Equipping an army

P

Pete

New member
Now for a more hypothetical thread. I saw a topic somewhere about being the commander-in-chief of some imaginary military force. The question was regardless of cost: which rifle would you equip your forces with?

http://216.199.9.84/NonCGI/Forum4/HTML/000042.html

Now imagine cost *was* a factor. Let's say you had 10,000$ or a milion$ or whatever limited amount of money to equip as many men as possible with firearms.
So that the more expensive your gun of choice was, the less soldiers you could afford.

How would you arm your "troops?"
 
Geez Pete... this would depend... What is the SITREP? Defense or Offense?

------------------
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
SITREP? don't know what that is. I guess for all-purpose use. Is the M16A2 used for offense or defense?
 
I think I'd pick something along the lines of a South African R5 or Finnish Valmet (.223) as the standard issue piece. I've always been partial to the simple and reliable AK design, but not particularly fond of 7.62x39.

I don't know what the TO&E is for a platoon, but 3 M240G's per platoon and a SAW per fireteam would be nice. It depends on the foliage also. More 7.62x51 and less .223 for thick jungle or forrest.

You must take into account that volume discounts apply. As I recall, looking through a NSN (National Stock Number) catalog, the government only pays about $250 per M-16.
 
I would go with HK G-36's for flexability. We may field fewer Soldiers... But we will have the highest moral and motivation and have a higher technology advantage.

Actually, the best model for national defense forces is Isreal... UZI's for Everyone!

------------------
RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE
 
How about guns available in the US? I couldn't find prices for R5's anywhere, and Valmets go in the upper teens, from what it looks like on the web.
This may include "sporting" firearms too. For example. You could equip 15 men with semi-automatic .22 rifles for the price of one pre-ban AR-15.
 
I don't know what the actual question was, but here would be my choice for the optimal Squad of 8 men:

1 .308 bolt rifle w/ Sheperd Scope
1 SAW
5 M4's
1 M4 w/ M203
Squad leader gets ITT Nightvision Monocular

On the platoon Level, I would suggest 3 squads outfitted as above, and one support squad as follow:

1 300 Win Mag Blaser R93 W/ Sheperd Optics
2 SAW
2 M4s W/ M203
3 MP5 SDs

Each platoon assigned 2 HMMVs, 4 Bradley IFVs, and 2 Bradley TOWs.
Outfit each platoon with 1 .50 BMG Semi-auto Rifle, 4 Benelli M3 Shotguns, 3 light mortars, half a dozen AT4s, 2 ITT Nightvision Binoculars, 2 ITT Nightvision Scopes and a good bunch of Claymores.

Sidearms for EVERYONE... Glock 18s with folding stocks!
MAD DOG MPKs for everyone too!!
(now if those two don't boost morale, we'll need Hooter's Girls assigned to the mess tent!)


Now if we are talking about "Minute Men" not a professional Army:

ARs/Mini-14s and MAKs/SKSs all around. Grouped by squad, so that each squad had one caliber or the other.. not both.
1 high power hunting rifle and one shotgun per squad.

Pick-Up Trucks, ATVs, and heavy V-8 sedans as available.....


[This message has been edited by Rob (edited June 08, 1999).]
 
Pocket Neutron Bombs for every private. Sergeants carries two, in case a private loses one. Officers won't get any since they'll be busy with a swagger stick pointing out where to deploy these goodies.

One riot, one private (apologies to the Texas Rangers).

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
Considerations:

1. Cost. Cost ALWAYS counts, even for wealthy nations.
2. Ammunition supply. Armies use a lot, even when there is no real fighting. When there is, well, WWII U.S. ammo production was in the order of 25 billion rounds of Cal. 30.
3. Stature of troops. Weight of rifle, weight of combat ammo load and recoil are important if troops are small.
4. Transportation. No use ordering tons of guns and ammo if the nation's transport infrastructure depends on back packs over muddy trails.
5. Real requirements. This is actual vs. perceived need. Even U.S. generals succumb to the lure of new hardware - and even WE can't always afford it. (Civil War General Ripley recognized actual need and got pilloried for it.)
6. Quantity. A military of 100,000 men does not need 100,000 first class rifles, or even personal arms, depending on size of the logistics "tail" and the number of tank/weapons crews, communicators, etc., who can get by with second string weapons (e.g., the U.S. carbine in WW II) or none at all (Navy ship crews).

Just some thoughts.

Jim
 
There are at least 40 million AK-47s out there. Last I heard, they could be had for 250$ or less. No one has made a more reliable assault rifle yet. I would buy as many of these as I could afford.
 
So if i'm suppling my army for the asian invasion thats coming up I should find a gun with very little recoil cuz we're small, and I should get a first class rifle cuz there aren't that many of us right?
 
I'm going to suggest that it doesn't matter which rifle you choose, within a fairly large group of good rifles, i.e. M-16, Galil, Sig, HK, Steyer, etc.
If you check your history for the last 150 years, you will find that technology, tactics, gear, fighting spirit, etc, hasn't won many wars, if any. Vietnam included. As an aside, when the U.S. pulled out of Vietnam, our nominal objectives had been achieved. The Viet Cong had been eliminated as a militarily significant or effective force. South Vietnam was lost 3 years later to a conventional invasion from the north with more armor than Hitler used to invade Russia!!

Anyway, back to the point. Since the U.S. Civil War, the side that was able to produce more (guns, ships, planes, tanks, soldiers, etc) won. As an example, we won WWII. German Wehrmacht small unit leadership and tactics were generally superior to all of their opponents, including us Americans. German losses in comparison to Allied losses were far smaller than Russian, American, British, etc. They outfought everyone. Their tanks were generally superior to all others with the exception of the Russian T-34. Our Shermans were nicknamed "zippos" because of how easy they lit up! One Panther was a match for 5 Shermans. But, we produced enough that we could overwhelm the Germans with 10 to 1 or better odds. What won the war for the Allies was production. The Germans (and the Japanese) just couldn't compete with American and Russian industrial production.
In conclusion, pick whatever rifle/SAW/MG combination you want. Some will like it, some won't. But if you can out produce your enemy, you'll probably win.

------------------
Dorsai
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal
weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the
monarch of all he surveys.
-- Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle
 
I have a book titled something like "Dirty Little Secrets of World War II", in which they claim that artillery and machine guns were the real weapons of the European theater. after all, most Germans were carrying bolt-actions, but they had lots of light and medium machine guns. given that, Rob is on the right track; i.e. design rifle squads or platoons, not just individual grunts.

if your troops can be trained to shoot well, then it seems like it would be worth it to go for a shootable rifle like the M16. if your guys are 3rd world, then spray-n-pray with eastern bloc rifles is probably the way to go.

similar to what Rob sez, I'd have a squad of 5, in which there'd be at least one grenade launcher, one SAW, and one scoped M1A, the rest carrying either A2s or CARs. then a good .30 cal machine gun in the platoon with a coupla big ogres to carry belts, and a couple guys with rockets as needed. and for
Americans, plenty of radios and guys who can read a map and call in arty. I'm curious just how well platoons make use of small mortars; when you're that close to the enemy, it seems to me things would reduce down to the point-n-shoot mode pretty quickly.

I'd like to see the US upsize the M16 family to a .257 caliber cartridge with good velocity. an 80 grain penetrator bullet for general use, plus 100 or 120 grain match bullets for longer ranges.
 
There's more to take into account than just numbers. The German tanks were, on average, better than the Allied tanks, when the German tanks worked that is. Their aircraft were better than ours, at the beginning of the war, but didn't keep up with the technological changes (yeah, yeah the Me262 and Me163 were better but employed poorly). At the end of the war, the Germans were producing more war materials than they had at any other time. They just didn't have trained men to use them.

The German command structure was so rigid that small unit commanders wouldn't deviate from their battle plan to exploit an advantage.

At any rate: Pete, is this "Army" going to be equipped by off-the-shelf products? In that case:

1. AR's (pre or post ban makes little difference)
2. AK's (getting more expensive, but still relatively cheap [particularly AK-74's], when compared to AR's)
3. FAL's (7.62x51 , simple, and cheaper than HK-91 & M1A. 20rnd mags are only $7-$15)
4. Good pump shotguns
5. Various pistols (just something that will get their heads down while you move to something more effective)
6. Body armor and helmets


[This message has been edited by Destructo6 (edited June 09, 1999).]
 
The Mortars were added for the reason that a mech infantry unit has enough mobility to get into and out of small arms range quickly. Especially when you are talking about a static enemy. A platoon assaulting a dug-in opponent will be able to make use of the platoon level infantry to soften up a target before a direct assault.
 
If you were limited to:

1. .22 caliber semiauto rifles
2. larger caliber bolt-action hunting rifles
3. pump shotguns

Which would be your choice to equip your "army" with?
 
If those are the limits, it sounds like the budgets will be low..otherwise, they are odd limits.. so:

Ruger 10/22s.. they are damn reliable, fast shooting, plenty of spare parts to be found.

Rifle? ANY-- I'd prefer Remingtons for the same reasons above, but the truth is that almost any modern bolt action is going to be passable.

Remington 870.
 
Rob, i saw in your post that you listed the Sheperd scope. I had ask around when i was looking for a scope (when i had guns, which i don't anymore...see another thread) and most of what i heard wasn't good. i'm gathering from your recommendations that you approve of the Sheperd.
 
I have only played around with one, and it wasn't for a long time. I chose them for training purposes. I don't think they would be any advantage.. (and maybe a hinderance) for a real serious precision marksman type.. but for the guy who was "picked" for the job, a dope card on the stock that referrenced the multiple reticles on the sheperd would make for a pretty easy way to be accurate without too much training or memorization.

-too bad about your guns, btw...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top