What's so different about "Modern" combat?

A

artech

New member
We got into this a little bit on another thread and I wanted to get some more input.

The discussion concerned the M1 Garand and modifying it for "modern" combat. In my job as a paramedic I get to talk to all kinds of people, and lots of them are veterans (like me) so we get to talking.

Now, what the WW2 guys that served in Italy and France talk about sounds a whole lot like what's referred to as Urban Warfare today, and the Korean war vets seem to know a lot about long range shooting AND human wave tactics. The Japanese campaign guys' stories sound just like the Vietnam stories, only we won that one(with old style battle rifles-hmmm).

My question is this: What's so different today? What makes the requirements for "modern combat" different than they were fifty years ago? Aside from a convenience factor concerning weight and capacity(which only seems to result in a lower shot/hit ratio), what are we actually gaining over the weapons of WW2?

My own predudice is that we are actually regressing (probably too much TV)and that we need to rethink our military service rifle. I'd rather lug a Garand to a fight than an M16, but that's just me. What does everyone else think?
 
artech, Hear!Hear! As the proud owner of the best semi-automatic varmint rifle America has produced, I have to concur with your proclamation about the Garand. I have heard stories from yesteryear that the Garand was too long and too heavy. I've never heard complaints about stopping power. Have you read Blackhawk Down? It is the true story of the Rangers and Delta Force battle in Somalia. Many of them were not too impressed with the 5.56mm's ability to put down starving Somalis: some requiring hits in the double digits to go down. One of the Delta Force troopers carried an M-14 which only required one shot per target. Brian
 
artech:

Here is MHO. The answer to the question of, "what are we gaining?" Not much. The biggest thing about "Modern" combat/warfare is that it is practiced by younger (more "modern"?) guys. And military desk jockeys just need things to tinker with and new weapons systems are fun to play with if you're not footing the bill.

As to choices of weapons, I'll take my M1A anytime although I do own an AR and it can play its role. The M1A still does a better job of reaching out and getting someone's attention as does the Garand.
 
I too am quite curious why the whole world wants to go to war with a varmit round that sometimes doesn't even clean kill varmits (I have had .223 fail to kill a woodchuck on first hit to the midbody section).

I realize though that .30-06 is too long to be practical for the action styles that are common today, and the kick is too great for even low rate automatic fire from an AR. .308 is more pratical for that role, as seen in the FAL, but the muzzle velocity isn't exactly the best. Something comparable in stopping power, but also adequate velocity would make a huge difference. .308 necked down to 7mm rem mag slug, or 6.5mm would make a huge difference in muzzle velocity and yet not increase kick above that of an FAL.

The important thing to consider today though, is the expense of manufacture. Not the cost to buy mind you, but the cost to build. Companies don't sell weapons to the military at the same low margins that they used to. To have an M1 Garand put into production today would cost less than it did back then in terms of time involved, but labor is higher, and regulations are much much more prohibitive. Then, because the cost to build is so high, the price asked will be really high... Garands made new today would probably START at 5000 a piece to the military, but the way they spend they'd probably pay 10,000 for them. Not cost effective.

The FAL, on the other hand, is pretty simple to make compared to a Garand, lower tolerances, etc... so if a variant of it could be made with a less noticeable kick and a higher velocity (6.5 or 7mm) than it would really have a good chance..

One other thing limiting the Garand's modern capability is the touchy nature of it's mechanism. It doesn't do real great in the desert, or in extreme cold, unless the ammo is correct and the gas port is set perfectly... Also the little problem of the foregrips occasionally catching on fire after extended firing is not good.
 
Modern combat emphasizes more suppressing fire in the form of more high capacity automatic capable weapons on the battlefield. Troops carry more ammo. In essence, almost everyone has a weapon that, per it's effective rate of fire, would have been a squad automatic (like the BAR) in WWII. More suppressing fire means more people keep their heads down and that they stay in one place. The longer you stay in one place, the more likely that artillery will be called in on your position. From what I hear, artillery (in whatever form) is the primary killer in most wars-not rifle fire. That's the theory. That said I'd feel safer facing a charging enemy with a .308 than with a .223 or 7.62x39, though I'd feel underarmed with neither.
 
The classic military calibers like the 3006, 303 British, 8 mm Mauser, 7.62x54 Russian and others of that generation harken back to end of the 19th century, before the emergence of the machine gun and rapid-fire artillery. Troops of that era where expected to fire at massed or large targets 1000 to 2000 yards away. Studies done after WW1 and especially after WW2 showed that most infantry fire was at ranges of 300 yards or less with most at 100 yards. The conclusion was that an intermediate cartridge was needed for assault rifles and the Russians came up with the 7.62x39 and the Germans with their short 7.92. The US and Nato came up with the 7.62x51 which was too powerful for an assault rifle and then the current 5.56 round for the M16.

Rounds like the 7.62x51 are great penetrators and excellent general purpose MG cartridges, but are not good for full auto assault rifles. The 22 cal rounds are good for suppression fire but lack penetration. IMHO what is needed for the GENERAL PURPOSE INFANTRY RIFLE is a cartridge that is light, allows high volumes of fire if needed, has good penetration for urban situations and has better terminal ballistics. My solution: something like the old 250 Savage or 6mm Remington. Almost forgot, modern soldiers are wearing more and more body armour, we need that penetration.
 
For good or ill, there is more emphasis on controllable full auto fire, which is difficult it not impossible (don't argue unless you have tried it!) with full power rifles like the M14. It is possible with the M16.

In addition, the cost and drain on resources of ammunition is much less with smaller rounds. Most civilians don't even consider this for a hundred rounds or so. But in WWII, Frankford Arsenal turned out 1.9 million rounds of .30 ammo per day and at that rate, the difference betweeen a 150 grain bullet and a 55 grain bullet or between a 50 grain powder charge and a 25 grain powder charge can be very significant in terms of both money and having enough resources to win a prolonged war.

Perhaps we will regret some day not having very powerful infantry rifles, but for anti-personnel weapons at reasonable battle ranges, the modern weapons and ammunition families work well.

(I somehow doubt that many of the folks who say they would gladly carry an M1 rather than an M16 have ever carried an M1 very far. :-))

Jim
 
In reply to the comments about the Garand's "touchy nature" I recollect that when the Army tested the FN-FAL against the M-14 they used a Garand converted to 308 as a control. If my memory serves the Garand was more reliable then the FAL in testing and almost as reliable as the M-14. The only problem I am aware of with the Garand was that too much rain could cause the bolt to lose lubrication and malfunction - the reason why the M-14 had a roller installed on the bolt. For the most part the Garand worked well in desert and artic conditions. In Korea the Garands worked well compared to the M1 carbines and other weapons systems that froze.
 
Yeah a 30-06 BAR would still be good. It lasted more conflicts than any other automatic weapon ww1, 2 korea, even early vietnam (with the french)
 
It seems like the most common virtues attributed to the 5.56mm is that it is more controllable in full auto and allows for lighter rifles. This seems moot in the M-16 with the negation of the full auto capability in favor of a 3-shot burst. The original light barrel M-16 as first fielded in the late 50's and early 60's was a different animal than today's heavy barreled 8+ pound rifles. Does it not seem funny that the military switched to a ultra lightweight, small caliber-high velocity low recoil impulse, full auto rifle from a clunky, heavy, deep penetrating bullet, hard kicking, mostly semi-auto rifle, and now are slowly turning the new whizbang rifle into a heavy, mostly semi-auto, clunky (by adding fancy optical sights thus changing the handling qualities), increasing the bullet weight for more penetration (and arguably reducing the stopping power) rifle?
 
The military went with the 5.56 so that troops could carry more ammunition. Everyone must realize that during WWI and WWII that most of the men in the military were older and had some kind of experience with firearms. Today most the soldiers entering the military have no or very little experience with firearms. The light weight of the 5.56 and the M16 allow the soldiers to carry more ammunition to help make up for the lack of experince, traing, and practice.
 
This past weekend I had the opportunity to discuss the M1 with an extremely serious colletor and veteran of WWII. We discussed the relevence of the M1 and the M1 Carbine and it was his opinion that the M1 was the rifle of choice, especially to those on the front lines. I asked him if the Carbine was prefered the M1 in "rural" combat like within buildings and close quarters. His reply was that the Carbine was usually carried by only the troops in the rear, rarely in the front. The carbine was ok in close quarters but for an all-around weapon which had the power needed to penetrate, the M1 was the weapon of choice, hands down. It was always reliable, powerful, and accurate.

I've never served in the miliatey (it's the only lottery I ever "won" as my number was never piced during Vietnam) but I've shot most of the contemporary weapons available today. The M1 still is my favorite due to its stopping power. The Ar15, M1 Carbine, AK45 et al are real greasers and do what they do very well. The M1 in 3006, however, would be my weapon of choice regardless of the 11 lb weight.

FWIW

Roman
 
It looks to me like we will be in serious trouble if we ever have to fight a real war again. IMHO we are arming ourselves with snazzy cool rifles that basically extend the range of the submachine gun slightly and are easy to carry.

Tactically I'm not sure that this is a good idea. I'm not sure that an eight pound M16A2 is significantly better than a 9 3/4 pound Garand when it comes to distance shooting, and although the edge would have to go to the M16 in capacity, the big drawback to them is that lots of guys can go through their entire ammo load in less than two minutes. Resupply then becomes a major issue.

Perhaps today the nature of conflict is briefer than it has been in the past, without having to provide support for extended operations any system might look good on the surface. I still believe that single aimed shots are better than volume of fire, volume of unaimed fire is basically what we had back when volleys of smoothbore flintlock musket balls were the "in" thing. Haven't we made any real progress since then?
 
Jim Keenan-

The army had a very simple system for selecting BAR men. Find the smallest, lightest men in the platoon and make them carry the BARs!
 
There actually is a suprisingly simple reason for why the thinest guys carried the BAR or the M60... heat. Big musclemen overheat much more easily. In Korea that wasn't a big factor, but in every other conflict we've been in since the invention of squad level light machineguns, it was.

Even reenactment groups equip their thin guys with the heavy guns. Like my friend who does WW2 reenactment, he carries a replica MG-42 and he is 5'10" 140 pounds, not a real big guy for carrying a 23 pound weapon and as much as 40 pounds of belted blanks.

Soldiers can carry heavy guns and a lot of ammo. If they can't they shouldn't be soldiers. If we reduce the weight requirements to appease female recruits than maybe we should come up with gender segregated arms(as in the women can opt for a lighter SMG than the men are issued)
 
Quantity vs Quality

Combat hasn't changed too much. Well, sorta.

About 100 years ago many soldiers fired blindly at their enemies with bolt guns. Now they fire blindly with full-auto intermediate power big magazine things called assault rifles. One thing's for sure: There's a lot more noise on the battlefield.

Belt fed machine guns have become much lighter and portable, so they contribute to the battlefield noise.

Tanks scared the feces out of infantry for a while, until effective portable anti-tank weapons became widely available. You might still have to wait for a flank or rear shot at close range, but tanks sure can't roll full speed through enemy terrain without close infantry support. The Egyptian army figured out that Israeli tanks and aircraft were their worst battlefield enemies, so their infantry went into the '73 war half with RPG-7s, and half with SAM-7s (copy of the US Redeye missile).

Military bureaucrats usually aren't combat types, but they usually decree training requirements. Most infantrymen past and present aren't trained extensively in combat marksmanship. "It's too time consuming and expensive" is the usual excuse. Every now and then there's a unit or experience that drives home the importance of marksmanship training. The Brits found out in the Boer war how sharpshooting farmers could wreak accurate Mauser havoc. Then the Brits and in part Commonwealth armies elevated marksmanship and in turn put a hurting on the German Army in WW1. The USMC always stressed "Every Marine a Rifleman". At least one US Army division in WW2 stressed that ALL of its soldiers shoot expert. I can't remember the division but it went into battle at Okinawa. The display at the Infantry museum shows the division CO shooting a Garand at the range.

At some point someone decided the WW1 era full power rifle cartridges were more than enough for the job, yet pistol caliber submachine guns weren't powerful enough, and the intermediate power cartridges started showing up: 5.56mm, 7.62x39 etc. The full auto craze started and soon even military doctrine followed. Soviet Red Army training in the cold war never taught semi-auto marksmanship. Rather, infantrymen fired only on full auto and stressed keeping GI Joe's head down until you were either so close you couldn't miss, or you finished off GI Joe with your bayonet, spade, or rifle butt.

Of course, then Ivan had a marksmanship shock when they went into Afghanistan and Lee-Enfield equipped muj could snipe Russians from long distance. The full-auto AK trend took some changing, at least on the battlefield. Some red army units formed hunter-killer squads all armed with SVD Dragunov sniper rifles to counter the Afghans.

The US Army had their own version of "don't shoot well, shoot often" philosophy in Viet Nam. The thinking was for everyone to shoot to their front, even if you don't see anything. Apparently, the idea was "if we all can carry this much ammo, might as well use it" combined with the possibly erroneous conclusions of SLA Marshall.

The Argentine army had a bad dose of marksmanship/realistic training reality when they went head to head with the British in the Falklands in 1982. 2nd Para battalion defeated almost 3 times their number in one battle.

But to address artech's original question, if I had to CARRY a rifle I'd take an AR-15. When it comes time to SHOOT a rifle I'd rather have a Garand, or M1A, or FN-FAL.

Edmund
 
The big change in "modern combat" would probably be that the other side has much better intelligence and weapons. It used to be that night was a perfect time to sneak up on someone, not with today's equipment...
 
Is "modern combat" all in the head? That is to say, are the troopers of today expected to act with more personal initiative and autonomy than the troops of yesteryear? Smaller groups, and more difficult and differentiated tasks to perform.
I am not a historian or soldier but is it reasonable to identify the start of the era of "modern combat" during the German "Michael" offenses of 1918? In particular the adoption of "Strosstruppen" small unit tactics? Can't take credit for the idea, vaguely recall reading it some book.
 
Has anyone considered this argument in addition to the ones mentioned above:

Intermediate calibers such as the 5.56NATO will not produce instant incapacitation like a .308NATO or .30-06 would.

As a result, once shot, your enemy will fall down in agony and wryth and cry from the soon to be lethal wound. This will create a logistical burden on the enemy as his fellow soldiers stop fighting to help his fallen comrade. An instantly killed soldier would be ignored by his comrades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top