Black Hawk Down-Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
The institutional knowledge of employment of machine guns is almost lost in our Army. The current FM 23-67 on the M60 MG covers this, but only very basically. I was taught by a soldier in the British Army on an exchange program. They actually have a mount designed or this role and remove the buttstock from their GPMGs, mount a mortar type sight and use aiming stakes.

STLRN - See if someone on Ft Sill has a copy of the current Infantry. I got mine last week. The date is May-August 1999 but they have had some problems getting the right dates on the last few issues. They are requiring the observer to make his corrections based on the gun target (GT) line instead of the squad leader converting their observer target line corrections into GT left and rights. I think this would be slower in combat as it will require the observer to know where the guns are all the time.

I realize that manning problems are the reason for the cutback in the number of guns and combat vehicles, but I feel that we owe it to the nation to be intellectually honest and not try to say we have the same combat capability when we really don't.

I'm not suggesting that we cut R&D out altogether, but that we procure enough of the current generation of equipment to meet our needs before we start fielding the next. The prospect of a high intensity conflict with China is not that far fetched. In a large scale war like that, we will have to use just about all the forces this nation can muster. This includes 3 generations of trucks, 3 generations of radios, 4 different versions of the M16 rifle that require two different types of 5.56mm ammo. and this is just the ground forces. Many of the new systems such as the new Family of Medium Tactical Vehicles are only made on one assembly line. In WWII we converted plants to war production in a matter of weeks and months and turned out the weapons and equipment we needed to equip a force of 6 million. Much of our new equipment requires materials and skills that will not be easily obtainable in a short time.

Over in the other thread on the future combat rifle we are discussing rail guns to be used against both aircraft and AFVs. this is great and interesting, but I'm worried about what I'll fight with next week or next month or in the next five years if the need arises.
Jeff
 
OK, while I was off playing Secret Squirrel this has turned into an excellent discussion. To cite the key points:
1. The shallow drafted vessal will have to have a huge beam to have the required stability. They also are notorious for being pigs in heavy sea states. You could do a catamaran hull but I am not sure if they can displace enough weight to support decent armour, oh, and you will need armour because you will get hit. Even if your Counter Battery(CB) is great the BG's are going to have some guns that are able to hit your ship. And the current rage is to use DPICM vs ships because it makes accuracy less critical so you are going to have to defend against bomblets. Which brings me to point
2: the Navy's current shore bombardment ship(whatever name they are currently using)is dependant on lots of VLS missles, rockets, whatever. And they are all centrally mounted in the hull. Well what happens when a bomblet or better yet a self forging fragment from something like SADARM or Bonus punches into one of these VLS wells? can you say explosion that makes Port Texas look like a firecracker?
Point 3: Unguided rockets are awesome for sheer destructive potential for the dollar, however they are inaccurate and logistics intensive. For just smashing a beach, great. But if you have guys on the ground,like me, the recon or force guys)you don't want to be shooting rockets into the area. Friendly fire, isn't.
Point 4: Aircushion craft are great, the Corps was playing with using 30mm GE-pods in the direct fire role for beach suppression. we got them for free from the Air Farce since they decided that the F16 can't do gun runs to bust tanks like the A10. Thing is the recoils force might have bad effects on aircushioned vehicles with any gun of decent size. Would be nice to have for raids where a BB might tip off the BG's as to our intentions. Semper Fi....
 
JW:
Did your BC get the data I sent, still waiting on a call from the CCC for additional info, had to think back a 5+ years ago when I was a cannoneer. I will go to the library in the AM and see if they current Inf journel. The use of GTL vice OT makes adjustemt a little harder for the observer, but extemely easy for the guns, almost sounds like the techniques usd prior to the advent of the wiz wheel in the 1950's. The Marine use of the M17, solves for this for the observer, and all that need to be sent is a new AOF and mils of elevation. If you can get a copy of the FM 6-15 it has a very good work sheet on how to compute data.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
STLRN - Sir, I forwarded the info to him today. I'll send you his e-mail and mine and the units contact address tomorrow. Thanks much. We are on an unreliable dial up connection at the armory, so e-mail from there can be problematic at times.

I was about to write Infantry and suggest that they go talk to the battalion mortar platoon, or even see their FIST guys. From your post it sounds like the Marines have solved some of the problems with indirect fire of the MK 19.

Jeff
 
Send me an E-mail to my office in the Am with your address, or Armory adress, I will photo copy the portions of the manaul that you can use for computation of data. That way you can cite them in your response to the infantry journal.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Shin-Tao, that's an interesting idea. given EchoFiveMike's observation on limits to gun recoil, how would this thing work? if it was fitted with weaponry of lower recoil, say rockets and mortars, it could have less reach than a naval gun even though it would be closer to the target. it might be kind of interesting for it to have direct fire weapons, maybe a recoilless rifle, for dealing with pillboxes and ground vehicles.

if you have a highly mobile landing force that can ground out anywhere along a sizable stretch of coast, I'd think that you could usually find some non- or lightly-fortified beaches. in which case, Shin-Tao's "GCAC" (Gun Carrier, Air Cushion) could motor along with the LCACs and prep the beach with ripple-fire rockets. when the grunts are on the sand, though, there would need to be more accurate artillery, I guess mortars. in those cases where there's no alternative but to "kick the door in," I can't see any substitute for truly massive amounts of naval gunfire.

one thing that is annoying me is that our population is heading close to 300 million, our economy per capita is enormously strong, yet we have fewer ground combat divisions than ever. for LICs, I can understand having a few, highly mobile, high-tech, sharp-end divisions. but in the unfortunate scenario of a sustained conventional conflict, even with "acceptable" casualty rates, those poor suckers are just going to be worn out. I don't care how many force multipliers they have, thre are limits to how much front line time guys can take without a rest. somehow, we need to find a way to afford more maneuver divisions.
 
Shin - you advocating the return of the Sandy? Dont we use Rotory aircraft for that now?
Marines still have a number of Cobras in the latest version, Army has Apaches and the Navy has A6s and F-18s...

I would love to see the V-22 Osprey enter fulltime service - an AV-22 would be just what the Dr Shin orderd. Rocks and automatic grenade launchers couple with a good battery of chain guns... Sweet. Would give the US something the Soviets enjoyed with the HIND. Move Troops and put Ordinance on target.
Having only briefly ever ridden in a APC, and having to WALK most of the time... the idea of Armoured Transports is appealing to me... Armoured, Armed and Aerial Transports sounds like a dirt fantasy!
 
I'm realizing why I'm a machinist and not a ship designer. OK now I got it...

Take the Coast Guard's two Polar class icebreakers and weld a steel bridge between them. Rip out the forward cranes and the flight decks, and mount an 8" gun fore and aft on both hulls, then relocate one of the flight decks to the center section. Oops, Polar pigs handle and ride like sh**, and draw over 30' with a full load of fuel, so that won't work.

Maybe a modern day Missouri ain't a bad idea after all. :confused:

Eric


------------------
Does the "X" ring have to be that small?
 
GCACs, AV22s, two SMAWs per squad, a lot more M203s, RAWs, and better boots are what we need.
On the AV22 we need the same 3 barreled 20mm gatlins as the Cobra with a coax MK19. This should be mounted in the nose.
Mounted broadside, ala AC130, 2 GE minis, but 5.56mm, not 7.62. This aides in ressuply, number of rounds carried, etc.
Most important, we need better como and coordination. I don't like blue-on-blues.
Sandys, yes. But big ugly Sandys that live at the FEBA with the grunts. You bring in the infantry, then you stay with them. It's an incentive to bust your @ss to provide good ground support.
Another reason we need an AV22 is this: The Whisky Cobra is too slow to keep up with it.
 
A version of the Apachecalled the Sea Apache which was modified for operation off sutface ships was proposed some years ago. I believe that a mock up was built. The idea went nowhere because the Marines wanted modified Cobras. When you look at the firepower of an Apache that may not have been the smartest decsion the Marines ever made.
 
The Navalized Apache was a little bigger, it meant either reduce the CIFS aircraft on the ACE of the MEU or reduce lift ships, but most important it cost a lot more and the Marines did not have the money to pay for a lot of really expensive aircraft. If you have a 20mm gun there is really not a lot of need for a 40mm AGL. The 20 mm shoots a HE shell that although is not as effective as a 40mm round, but the 20mm can pump out almost 10 times as many rounds and at a flatter trajectory to a longer range. The use of 5.56 for an aircraft means that aircraft has to get really close to be able to hit the target. One reason the 7.62 minigun were replaced was to allow the gunships stay higher up. This reduces, slightly, the chance of being hit by small arms And yes you could carry more rounds, but you would have to shoot a lot more to have the same effect against anything but troops in the open.
2 SMAWs per squad? Does that mean replacing someone or just adding the weapon (for the Marines that would require 3, since one would more than likely go to each fire team)? If I remember right SMAW teams only can carry a few rounds because the rounds are relatively heavy. Also the SMAW gunner and his A-gunner still carry M16s. As it stands the SMAWs, the M240g and the M224 are company assets and held at the Weapons Plt and tasked out to cover the needs of a unit as a whole. We already have 3 M203 in a squad and they guys who carry them normally hate the weight and the weight of 203 rounds, each one weighs almost 1 pound, so grenadiers vest loaded out weighs over 20 lbs, add M16 ammo and everything else and the Fireteam leader (TO/E weapon user of the M203) are not happy campers. Would definitely agree about the boots, the Marines are currently issuing out a more advance boot the “infantry combat” boot. It has already replaced the other silicone treated leather speed lace boot as the standard issue. It has a Gore-Tex liner and is pretty comfortable. We are also testing a replacement for the jungle boot.


------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
George, According to the FMs the Air Force plans on using the A10 in the "Sandy" role.

I fear that the V22 program already has the cost per unit so high that we'll never buy enough to meet our needs.

Defnese decisions don't seem to be made based on a clear analysis of the threat, but on what high tech bauble the contractors wave in front of the procurement specialists in the Pentagon.

Some of you guys work ion the defense industry, so tell me; How long would it take to field some of this new technology given all the resources the nation being at war would free up? And could we build this stuff in sufficient quantities to use in a reasonable length of time?

I've just started re-reading "The Raid" which is the story of the Son Tay Prison raid in November 1970. The ground mission commander, the legendary "Bull" Simmons was having problems equipping his force even given that he had top priority to get whatever he wanted. There was a good second generation night vision system available, but only four of them were in existance. The bugs had been worked out of the early 30 round M16 magazines and he did manage to aquire enough for his small force, but there were no pouches to carry them in. Pouches were fabricated from Claymore bags in the canvas shop at Eglin AFB. And everyone knows about the single point sights that were bought through an ad in a gun magazine.

My point is that when COL Simmons put his requirements into the system, the system reacted with all of these neat things they had, the problem was they weren't available in the quantity needed or the other things you needed to use them i.e. ammo pouches, were not available.

So if we get in a shooting war in the near future, how many air cushion shore bombardment vehicles will we have or how many railguns will be available to shoot down aircraft and AFVs? How many OICWs or Land Warrior Systems? How many digitalized Abrams and Bradleys? We've already cut the number of these vehicles in our armored and mech Infantry battalions to the numer a digital battalion will have. I'm sorry guys, all this neat new technology is fun to talk about, but I still think we need to address immediate needs before we run off on a bunch of new systems.

Jeff
 
Yup, just add more of the tube itself, distribute reloads around the teams.
Reason for the MK19. There are evil new shells for it in the works, nastier than just HE.
The beefing up with SMAWS, RAWS is just for initial landing.
 
And we need new ballistic vests. The current ones are designed to overheat first, stop rounds second.

[This message has been edited by Shin-Tao (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
A10s are an airforce asset, not Marine or Naval.
The LandWarroir is pathetic and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
For the GCAC, suggest we make new LCAC hulls and use those for mounting 2.7" Rockets, mortors and maybe a brace of M2s. The baby could ride right up on the beach if required. The thing has to be stationary to fire the mortors afterall.
 
It can be done but as it stands right now the grunts are over loaded. You got your body armor, ammo, water, possibly a little food, and very little personnel gear. Than every one is carrying ammo for the SAW, the rifleman (point man) normally is carrying an AT-4. And then the Plt comes down and distributes PLT gear like IV bags, batteries for the radio, explosive and claymores. Than the Co comes down and your might be carrying 7.62 for machine guns, but you will definitely carry 1 or 2 rounds for the M224 60mm mortars.

------------------
God truly fights on the side with the best artillery
 
Shin - this is from the current issue of Infantry, in the Infantry News section: "A bulletproof "FLAK JACKET" that weighs 35 percent less than the current system was recently intorduced. The Army and Marine Corps plan to issue Interceptor Body Armor (IBA) as a replacement for the Personal Armor System, Ground Troops (PASGT). After more then 15 years of service, the anti-fragmentation vest is now considered outdated.

The 16.4-pound Interceptor system consists of a tactical vest and a pair of small-arms protective inserts. The Kevlar vest includes detachable neck and groin guards, while the ceramic plates slide into pockets on the front and rear.

The vest alone protects a soldier from shrapnel and 9mm pistol rounds. When the protective inserts are added, the system acts as a ballistic barrier to 7.62mm rifle ammunition as well. By comparison, the PASGT weighs about one-half pound more but offers defense only against fragmentation.

The PASGT, if it is teamed with the Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest, can be upgraded to stop 7.62mm rounds, but the combined weight of the two systems is 25.1 pounds. To reduce this burden, researchers merged the two designs into a lightweight body armor system that provides greater comfort and protection."

I wonder how many they will buy?

STLRN is correct in that the weight a modern Infantryman is asked to carry is getting insane. It seems that every new advance in technology just adds to the burden. When you add a 19 pound OICW to the burden a grunt aleady carries, mate it to land warrior, throw in water, rations and a fighting load of 20mm rounds, add the 16 pound interceptor body armor - we need to develop powered armor suits like Heinlen wrote about in his classic Starship Troopers just so we can physically move.

Jeff - who believes that the people who think this stuff up should at least have to do an NTC rotation in the 10th Mountain or 25th ID as an M240B gunner, as part of a heavy/light task force, before they are permitted into R&D.

[This message has been edited by Jeff White (edited March 08, 2000).]
 
The light divisions will have their infantry brigades converted to "Mobile Brigade Combat Teams' equipped withlight, air transportable (in a C-130) light armored vehicles.
Approximately 30 types of vehicles which are currently in production are being tested at Fort Knox. THe winners will be used to equip the new brigades but all the brigades may not have the same equipment.
Two "Lead" brigades are starting the conversion now but wil not have most of their vehicles initially.
The Army plans to convert one additional brigade every six months (provided, of course, that Gore doesn't win the presidential election)

[This message has been edited by Hard Ball (edited March 09, 2000).]
 
George, an "AV-22" would not necessarily be a Good Thing for this scenario. the V-22 grosses out at about 45,000 lb IIRC. this is too big and heavy for a gunship. plus, for the amphib assault CAS problem, I don't see the higher cruise speed necessarily paying for itself. for interdiction work, long-range patrols (the V-22 could make an awesome ASW platform!), and longer-range troop insertion, the tiltrotor design makes sense. now for the heliborne assault scenario, since the Marines have the V-22 built into their doctrine, then you have to have something that will keep up. but it needs to be smaller.

for the conventional CAS mission, I believe what's needed is a 20,000 lb GVW rotorcraft which is well armed, well armored, reasonably simple, and fairly maneuverable. the Apache is pretty rugged but is a maintenance hog. for comparison purpose, the Apache trims out at about 14,000-16,000 lbs in fighting trim. the reference to the Mil-24 is well taken; but the Russkies made a mistake. they tried to have guns and butter (i.e. troop carriage *and* gunship features). they should have trimmed it down a bit and kept it as a heavy gunship.

Jeff, unfortunately for a lot of the high-end hardware, the lead time required to ramp up production is substantial. skill levels required on the shop floor are quite high, and we all know that the public school system ain't cranking out Einsteins nowadays. the prime contractor can have their 1st shift go overtime (up to 50 or 60 hours per week; after that all you're generating is scrap). but it'd take awhile to find bright skilled and semi-skilled workers, then train them. and that problem permeates the whol esupply chain. Boeing was having trouble filling orders on their 757 and 767 jetliners, so they started to raid their suppliers for shop workers. guess what, their parts supply dried up.

but you can't blame too much of the problem on the defense industry. the game is going to be played only as clean as Washington wants to play it. it is not uncommon for a defense contractor to win a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, perform a little too well and make an excellent profit, then have DoD, GAO, EEOC, or all of the above come in and unilaterally fine the company back to the accepted profit level. nice, huh? on military hardware, half of the delivery cost comes from satisfying the mil specs, the oddball accounting specs, and the many unforeseen costs of getting jerked around by the Pentagon. take F-22; now that the Lockheed Martin team has won, some of your tax dollars are going to LM to keep a decent core of engineers employed. the profit margin on aerospace is generally so low that they can't afford to keep the technical staff without some subsidization by Uncle Sam. so while Congress and Dod fart around, the $ meter is running but you're going nowhere.

if DoD really wanted 1000 V-22s, it would take years now, because the manufacturers no longer trust the government when it says, "Here's a contract for 1000 airframes delivered over the next 4 years." over the last 40 years, building facilities for such a production block has been a sucker's bet; DoD always reneges on the contract, leaving the contractor with a mortgage payment they can't cover. you should try to get ahold of the book "Augustine's Laws" by Norm Augustine (former CEO of Martin Marietta). one of his rules is, the only thing worse than losing a bid competition is winning one.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top