Army searching for a new rifle

The U.S. Army's post WW ll study by an Army colonel who never saw a day of combat who made the claim that most soldiers in Europe rarely engaged the enemy beyond 300 yards was debunked almost twenty years ago but some are still quoting the study.

I suppose he forgot to interview soldiers who served in North Africa, Sicily or weren't fighting in the Ardennes Forest. He completely ignored the Korean War.

The Germans deployed and used their machine guns differently than Americans. In the American military the machine gun supported the rifleman. In the German army the rifleman supported the machine gun.

All of my uncles who were wounded in Europe were wounded by German machine guns.

You can find it here -> http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Germany/index.html

Or here -> http://www.allworldwars.com/subjects.htm

 

They teach you that **** in the Marine Corps.

 

I have a friend who hunts deer with a 35 Rem. This round is 9.1x49 and way too heavy for anti personnel use.

The 6mm Rem however is 6.2x57 and perfect for anti personnel. It is more of a varmint round as well, and slightly more powerful than the 223 or the 6.5 Arisaka.

If the Pentagon goes for the 6.2x57 that would make perfect sense. They would need to redesign a Stoner-type AR-10 or Ruger type Mini for it however.

Ruger already has a Mini in 6.8 SPC (7x42).

 

Whitman had a brain tumor and he did not get along with civilians when he got back form Viet Nam.

Typical PTSD + brain tumor.

 

Since infantrymen are going to be mounted in APC's half the time and dismounted on foot the other half of the time, the rifle (or carbine) needs to be short enough to be managed in the APC -- that was Adolf's reason for coming up with the STG's in 1942. Tank warfare had taken over the European battlefields and tracked trucks were moving troops around. The Germans wanted to be able to use the same rifle for the tankers too.

This explains where the STG's and then later in 1947 the AK's came from. The AK was just a copy job of sorts of the STG's. So besides Volkswager, Adolf also gets credit for the AK's as well.

Then in 1969 the M-16's started to replace the M-14's as a shorter carbine. My personal view was that this was a huge mistake.

The M-14 barrels were 22 inches long -- a classic rifle design.

The M-14 Garands were 24 inches long -- a classic magnum rifle design.

So whereas the Garand was a dismounted infantry rifle, the M-14 could serve double duty for mounted and dismounted infantry. There was no good reason to replace the M-14.

The M-16 and all the AR (Armalite Rifle) designs were all a mistake.

 

The M16 was likely due to videos showing draftees in Vietnam essentially never aimed. Of the less than 50% that would even fire in a firefight, virtually all just panic sprayed out bullets. Therefore, minimal recoil and maximum capability to carry LOTS of lightweight ammo made sense. You can't really spray out a 30.06 or .308. In fact, the full auto has been replaced almost entirely with the 3rd burst option from what I was told, and the Marine squad leader we know who was in combat in the Helmand district of Afghanistan said they never used 3 burst - never. 1 on target, 2 in the air, if you use it. One carried a .308 full auto but as cover fire only.
He LOVED my Saiga 12 gauge (basically an AK47 in shotgun form) and said he would have loved to have a couple of those for his squad in door to door work. Particularly since it had that big "flare" launcher on it. LOL

 

But wouldn't that be a likely difference between offense and defense? Positional defense and the machine gun most matters, advancing offense and riflemen most matter?

 

One stunning number is always the number of rounds fired compared to the number of targets hit. It generally ranges from the mid hundreds into the thousands.

 

You're on track JakeJ.

In 1942 / 43 in the Pacific the Marine Corps brass wanted to keep the water cooled M-1919 Browning machine gun, But unlike today back then the brass listened to the enlisted men who wanted to adopt the air cooled Browning machine gun. Who in the **** wants to lug around gallons of water for a water cooled machine gun ?

A water cooled machine gun is an excellent static weapon but not when you're on the offense.

Here's what the German's tactics were during WW ll.

From
CHAPTER IV
Tactics
Section I. GENERAL TACTICAL DOCTRINES

Just one short excerpt:

 

That's the tactics we use today with adopting the M-16.

Before 1965 American soldiers and Marines use to take deliberate aim at the enemy and squeezed the trigger. Since 1965 a fire team or rifle squad send a whole **** load of lead down range into the "beaten zone."

During WW ll soldiers and Marine infantrymen in heavy combat armed with the M-1 Garand would go through 50 to 80 rounds of ammunition in a day.
Today they go through 210 rounds in just one fire fight and have to be resupplied in the field.

The tactics today are different than before 1965.

 

Typical bloody Yanks, just shoot everything. I hope you know that bullets kill.

 

Except Whitman never went to Vietnam.

 

Taking deliberate aim and exposing yourself long enough to get deliberate aim in modern warfare will get you killed. Most of our fights occur in urban warfare against opponents with similar firepower.

 

They teach you to murder civilians in the Marine Corps?

 

By the time it has been decided to send in the Marines, that decision (to shoot everything) has already been made.

 

Spare everyone your game of hair-splitting.

 

For urban CQB we also have "overwatch".

 

Try not to set up your usual straw men.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman#U.S._Marine_and_college_student

 

What hair splitting? Whitman murdered a bunch of people who had no tactical training and didn't know how to react to incoming sniper fire.

That's not impressive.

 

My group in the mid 1970's was probably the last group to hear about "fire discipline" or "one shot one kill" for the regular infantry. Since then they have learned to do hose downs.

 

A specialized role for DMR's, snipers, and scouts.

 

Thank you for confirming that Whitman NEVER WENT TO VIETNAM.

 

Hair splitting is your own tactic with regard to your comment on civilians.

Straw man is your tactic with regard to your comment on Charles Whitman.

Now you are mixing your tactics. That is called verbosity.

Three fallacies in three sentences -- that's why you are one of the kings of sophistry and rhetoric.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

 

Again, what hair splitting? It doesn't take an impressive marksman to murder civilians who don't know how to react to incoming fire.