04-12-2014, 06:50 PM
Forgive me, please, if I sound a bit smart-assed, but folks in this forum tend to want to get to the individual weapon. This means the carbine (hopefully 6.5 Grendel), and then, grudgingly, talk about machine guns. Everything else tends to be in a very fuzzy background. This is in spite of the fact that the carbine is today only a small part of the overall firepower equation.
While the discussion will quickly narrow to the individual weapon, my own and, I suspect yours too, experience suggests that the battalion is a good size to start when considering Full-Scale war as long as aviation and fixed wing air assets are considered. Individual weapons would be treated in the context of how they fill in gaps in the coverage given by other assets. Gap-filling is, I think, the role filled by the M4 and AK-series carbines because long-range antipersonnel and materiel interdiction would be accomplished by heavier assets in full-scale engagements.
At the other end, is the 4th Generation war, where collateral damage by our weapons is viewed as a win by the adversaries. Individual weapons would likely become dominant because they can be very precise and have rather limited collateral effects. Here, we might see a greater need for longer range in those small-arms while still having the ability to call on assets from the larger organization when things go into that brown place.
I hope this would explain why my first lecture request is to paint a picture of what the battalion as a fire-system looks like in the full scale war. What assumptions can we make about:
While the discussion will quickly narrow to the individual weapon, my own and, I suspect yours too, experience suggests that the battalion is a good size to start when considering Full-Scale war as long as aviation and fixed wing air assets are considered. Individual weapons would be treated in the context of how they fill in gaps in the coverage given by other assets. Gap-filling is, I think, the role filled by the M4 and AK-series carbines because long-range antipersonnel and materiel interdiction would be accomplished by heavier assets in full-scale engagements.
At the other end, is the 4th Generation war, where collateral damage by our weapons is viewed as a win by the adversaries. Individual weapons would likely become dominant because they can be very precise and have rather limited collateral effects. Here, we might see a greater need for longer range in those small-arms while still having the ability to call on assets from the larger organization when things go into that brown place.
I hope this would explain why my first lecture request is to paint a picture of what the battalion as a fire-system looks like in the full scale war. What assumptions can we make about:
- Organic sensors and surveillance for directing maneuver and fire?
- What heavy weapons are available and how close to troops will they be used.
- Finally, what individual weapons are available, and when would they be used?