03-26-2012, 02:58 PM
This most recent part of the thread, including the discussion of probable leadership failures, seems to point to a factor not covered as well as it should be when we discuss alternative calibers and weapons. A smaller weapon load-out motivates more fire-discipline at the expense for reduced margin when copious shooting is really needed.
The comments from folks with the right experience tell us that the fire-discipline, and likely leadership at the command level of this small unit, was much less than ideal. The soldiers used a lot more ammunition than what would be considered ideal for this type of engagement.
Further, the most recent observation by adamjp and, I think, LRRPF52 and in other threads tell us that the weight and heat of the armor make a significant impact on the soldier's maneuverability.
There are trades in about every equipping decision, but it seems these two might be a factor in how a light infantry unit should be equipped.
Take ammunition weight, for example, more rounds per unit mass helps offset some deficiency in fire-discipline, but there is a limit. Think of the debates as we moved from single-shot rifles to repeaters. There was a fair bit of consternation about ammunition wastage, but history overran the detractors and we have high rate of fire rifles. How could, or should, this logic be extended to the LMG?
Suppose, for example, the individual weapon were something like the 6.25X25 CBJ. This cartridge can display an effective range approaching 200 meters and suppressive fire somewhat beyond that. How would the argument for a 6.5X39 Grendel LMG change in response?
The comments from folks with the right experience tell us that the fire-discipline, and likely leadership at the command level of this small unit, was much less than ideal. The soldiers used a lot more ammunition than what would be considered ideal for this type of engagement.
Further, the most recent observation by adamjp and, I think, LRRPF52 and in other threads tell us that the weight and heat of the armor make a significant impact on the soldier's maneuverability.
There are trades in about every equipping decision, but it seems these two might be a factor in how a light infantry unit should be equipped.
Take ammunition weight, for example, more rounds per unit mass helps offset some deficiency in fire-discipline, but there is a limit. Think of the debates as we moved from single-shot rifles to repeaters. There was a fair bit of consternation about ammunition wastage, but history overran the detractors and we have high rate of fire rifles. How could, or should, this logic be extended to the LMG?
Suppose, for example, the individual weapon were something like the 6.25X25 CBJ. This cartridge can display an effective range approaching 200 meters and suppressive fire somewhat beyond that. How would the argument for a 6.5X39 Grendel LMG change in response?