Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: Doctrine and why the Grendel has an uphill battle.

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    17

    Doctrine and why the Grendel has an uphill battle.

    The notion of doctrine in the military has gone from a base lattice work from which to build, to the superstructure. The base of course being basic small unit tactics, communication and uniform regulations. So let's talk about the now supposed superstructure of the military. Everything is based around what is, and what is, is just good enough. The 5.56 is little more than a varmint round, yes it can do the job, but so can slingers, and those haven't been around for a long long time. The venerable .30cal round has been around since forever, and the ballistics table take most any and all guess work out of the round, minus a few planetoid factors and atmospherics if you shoot far enough to make that matter.

    The doctrine of the military is such that they just add to the existing structure, to fit the narrative of this war, or that war. And that is why we fight the last war, and that is why all training in post war as far as infantry maneuver tactics, and why good ships are somehow "obsolete" are all failed examples of what is correct. How am I right?
    Last war we fought and won is WWII. Nothing that is doctrine today, including the civilian "leadership" of the military is a functional entity. The body count way of deciding victory against an enemy for example is a failed ideology of the way to victory. Especially when considering the haj, whose ranks swell with zealots, and not paid mercenaries for a state. Yes, I was one, and that is what a paid soldier is by every definition. The hand over of a conquered nation to the ingenious population, to quell their concerns over occupation has been proven to be a failed example of p.c doctrine. If we are going to take the time to invade a nation and solve THEIR PROBLEMS, colonization is the only answer to ensure our ideology takes over.
    Look at what India was, and it is now the help center for NASA space program...

    So now we have some examples of failed doctrine concerning ideology and methodology, we can look at the Grendel;
    1) The bullet is slower than the 5.56
    2) It is a non standard, non NATO bullet.
    3) Less carrying capacity in magazines, and thus over all.
    4) Weapons must be refit.

    I will stick with these basic 4 examples and talk about how it can be fixed through doctrine over hauls and the basic understanding of doctrine.

    1) The slower bullet of the Grendel will confuse not the testing soldiers maybe, but the head-shed in political arm of the military. The pentagon. Big number to them means more effective, when talking about MV, never mind about BC or KE. The only number they done want to see high is dead and wounded, and that's a good thing, but their observance of the religion of doctrine also makes this impossible.
    A slower moving, but inherently more accurate bullet, with more inherent KE because of the BC would do several things. Flatter shooters are easier to teach non shooters how to shoot with.
    The doctrine of military is such that a full month is devoted to BRM. Imagine that month being used to teach still, but being able to add in so basic ballistics education of the bullet, and maybe teach soldiers a bit about cover. However teaching ballistic to the equivalent of bullet sponges is seen as too aggressive a learning curve for most combat arms jobs, minus the artillery field.
    The fix is to be forward thinking and understand that the metallurgy is going to get better, powders are going to get better and the ar15 will not always be around. They have for years been looking for a suitable replacement, they will find one, and why not have a weapon that can shoot a more efficient round when they do?

    2) As a part of NATO we like to have a stream line supply chain with our allies.
    I say screw them, NATO is a defunct, and radically anti west organization that we have no business being a part of. End of story. If they want us to fight, they need to pay our republic for its support.

    3) The u.s has largely gotten over its "rifleman" roots, and has instead transitioned into NAZI style blitzkrieg style attacks. While the U.S rifleman defeated the NAZI in WWII for many reasons, the rifleman first approach no doubt saved many a troop from the buzz saw.
    An inherently accurate bullet with rifleman tactics would reduce the need for so many magazines in the first place for one, and two, most units I talked to only carried 26-28 bullets in their chewed up, used up magazines in the first place, unless they bought their own P-mags.
    The notion of violence of action is not without its merits, and is in fact a fine strategy....For highly trained special operations troops or Marines. The Army is an overwhelming, occupation force, whose best served using siege warfare, or being besieged from a fixed position. This prospect is not without merit also, based on the firepower and ability to then resupply beleaguered troops.
    Trying to created fast accurate shooters in tight quarters. Well, for those who would argue that is the way of warfare today, then argue against the impossible task of mass producing SF troops. Well, the Job of Delta was originally hostage rescue type missions. Fast acting, fast shooting in tight quarters troops. Oops...
    The U.S military was founded on the basis of riflemen, snipers/DM's did play their small party in the Revolutionary war and civil war, but those are simply highly specialized, highly trained riflemen.

    Therefor, the U.S military needs to fund small unit tactics training, and the army needs to incorporate 500m targets on their rifle range if and when the Grendel ever becomes adopted. And yes I understand the nonlinear battle field, I have studied Doctrine and historical battle data for 30 years. You don't win against insurgencies with force. It doesn't happen.

    4) The fitting of new barrels, bolts and muzzle devices to the existing M16A2/M4(whatever iteration) to exiting weapons platforms is far, far cheaper than getting all new weapons, which the Grendel pretty much provides. I would suggest a basic MTOE update to all combat arms, which would include a 24" barrel 1 or 2 for each squad, and they would be the designated marksmen. The DM's would then provide accurate cover fire from a greater than average distance than most common weapons on the modern battlefield. All this, using the same bullet, but the DM's would have the ability to reload their own bullets.
    The squads of a platoon would now have to function more independently from the whole, which has been partially realized, but not fully. The commanders often want to overtly control their men, and the way in which an operation is conducted. This poor leadership leads to a a confinement of action, and adaptability of the riflemen.

    The squad leaders should fall under the direct command of the squad leaders who take mission updates from the platoon sergeant, and the commander updating the higher headquarters as to the progress of their battle space, and handing down intel/updates from higher to the platoon sergeant. The commander is therefor relegated to the appropriate position of commanding overall, troops actions based upon mission parameters, and the platoon sergeant is functionally in charge of ground actions.

    Why is this doctrinal change required? Because a rifleman who cannot act upon his intuition and training is not a functional rifleman. The commander outside the war-zone has a duty to ensure his men are trained in the basic doctrinal way of conducting actions on the ground. In the war-zone the commander when his men are not forward deployed has a duty to ensure his sergeants maintain combat readiness(training/medical/intel updates) so his constant mothering is not needed during a fight. This is not the case in MANY MANY units.

    Also as a parting shot, doctrine is supposed to be a basic understanding of the ideas involved in TTPs. Doctrine is not supposed to be a restrictive documentation of how actions are conducted.
    And these are he problems and solutions, AS I SEE THEM. It's all an uphill fight for anything new, and the control mechanism in place are far too restrictive for the military to be effective enough to actually win any fight, with "cavemen" or otherwise.

  2. #2
    Warrior Texas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Texas America
    Posts
    488
    Having dealt with military weapon contracts, particularly the M16A3 and M16A4, you can absolutely throw logic out the window. The system is set up to be self propagating, and civilians have no chance of understanding how a real rifle or cartridge works. The system has been operating the same way for almost 200 years, and to a great degree the same testing is done that was done then. There is no real understanding about the precision that CNC equipment has brought to the manufacturing process, and the significant sums of money that civilians have invested to design and build the "perfect" rifle and/or cartridge.
    Weapon systems are still made to blueprints, and the blueprints are on a 5-7 year update with little or no change made based upon new technology or availability of materials. Incredibly frustrating to deal with!

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    17
    I have no reason to doubt that at all, in fact, it seems more likely this way.

    But I still stand by my reasoning for the military itself to take the changes, and not argue against them. In fact, the dogmatic approach that has been beat into the heads of the uninitiated is that we have a policy of wounding. Because soviets do care for their comrades, and they will take care of casualties. We need something other than puppy guns.

  4. #4
    Very interesting read. How could we get the military brass to even think about your ideas?

  5. #5
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Twistedfisters View Post
    The notion of doctrine in the military has gone from a base lattice work from which to build, to the superstructure. The base of course being basic small unit tactics, communication and uniform regulations. So let's talk about the now supposed superstructure of the military. Everything is based around what is, and what is, is just good enough. The 5.56 is little more than a varmint round, yes it can do the job, but so can slingers, and those haven't been around for a long long time. The venerable .30cal round has been around since forever, and the ballistics table take most any and all guess work out of the round, minus a few planetoid factors and atmospherics if you shoot far enough to make that matter.

    The doctrine of the military is such that they just add to the existing structure, to fit the narrative of this war, or that war. And that is why we fight the last war, and that is why all training in post war as far as infantry maneuver tactics, and why good ships are somehow "obsolete" are all failed examples of what is correct. How am I right?
    Last war we fought and won is WWII. Nothing that is doctrine today, including the civilian "leadership" of the military is a functional entity. The body count way of deciding victory against an enemy for example is a failed ideology of the way to victory. Especially when considering the haj, whose ranks swell with zealots, and not paid mercenaries for a state. Yes, I was one, and that is what a paid soldier is by every definition. The hand over of a conquered nation to the ingenious population, to quell their concerns over occupation has been proven to be a failed example of p.c doctrine. If we are going to take the time to invade a nation and solve THEIR PROBLEMS, colonization is the only answer to ensure our ideology takes over.
    Look at what India was, and it is now the help center for NASA space program...

    So now we have some examples of failed doctrine concerning ideology and methodology, we can look at the Grendel;
    1) The bullet is slower than the 5.56
    2) It is a non standard, non NATO bullet.
    3) Less carrying capacity in magazines, and thus over all.
    4) Weapons must be refit.

    I will stick with these basic 4 examples and talk about how it can be fixed through doctrine over hauls and the basic understanding of doctrine.

    1) The slower bullet of the Grendel will confuse not the testing soldiers maybe, but the head-shed in political arm of the military. The pentagon. Big number to them means more effective, when talking about MV, never mind about BC or KE. The only number they done want to see high is dead and wounded, and that's a good thing, but their observance of the religion of doctrine also makes this impossible.
    A slower moving, but inherently more accurate bullet, with more inherent KE because of the BC would do several things. Flatter shooters are easier to teach non shooters how to shoot with.
    The doctrine of military is such that a full month is devoted to BRM. Imagine that month being used to teach still, but being able to add in so basic ballistics education of the bullet, and maybe teach soldiers a bit about cover. However teaching ballistic to the equivalent of bullet sponges is seen as too aggressive a learning curve for most combat arms jobs, minus the artillery field.
    The fix is to be forward thinking and understand that the metallurgy is going to get better, powders are going to get better and the ar15 will not always be around. They have for years been looking for a suitable replacement, they will find one, and why not have a weapon that can shoot a more efficient round when they do?

    2) As a part of NATO we like to have a stream line supply chain with our allies.
    I say screw them, NATO is a defunct, and radically anti west organization that we have no business being a part of. End of story. If they want us to fight, they need to pay our republic for its support.

    3) The u.s has largely gotten over its "rifleman" roots, and has instead transitioned into NAZI style blitzkrieg style attacks. While the U.S rifleman defeated the NAZI in WWII for many reasons, the rifleman first approach no doubt saved many a troop from the buzz saw.
    An inherently accurate bullet with rifleman tactics would reduce the need for so many magazines in the first place for one, and two, most units I talked to only carried 26-28 bullets in their chewed up, used up magazines in the first place, unless they bought their own P-mags.
    The notion of violence of action is not without its merits, and is in fact a fine strategy....For highly trained special operations troops or Marines. The Army is an overwhelming, occupation force, whose best served using siege warfare, or being besieged from a fixed position. This prospect is not without merit also, based on the firepower and ability to then resupply beleaguered troops.
    Trying to created fast accurate shooters in tight quarters. Well, for those who would argue that is the way of warfare today, then argue against the impossible task of mass producing SF troops. Well, the Job of Delta was originally hostage rescue type missions. Fast acting, fast shooting in tight quarters troops. Oops...
    The U.S military was founded on the basis of riflemen, snipers/DM's did play their small party in the Revolutionary war and civil war, but those are simply highly specialized, highly trained riflemen.

    Therefor, the U.S military needs to fund small unit tactics training, and the army needs to incorporate 500m targets on their rifle range if and when the Grendel ever becomes adopted. And yes I understand the nonlinear battle field, I have studied Doctrine and historical battle data for 30 years. You don't win against insurgencies with force. It doesn't happen.

    4) The fitting of new barrels, bolts and muzzle devices to the existing M16A2/M4(whatever iteration) to exiting weapons platforms is far, far cheaper than getting all new weapons, which the Grendel pretty much provides. I would suggest a basic MTOE update to all combat arms, which would include a 24" barrel 1 or 2 for each squad, and they would be the designated marksmen. The DM's would then provide accurate cover fire from a greater than average distance than most common weapons on the modern battlefield. All this, using the same bullet, but the DM's would have the ability to reload their own bullets.
    The squads of a platoon would now have to function more independently from the whole, which has been partially realized, but not fully. The commanders often want to overtly control their men, and the way in which an operation is conducted. This poor leadership leads to a a confinement of action, and adaptability of the riflemen.

    The squad leaders should fall under the direct command of the squad leaders who take mission updates from the platoon sergeant, and the commander updating the higher headquarters as to the progress of their battle space, and handing down intel/updates from higher to the platoon sergeant. The commander is therefor relegated to the appropriate position of commanding overall, troops actions based upon mission parameters, and the platoon sergeant is functionally in charge of ground actions.

    Why is this doctrinal change required? Because a rifleman who cannot act upon his intuition and training is not a functional rifleman. The commander outside the war-zone has a duty to ensure his men are trained in the basic doctrinal way of conducting actions on the ground. In the war-zone the commander when his men are not forward deployed has a duty to ensure his sergeants maintain combat readiness(training/medical/intel updates) so his constant mothering is not needed during a fight. This is not the case in MANY MANY units.

    Also as a parting shot, doctrine is supposed to be a basic understanding of the ideas involved in TTPs. Doctrine is not supposed to be a restrictive documentation of how actions are conducted.
    And these are he problems and solutions, AS I SEE THEM. It's all an uphill fight for anything new, and the control mechanism in place are far too restrictive for the military to be effective enough to actually win any fight, with "cavemen" or otherwise.
    And your military background is?

  6. #6
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    17
    I was a chemical operations specialist, then I became a 13FL7 .

    I have been in the field and I have been in the TOC.

    So there are both sides of the coin.

  7. #7
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Twistedfisters View Post
    I was a chemical operations specialist, then I became a 13FL7 .

    I have been in the field and I have been in the TOC.

    So there are both sides of the coin.
    Roger.

    So how come you aren't going after the Chemical Corps or the Field Artillery?

    LR55

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    17
    Why then am I not going after the chemical corp or artillery?

    Because they are support units for the infantry. All other occupations support the infantry, and that infantry deserves better than what they have.

  9. #9
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Twistedfisters View Post
    Why then am I not going after the chemical corp or artillery?

    Because they are support units for the infantry. All other occupations support the infantry, and that infantry deserves better than what they have.
    So if the Infantry was that important to you, why didn't you change MOS and become an 11? Or an 18?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by LR1955 View Post
    So if the Infantry was that important to you, why didn't you change MOS and become an 11? Or an 18?
    Look bud, we gonna talk on topic, or are you gonna play 50 questions with me about my life decisions? Maybe I like being a fister as well?

    But the infantry is the partly the gatekeeper to new arms.

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    17
    The only thing that the so called "modern" infantry doctrine has done is get good troops dead.

    Seeing as we haven't won a war since 1945...Just sayin, maybe we should hoist upon our shoulders, as some great work of art that particular doctrine?

    But yeah...What I was trying to drive at, is the military needs to change EVERYTHING that it is to adopt anything new. And if the infantry officer start wanting something, and asking for it. Seeing as they are the warfighters.

    But then again, I'll guess once more, that the infantry asking for replacement weapons, and spending over a decade in research isn't enough evidence of my claims that the WARFIGHTERS might have something to do with weapons procurement.
    No, it isn't the "way to do it" of course, but it would certainly help the penny pincher pogs to figure something out.

  12. #12
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,621
    Quote Originally Posted by Twistedfisters View Post
    Look bud, we gonna talk on topic, or are you gonna play 50 questions with me about my life decisions? Maybe I like being a fister as well?

    But the infantry is the partly the gatekeeper to new arms.
    OK bud -- your rant is convoluted and lacks a focus.

    Sure I asked about your military background because although you used some terms and words that indicated you did serve, nothing else you wrote made any sense.

    If you want to argue the merits of a service grade of Grendel firing a service grade of Grendel ball ammo, with both being used by the Average Infantryman, the thread Stan has kept up is a pretty good place.

    If you want to criticize the Army because the units you served with lacked leadership and or sucked, go somewhere else.

    LR55

  13. #13
    Super Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    1,621
    TW:

    Go to Professional Soldiers and do your thing.

    I am positive their moderators are way smarter than I am and will be happy to accept your comments just to have you on their forums.

    LR55 -- 'Super Special' Moderator. No doubt.

  14. #14
    Warrior Klem's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Twin Peaks WA
    Posts
    964
    Twistedfisters,

    I agree with 55'.

    When you first posted this I read some of your polemic and stopped. It just does not make sense - disorganised and rambling. I was tempted to respond at the time but thought you might be drunk or on drugs so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Tell you the truth I come here for the technical banter from some really professional and experienced shooters. I think you will get far more out of the site from sticking to that and leave the manifesto's for somewhere else.

  15. #15
    Super Moderator LRRPF52's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,069
    The last war we fought and won was WWII?

    Even if we toss out Urgent Fury '83 and Just Because '89, Desert Storm was one of the most shocking and overwhelming wins the US military or any military has ever executed against one of the largest armies and air forces in the world, measured in a matter of hours.

    When I see a premise formed on statements that ignore probably the most impressive military campaign of the 20th Century and the subject is about warfare, I do have to ask questions about the source of the premise.

    Another problematic premise was this:

    The venerable .30cal round has been around since forever, and the ballistics table take most any and all guess work out of the round, minus a few planetoid factors and atmospherics if you shoot far enough to make that matter.
    I've spent most of my life shooting and spotting .308 on a regular basis, and LR1955 has been doing the same since around the time I was born, all of it in a formal capacity either in competition or running shooting courses where cases of M118LR or M852 are burned through covering weeks on-end. .308 ballistics are one of the most guess work-inducing cartridges I've ever shot, sans the .45-70.

    5.56 NATO is a great cartridge for most of the dismounted Infantry and Combat Arms duty positions, and many of them have more gun than they need or will ever use currently.

    14.5" 5.56 NATO carbines are too much gun for RTOs, Combat Medics, LTs in many cases, PSGs, Javelin Gunners, Forward Observers, Assistant Machine Gunners, Mortarmen, and Combat Engineers. They all would be better served with something shorter in most cases.

    7.62 NATO was too heavy, mandated too large/heavy rifles and machineguns, and doesn't have the ballistic potential it should for its weight. Muzzle blast is such that it's a non-starter right off the bat for CQM.

    There's a great podcast on P&S about all of this if you don't want to take my word for it, where the discussion is comprised of senior NCO 11B4P master gunners, former Ranger Regiment/JSOC guys who specialized in machine gunnery, and SMEs with decades of real-world experience with 7.62 NATO.

    One guy talked about how when he deployed to his unit who had already been in Afghanistan for a few months, he inherited additional duties as ammo control, and had to inventory everything before signing for it. One of the rooms in their ASP had stacks of thousands upon thousands of M118LR already loaded in 20rd SR and SCAR mags. He asked about it, and they said they tried going all-7.62 NATO mix in the teams and sections, which lasted about 3 weeks before they said, "**** that *****!"

    Issues encountered were inability to negotiate common obstacles like walls, excessive weight from a reduced basic load, insane muzzle blast in confined spaces, early need for resupply or relief due to Class V going close to Black, pouches wearing through quickly and damaging feed lips on mags that already had problems running reliably when new, guys trying to match their 5.56 basic load by resorting to storing SR25 2x mag pouches on the backs of their Plate Carriers, guys bringing SR25 mag go-bags for the birds to feed off of, requiring a combat squire approach with another man having to feed mags to them to support their volume of fire sucking through 20rd SR mags.

    7.62 NATO was already determined to be a colossal abortion in the late 1950s and early 1960s with the Fort Benning studies, especially when they used captured Warsaw Pact 7.62x39 Weapons in force-on-force experiments to see how tactics actually played out. Short story: Unit with 7.62 NATO albatross with 100rd basic load in 5 mags (standard at the time) were slaughtered wholesale by units that could carry more ammo per soldier, maneuver faster, and run dry less often.

    An inherently accurate bullet with rifleman tactics would reduce the need for so many magazines in the first place for one, and two, most units I talked to only carried 26-28 bullets in their chewed up, used up magazines in the first place, unless they bought their own P-mags.
    We already have accurate enough ammunition. We don't have realistic or serious training. If you issued Mk.262 to units, it wouldn't help change their qual scores or hit probability in combat because they don't have people in positions that matter that will ever take the time to get their men to the range enough to learn how to be proficient with the weapons. It's a cultural and institutional problem, not an equipment problem.

    I could go on about this, but I feel I am wasting my time at this point. I would politely suggest more study. There are a lot of assumptions about what happens in 11B land that are so far off the mark, as to be basically void of any relevant information, especially from within the military in the other career management fields. Most leaders at decision-making levels within 11 series don't know what's going on, and support personnel might as well be civilians looking and guessing.
    NRA Basic, Pistol, Rifle, Shotgun, RSO

    CCW, CQM, DM, Long Range Rifle Instructor

    6.5 Grendel Reloading Handbooks can be found here:

    www.AR15buildbox.com

  16. #16
    Warrior
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    834
    Quote Originally Posted by Klem View Post
    Twistedfisters,

    I agree with 55'.

    When you first posted this I read some of your polemic and stopped. It just does not make sense - disorganised and rambling. I was tempted to respond at the time but thought you might be drunk or on drugs so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Tell you the truth I come here for the technical banter from some really professional and experienced shooters. I think you will get far more out of the site from sticking to that and leave the manifesto's for somewhere else.
    Well and politely said!!!
    shootersnotes.com

    "To those who have fought and almost died for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
    -- Author Unknown

    "If at first you do succeed, try not to look astonished!" -- Milton Berle

  17. #17
    Chieftain BjornF16's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,640
    Sheesh!...banned too quickly. I just got jalapeno popcorn and settled in...
    LIFE member: NRA, TSRA, SAF, GOA
    Defend the Constitution and our 2A Rights!

  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by BjornF16 View Post
    Sheesh!...banned too quickly. . . .
    I agree. And, as a supporter of "The facts, Ma'am. Just the facts.", I'm concerned that the OP's last Post was deleted, just before he was banned.

  19. #19
    Bloodstained
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Location
    Democratic Republic of Kalifornistan
    Posts
    32
    Hmmm...
    Former 11C here.
    The idea of the 'Rifleman' using precision fire in place of fire superiority had grunts with 3 round mag Krags getting torn up by Spanish grunts shooting Mausers.

    There are a lot of things I disliked about the 5.56, particularly barrier penetration or lack thereof.
    Otherwise it's alright for how we use it in fire and maneuver tactics.

    Realistically a grunt needs to carry as many rounds as possible, be able to engage to 500 meters, be able to lay a heavy volume of fire as accurately as possible. 5.56 does these things pretty well.

    Sure there are rounds that are more effective, but 5.56 does everything well enough.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Grendelshooter View Post
    . . . Realistically a grunt needs to carry as many rounds as possible, be able to engage to 500 meters, be able to lay a heavy volume of fire as accurately as possible. 5.56 does these things pretty well.

    Sure there are rounds that are more effective, but 5.56 does everything well enough.

    (http://bullpupforum.com/index.php?to...22280#msg22280)

    Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer (http://www.defensetech.org/2010/03/0...alf-kilometer/) NOTE: Click-on "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" in first paragraph.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •