Weapons and Warfare

[Mikey]

If I had the choice I'd give them the best of both worlds - the SM2, 7mm ammo part way between the hitting power of the old and the extra ammo of the new NATO standard, and a bullpup design which allows for much better control of the weapon.

I'm not familiar with the SM2, but I know someone was also working on a rifle-primer 6.8mm round. I guess the theory is the same. I don't know what velocities it creates, though. As things stand right now, I think I'd go with the logistical ease of the NATO standard round, even as far as going with the 8 or 10 inch barrel HK416 for vehicle crews and such.

[Captain Seafort]

My mistake - it was the EM2 I was thinking of, with the .280 British round. It was intended as a NATO-standard round, but the US Army thought it was too weak and refused to adopt it. They soon found that the M14 was uncontrollable on full-auto, and replaced it with the 5.56x45mm round in the M16, which is weaker than the .280.

[Mark]

My mistake - it was the EM2 I was thinking of, with the .280 British round. It was intended as a NATO-standard round, but the US Army thought it was too weak and refused to adopt it. They soon found that the M14 was uncontrollable on full-auto, and replaced it with the 5.56x45mm round in the M16, which is weaker than the .280.

As a side note, the M-16 was replaced for similar reasons by the M-16A2. For those who don't know, the M16 was capable of semi auto and fully auto fire. Problem was on full auto with ONLY a 20 or 30 round mag, soldiers were exausting their ammo supply PDQ. The M16A2 has semi auto fire and three round burst.

[Aaron]

Thats purely a training issue though, our C-7's have always had full-auto and it has never been an issue. Actually in training if we blew through ammo to quick we got admonished for acting like Yanks. Not that we used it much, its only suitable for certain applications.

[Mark]

An issue which became a problem in Vietnam as I'm told, when the newbs would hold down the trigger, reload, and do it again. And yes.....I admit us Yanks are of the opinion that most problems can be solved with enough lead put down range.

To quote Col. Nathan R. Jessup "Walk softly and carry an armored tank division, I always say."

[Tsukiyumi]

Yeah, there really is something to be said for the "wall of lead" approach; that's why I like my high-cap Glock magazines.

[Mikey]

To be fair, it was predominantly problem only when this low-recoil, high ROF rifle was relatively new.

[Tyyr]

Given the ever increasing number of rounds fired to get a kill I'm not entirely sold that the assault rifle is really much better than a battle rifle. I'd prefer steady aimed fire than someone pointing their gun in the general direction of the enemy and letting fly.

[Mikey]

Assault rifles are easier to maneuver and easier to keep on target after the first round than battle rifles. Since statistics show that the overwhelming majority of combat takes place under 300 yards, I'd say that assault rifles are the way to go. If you're deploying in a wide open terrain, a squad DM is an option.

[Captain Seafort]

Deep's special forces mission planning split to here.

[Lighthawk]

Deep's special forces mission planning split to here.

Damn you Seafort, now I actually have to keep my own thread going again.

Alright, topic...topic...okay.

Thoughts on the MQ-9 Reaper, and on unmanned combat craft. Is this going to be the future of warfare? Are the majority of battle vehicles going to become remote controlled, or will they remain merely a supplemental force to manned craft?

[Mikey]

UAV's have already proven their worth in battle, and I expect it's only a matter of time before more widespread use of USV's and ground vehicles do as well. However, there are two mitigating factors against calling this "the future of warfare."

1 - These vehicles don't remove the human component from the vehicle, only relocate it. So far, none of these has AI more advanced then the Crusher... and while that is pretty impressive, its decision-making is still limited to the direct completion of one given goal.

2 - These, as you say, are vehicles; the ratio of men to vehicles is still a very high one, and so far there is nothing that can replace an infantryman.

[Tyyr]

I think that UAV's and USV's are going to become an ever increasing presence in the military. While there are certainly going to be manned aircraft for a very long time for things such as cargo hauling, bombers, deep strike aircraft, I think UAV's will become the norm. These high risk or low intensity missions are perfect places to either remove the pilot from risk or put the pilots to doing something more useful.

On the ground USV's will likely take the place of many if not most ground vehicles. While there are significant benefits to having a crew on hand who can effect some emergency repairs there is an even greater benefit to removing the humans entirely. For instance by removing the crew from a tank you can make it smaller, lighter, and faster without giving up any of its offensive punch or armor. Things like the MLRS, or even mobile artillery can be longer ranged and carry more ammo without a crew.

You can't remove the need for boots on the ground, but I can see some of the only humans actually involved directly in the fighting being infantry.

[Sonic Glitch]

I take issue with the idea of unmanned combat aircraft -- especially as a member of the video game generation. When killing becomes impersonal, it becomes easy(er.. easier). My political science professor was telling us yesterday of an officemate who was a bomber pilot in Afghanistan, responsible for "literally changing the geography of Afghanistan" (due to the number of bombs dropped -- hyperbole is to be expected) and he showed her a tape of one of the bombing runs and you could see the folks running around and at least one taliban guy standing with some sort of shoulder mounted weapon trying to shoot the bomber down, and the commentary on the tape (and the pilots attitude) in no way reflected the fact that they had just killed scores of people.
The generation fighting this war, and more importantly the generation fighting the next war(s) was raised on video games where you could easily kill another person - - and it really doesn't matter. So my question is, if war becomes that impersonal, or that "easy" will there be any political restraint next time we possibly go to war? Or do we end up like Eminar VII in "A Taste of Armagedon?"

[Tyyr]

Sorry, you're just wrong.

1st of all, the pilots in the aircraft, soldiers on the ground, whatever, do not make the decision to go to war. They never have. Political leaders make those decisions and behind the lines officers make the decision about what targets to strike. The front line soldier has those decisions made for him. It doesn't matter how desensitized he is to it because he's not the one making the call to fight to begin with.

Second, soldiers are by their very nature desensitized to what they do. They have to be. You can't have bomber pilots going home and crying about every single person they kill, if they do then they never fly again and they're useless. Soldiers have dehumanized the enemy and desensitized themselves to what they have to do since warfare began, they have to or they can't function.

Third, it doesn't matter how desensitized the home population is because they already are. The United States hasn't faced an honest to goodness threat on its home soil in the last century. No one in this country has a real appreciation for war except for the soldiers we send overseas. No one who isn't a soldier has any clue about it and they don't make up a significant enough political group to effect change regardless.

Finally, why should we put our troops in harms way if we don't have to? If we can keep a pilot safe without jeopardizing the mission why would you put him in danger? Some bizarre sense of fair play? Unless you're an infantryman clearing a building war is rarely personal anyways. Bomber pilots blast over their targets at hundreds of miles an hour at altitudes that make it almost impossible to see anyone. Tanks engage targets at ranges of kilometers, infantry fire their weapons at targets that are hundreds of feet away and not all that distinct. War hasn't been up close and personal since about the 14th century.

Why should the bomber pilot weep over the people scrambling out of the way? At least one of them was actively trying to kill him in return and the others likely would if they had the chance. So yeah, I'd expect a "Ha, fuck you assholes," attitude out of the bomber pilot.