisms and barrel cooling. being that close to shore, serious armor plating might be required. dunno how much, but threat artillery includes 203mm (8") howitzers. either that, or have onboard anti-artillery radar linked to the drive system; if incoming shells are on a trajectory to hit, put the hammer down and scoot away. I know the current generations of destroyers with gas turbines have an awful lot of "get-up-n-go" so that capability might be transplanted to this ALSS.
Puddle Pirate
New member
Ivanhoe,
I was just typing on the fly there. The problem with a larger ship, is that the Navy tends to put as many people on them as they can possibly find room for, and with the problems the armed forces are having recruiting, I think several smaller ships is better than one or two big ones. I was also thinking of maneuverability of a small ship vs medium. Maybe 8" guns are too large for my concept, or maybe my concept ship is too small. A gas turbine driven, 500' long, wide beamed vessel may be a better idea. I hadn't even thought of the supply question until you brought it up. Underway replenishment during sustained fire would be a definite problem. I'll have to think a little more about the concept, and what the capabilities should be.
Eric
------------------
Does the "X" ring have to be that small?
I was just typing on the fly there. The problem with a larger ship, is that the Navy tends to put as many people on them as they can possibly find room for, and with the problems the armed forces are having recruiting, I think several smaller ships is better than one or two big ones. I was also thinking of maneuverability of a small ship vs medium. Maybe 8" guns are too large for my concept, or maybe my concept ship is too small. A gas turbine driven, 500' long, wide beamed vessel may be a better idea. I hadn't even thought of the supply question until you brought it up. Underway replenishment during sustained fire would be a definite problem. I'll have to think a little more about the concept, and what the capabilities should be.
Eric
------------------
Does the "X" ring have to be that small?
Eric, one thing I thought of ex post facto was the ranging duel issue. i.e., I think the best option is to have the guns at a distance offshore where your guns can reach inland as needed, but still out of range of the OPFOR artillery. not sure what the solution is here, since the big towed artillery pieces now can reach out to 30-40km.
another down side is that this thing would a rather specialized ship, and to get the Navy to buy some, it would be better to have dual-purpose, i.e. amphib assault and sea control. that's where a more conventional BB would succeed, since they can go "in harm's way" in deep water and mix it up with OPFOR fleets.
one thing we need anyway is a better variety of coastal ships ranging from 100-300'. though a corvette-sized ship would have to be designed very carefully to handle even a 5" gun. if it could be done, 25 or 50 of these little critters buzzing around the littoral would be hard to hit but might mass enough firepower to win the arty battle.
another down side is that this thing would a rather specialized ship, and to get the Navy to buy some, it would be better to have dual-purpose, i.e. amphib assault and sea control. that's where a more conventional BB would succeed, since they can go "in harm's way" in deep water and mix it up with OPFOR fleets.
one thing we need anyway is a better variety of coastal ships ranging from 100-300'. though a corvette-sized ship would have to be designed very carefully to handle even a 5" gun. if it could be done, 25 or 50 of these little critters buzzing around the littoral would be hard to hit but might mass enough firepower to win the arty battle.
The Navy is toying with the idea of a shore bombardment ship which, being fully automated, would have a miniscule crew of only 50. The ship would be laden with rockets. However, critics point out that it isn't cheap and would be very vulnerable if spotted. With a crew of only 50, there's not much of any damage control party to speak of.
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
Jeff White
New member
Everything we buid these days has to be over engineered and high tech. In WWII we put very simple rocket launchers on landing craft and tanks. An cheap way to increase firepower. Why do ideas like this never get any consideration? Too cheap and uncomplicated, and they just might work! There was an article in Infantry magazine several years back where the author advocated bolting 2.75" folding fin aerial rockets (FFAR) to the turret of a Bradley BFV to increase firepower.
It seems that the maneuver commander is getting less and less fire support in the close fight as we spend billions to develop hi tech artillery and mortar rounds to fight the deep battle, never mind that we have to airlift our tubes behind the lines to fight the deep battle due to the better range the enemy artillery has.
The current issue of Infantry has an article on firing the MK 19 40mm automatic grenade launcher in the indirect mode. It even included a GFT for the 40mm high velocity grenade both the M430 HEDP round and the M918 TPT round.
When the defense industry lets the soldier down, he will usually think up a way to accomplish his mission.
Lately the buzz phrase in the Army has been "We can do more with less". With this in mind, we reduced all of the 8 gun batteries in the Army to six gun batteries, and cut the number of combat vehicles in the heavy maneuver units. New digital technology was supposed to make these smaller units have equal or greater combat power then the old larger units. Of course we have yet to make much of this wonder technology work, but we've already reorganized to accomodate it.
Jeff
It seems that the maneuver commander is getting less and less fire support in the close fight as we spend billions to develop hi tech artillery and mortar rounds to fight the deep battle, never mind that we have to airlift our tubes behind the lines to fight the deep battle due to the better range the enemy artillery has.
The current issue of Infantry has an article on firing the MK 19 40mm automatic grenade launcher in the indirect mode. It even included a GFT for the 40mm high velocity grenade both the M430 HEDP round and the M918 TPT round.
When the defense industry lets the soldier down, he will usually think up a way to accomplish his mission.
Lately the buzz phrase in the Army has been "We can do more with less". With this in mind, we reduced all of the 8 gun batteries in the Army to six gun batteries, and cut the number of combat vehicles in the heavy maneuver units. New digital technology was supposed to make these smaller units have equal or greater combat power then the old larger units. Of course we have yet to make much of this wonder technology work, but we've already reorganized to accomodate it.
Jeff
Jeff:
I remember when the Marines went from the Platoon based 8 gun batteries to the battery based 6 gun batteries. The excuse given by all the “higher ups” was you couldn’t tell the difference in the effects of six guns and eight. Yeah, right 200 lbs. less steel going down range per Battery, 600 per Bn (the equivalent of 1 Btry). Beside the ability of a unit to continue action after causalities. The simple fact was it was cheaper, and personnel draw down had to manifest themselves somewhere, and artillery was cut vice Air wing slots and Grunt slots. The Wing was and is relatively safe from draw downs as we all saw in the gulf Air will always be available to provide support. And Grunts are necessary to fulfil the normal Marine peacetime mission and the only time artillery is needed is in real wars, which are uncommon today. Officially the Corps got ride of all its SP in the summer of 1990. However they were still on MPF ships that arrived in the gulf, so they were used and where praised throughout the Artillery community. However after the conflict they disappeared because of maintenance cost.
The army is suffering from the same syndrome, but compounded by recruiting short falls and procurement. When the army was going to equip all its mech forces with Paladin, they request enough to equip 8 gun batteries. Congress only authorized enough to cover 6 gun batteries. Instead of getting ride of artillery units that needed them they changed the TO/E to reflect what they were authorized to procure. The same thing happened with the new M1A2, the army wanted enough to equip everyone with them. Congress said we will only buy X number, way less than was necessary. To make up for this they army will be equipping units with the M1A1 SEP, with most of the capability but not all.
The indirect fire gunnery with the MK-19 is part of the FMFM 6-15 (I believe that is the correct title), Machine Guns and Machine Gunnery. It contains info on how to do IDF with all the Machine guns, the one I have is a little out of date, so it doesn’t contain TFTs for M240g, but still has them for the M60. It is relatively simple to do, my battery did it at Camp Fuji a few years ago, all you need is a M17 plotting board, M2 compass or aiming circle, and a gunners quadrant. I have been told 0331 are expected to be able to able to do IDF with the M2, M240G and Mk19.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
I remember when the Marines went from the Platoon based 8 gun batteries to the battery based 6 gun batteries. The excuse given by all the “higher ups” was you couldn’t tell the difference in the effects of six guns and eight. Yeah, right 200 lbs. less steel going down range per Battery, 600 per Bn (the equivalent of 1 Btry). Beside the ability of a unit to continue action after causalities. The simple fact was it was cheaper, and personnel draw down had to manifest themselves somewhere, and artillery was cut vice Air wing slots and Grunt slots. The Wing was and is relatively safe from draw downs as we all saw in the gulf Air will always be available to provide support. And Grunts are necessary to fulfil the normal Marine peacetime mission and the only time artillery is needed is in real wars, which are uncommon today. Officially the Corps got ride of all its SP in the summer of 1990. However they were still on MPF ships that arrived in the gulf, so they were used and where praised throughout the Artillery community. However after the conflict they disappeared because of maintenance cost.
The army is suffering from the same syndrome, but compounded by recruiting short falls and procurement. When the army was going to equip all its mech forces with Paladin, they request enough to equip 8 gun batteries. Congress only authorized enough to cover 6 gun batteries. Instead of getting ride of artillery units that needed them they changed the TO/E to reflect what they were authorized to procure. The same thing happened with the new M1A2, the army wanted enough to equip everyone with them. Congress said we will only buy X number, way less than was necessary. To make up for this they army will be equipping units with the M1A1 SEP, with most of the capability but not all.
The indirect fire gunnery with the MK-19 is part of the FMFM 6-15 (I believe that is the correct title), Machine Guns and Machine Gunnery. It contains info on how to do IDF with all the Machine guns, the one I have is a little out of date, so it doesn’t contain TFTs for M240g, but still has them for the M60. It is relatively simple to do, my battery did it at Camp Fuji a few years ago, all you need is a M17 plotting board, M2 compass or aiming circle, and a gunners quadrant. I have been told 0331 are expected to be able to able to do IDF with the M2, M240G and Mk19.
------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
We clearly need a DoD forum.
The Russians developed some simply huge aircussion craft for their Naval Infantry to play with. We should use a large AC hull for a fast fire support platform. Stuff it with barrage rockets, mortars, or maybe a MRLS rig. As the landing goes down, the firesupport AC could zip up and down the coast playing firefighter, giving a hand where needed.
The Russians developed some simply huge aircussion craft for their Naval Infantry to play with. We should use a large AC hull for a fast fire support platform. Stuff it with barrage rockets, mortars, or maybe a MRLS rig. As the landing goes down, the firesupport AC could zip up and down the coast playing firefighter, giving a hand where needed.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.