Author Topic: Less Firepower ?  (Read 4009 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,415
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,511
Less Firepower ?
« on: June 23, 2006, 09:54:14 »
Interesting article from strategypage that discusses an aspect of modern war that gets very little attention.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap/articles/20060622.aspx

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 211,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2006, 10:29:56 »
Phenomenal difference in rates of fire from Viet Nam era to now. Probably the most noticeable to me was the inclusion of a burst selector for 2 or 3 rounds. We could have made excellent use of that, instead of the "pull trigger, empty magazine" mentality used in my day. We had a helluva time training it out of the new guys, and getting them to burst fire. It just wasn't as sexy as firing full auto.

Don't get me wrong. There is definitely a time and a place for massive overwhelming fire, just don't expect it to do anything other than keep their heads down, until a few rounds can clean it up.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline ExSarge

  • Member
  • ****
  • 740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
  • Airborne Infantry, Strike-Hold!
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2006, 10:52:03 »
You were actually able to get yours to ease up on the trigger? I always had a couple of knuckle heads that would put it on rock-n-roll! You would have sworn they owned stock in the company the way they burned up ammo, not to mention barrels!
Eagles may soar through azure blue skies, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines!

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 211,990
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,944
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #3 on: June 23, 2006, 11:09:31 »
The gunny would deal with the knuckle draggers after the action. (Where do you think the "***** slap" upside the head originated) That tended to cure things for awhile.

Initially we were issued M14, and the rock & roll wasn't an issue, except for the a*^^&le who figured to John Wayne it and file the sear, but when the M16's were first issued everybody was walking around looking like Poncho Via for awhile what with the crossed bandoleers, etc.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Offline ExSarge

  • Member
  • ****
  • 740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
  • Airborne Infantry, Strike-Hold!
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #4 on: June 23, 2006, 11:22:56 »
My Plt Sgt had a solution that worked for some. He made them ammo bearers for the M-60. They carried 400 rds of gun ammo and he only allowed them 20 rds 5.56 for their personal weapon. That tended to be the example that slowed everyone down!
Eagles may soar through azure blue skies, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #5 on: June 23, 2006, 12:23:29 »
These two quotes caught my eye.

Quote
On the ground, even machine-guns are used less. In the future, machine-gun use will decline still further as computerized "enemy fire location" systems become more common. Widely used now for locating snipers, the troops (although not the brass back in the Pentagon) are eager to link the sniper finding systems with armed robots. With this kind of a system, the sniper gets return fire seconds after getting a shot off. This forces the sniper to move, and that makes a sniper more vulnerable.

This first one has me wondering if what they mean is something like marrying the sniper finding system, with the TALON bomb disposal crawlers and perhaps even that new 25mm system that is supposed to replace the .50s and Mk19s (The M307 - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m307.htm ).  The system is supposed to be able to set round fuse on exit from the barrel to ensure an airburst over the target.  A pair of those working in support of a Light Infantry platoon would seem to be an interesting combination.

Quote
New fire control systems enable fighters to use their 20mm cannot with greater accuracy. Ground troops can now call in jets to use their automatic cannon to take out a few snipers on a roof, or in a particular window in a building.

As to this, does anyone have any first hand information they are willing to share?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Centurian1985

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 697
  • Putting the 'P' in the gene 'ool'...
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #6 on: June 23, 2006, 13:38:15 »
Hmmm....

Doesnt this contradict what we've been discussing in the "US Army says 5.56 mm is Adequate" thread, where they advocate more rounds to compensate for less stopping power?

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,730
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #7 on: June 23, 2006, 13:42:07 »
No, seems perfectly clear to me.  You can use lots of 5.56 OR you can whistle up an F16 and have him put a few dozen rounds of 20mm on target.  Where was that phone number again...?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Sheep Dog AT

  • The Fly in Someone's Ointment - Giggity
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 58,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,218
Re: Less Firepower ?
« Reply #8 on: June 23, 2006, 13:51:19 »
I take any info that says this or that is on the decline because of greater technology. ie Tanks, A 10, 50 Cal.
I also find the crutch of information dominance is dangerous.
Apparently infamous for his one liners.
Oh Giggity Well...........Giggity