|
Boiled Water posted:I've heard that one of the many conclusions of WWII was that whomever could put more lead in the air was generally the victor of any engagement. Is there anything to that? To a degree, but the Korean war is where NATO encounters the AK47 as a standard infantry rifle while our guys are all equipped with semi-automatics and realises 'oh gently caress we need to up our game fast'.
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
Alchenar posted:To a degree, but the Korean war is where NATO encounters the AK47 as a standard infantry rifle while our guys are all equipped with semi-automatics and realises 'oh gently caress we need to up our game fast'. No, most of what was encountered was World War Two surplus, just like our poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:24
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:I've heard that one of the many conclusions of WWII was that whomever could put more lead in the air was generally the victor of any engagement. Is there anything to that? When you're talking killing people through gunfire (as opposed to air strikes or artillery, which well-supplied forces with excellent logistics like the Americans love), putting a lot of lead in the air works because you're not actually killing people from afar most of the time. You can be engaging an enemy squad 100 meters away, but chances are you're not trying to kill them by picking them off with carefully aimed headshots as each of you peeks out from cover. Generally you're firing a ton of rounds to keep them suppressed while a smaller force gets in close on the flank and takes them out with grenades and automatic weapons. Miraculously hitting someone in the face is practically accidental with how hard it is to hit someone behind cover (especially while you're under fire yourself). And of course, this presupposes that you aren't just going to sit behind cover and call in an air strike or mortars on the enemy position so you don't need to put in any effort.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
Zamboni Apocalypse posted:No, most of what was encountered was World War Two surplus, just like our poo poo. To include the PPSh mind you. The Soviet Union loved its SMGs.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
Also to add on to my post there, the closer the combat you're in the more firepower you want to put out. The US had a huge advantage against the Japanese in that they had tons of automatic weapons, from semi-auto rifles to submachine guns and the BAR. The Japanese almost exclusively had bolt-action rifles and larger machine guns (which aren't incredibly mobile in ambushes or sudden jungle encounters, especially ones like the Type 92) and only issued SMGs in small numbers, and they never got a working design for a semi-auto rifle out before the war ended. This meant that not account for machine guns, the US forces typically had a great advantage in raw firepower in close engagements where it came down to that. If you meet someone in a doorway and you've got a Thompson and he's got a long bolt-action rifle with a bayonet, you're probably going to have the upper hand when both of you start attacking. The only times you'll really want a large, heavy rifle firing powerful rounds that are accurate out to 800 meters is when you're actually fighting at those distances, like in Afghanistan. Even then, you'll likely rely more on cannons, artillery, and air strikes than the average soldier's ability to snipe people with single shots from the opposite side of a village.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Also while your rifle might be able to hit something at 800 meters I highly doubt that the vast majority of infantrymen could aim well enough to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
From my understanding of the modern fighting in Afghanistan, the soldiers are requesting things like 7.62x51mm rifles because they want added power at range, but they're not expected to be Call of Duty snipers popping heads across a football field during gunfights. They're still making heavy use of explosives and outside support from a distance and having to close the gap and fight up close when the enemy is dug in too deep to bomb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Ensign Expendable posted:Also while your rifle might be able to hit something at 800 meters I highly doubt that the vast majority of infantrymen could aim well enough to do so. Sir, do you impugn the expert marksmanship of the american rahfleman?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
People have a hosed up view of what long arms are supposed to achieve in the majority of cases. Usually you're shooting at things or known positions, not people. You have a fire element to pin the enemy and a maneuver element to flank. The fire element is trying to disrupt the enemy and pin them in place. Most shooting is sort of aimed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 21:58
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:People have a hosed up view of what long arms are supposed to achieve in the majority of cases. Usually you're shooting at things or known positions, not people. You have a fire element to pin the enemy and a maneuver element to flank. The fire element is trying to disrupt the enemy and pin them in place. Most shooting is sort of aimed. Mah granpappy fought in the war and he said he got three Germans right a'tween the eyes at Normandie and Guadalcanal. You callin' mah granpappy a liar? (this is what some Americans actually believe)
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
This is a video with a bunch of helmet cam footage of US soldiers in Afghanistan. It should give you a good idea of exactly how well you can see the individual soldiers you're shooting at. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2mQyMyZKio
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:From my understanding of the modern fighting in Afghanistan, the soldiers are requesting things like 7.62x51mm rifles because they want added power at range, but they're not expected to be Call of Duty snipers popping heads across a football field during gunfights. They're still making heavy use of explosives and outside support from a distance and having to close the gap and fight up close when the enemy is dug in too deep to bomb. From that paper I referenced earlier: quote:Combat in Afghanistan has shown several trends. The enemy takes advantage of the terrain and engages patrols or convoys from high ground. He also combines this advantage with heavy weapons systems and mortars from a distance, typically beyond 300 meters.6 From the infantryman’s perspective, he attempts to fix the enemy, since his equipment limits his ability to maneuver, and attempts to kill the enemy through close air support (CAS), close combat attack, (CCA) or indirect fire. It's not just the power of the rifle. If you have an M4, you're not delivering effective fire out to that range. If you have a full-length M16, but you're only trained to shoot out to 300m you're not hitting out at those engagement ranges. The designated marksmen with full-length barrels, who are trained to shoot out to 600 yards can. The point of being able to deliver effective fire at those ranges isn't to hit the guy in the head and kill him, it's to present a credible threat and keep him pinned down because he's taking cover because he doesn't want to get shot, and then to maneuver while he's pinned down and either get close and kill him or just keep him there long enough for artillery or CAS to kill him. If he can just maneuver with impunity and keep shooting at you beyond the effective range of your weapons and only a couple dozen guys in your entire company can reach out to him, that's a bad situation to be in.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:From that paper I referenced earlier: What's being classed as "effective fire" here? Is it landing rounds within a certain distance of the enemy or is it killing power? Because an M4 may not be blowing lungs to shreds with one bullet at 300 meters, but I'd expect the mechanical accuracy of the rifle to be capable of landing at least near the target with a trained soldier. Insurgents can't tell the difference between an M4 and an M14 when the bullets are just hitting rocks nearby and think "Oh, that gun probably won't kill me if I get hit!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that you can tell the difference between small caliber and intermediate caliber rifle fire but I haven't been directly shot at so I'm not a great source. You'll notice that in the helmet video everyone is calling out things that they are shooting at (ruins, treelines, various sectors and directions).
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:What's being classed as "effective fire" here? Is it landing rounds within a certain distance of the enemy or is it killing power? Because an M4 may not be blowing lungs to shreds with one bullet at 300 meters, but I'd expect the mechanical accuracy of the rifle to be capable of landing at least near the target with a trained soldier. Insurgents can't tell the difference between an M4 and an M14 when the bullets are just hitting rocks nearby and think "Oh, that gun probably won't kill me if I get hit!" It's a pretty legitimate issue dude it's from a Leavenworth paper. It's not some retard just spouting bullshit. Insurgents definitely know the approximate composition of an American infantry squad in terms of weapons, and they know the effectiveness of those weapons. As a result, they've adopted tactics and weapons that minimize the American's advantage in short range firepower.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
Afghanistan was a tricky, and arguably somewhat unique, situation for three reasons: terrain, altitude, and ROE. Practically every small arms engagement I was a part of consisted of us wandering around like idiots until we got shot at (the technical term for this a "patrol"). At that point your objective transitions from wandering about like an idiot to shooting in the general direction of something until it goes away. The Taliban were very good at choosing ambush sites with things like elevation advantages and defilade, and unlike cool armies they almost never had any interest in closing with and destroying their opponents in close combat - they'd instead just shoot from distance until they ran out of ammo, hope they racked up a couple of KIA/WIA, and then bail. So, if you wanted to win the fight, you had to win this long distance shooting engagement, either with your organic weapons, or with fires of some sort. Small arms are kind of lovely, which is why historically we've preferred fires for this kind of thing. However: The altitude and terrain often precluded the use of massed indirect fire (you can't get that many howitzers or rounds for howitzers up in Assfartawak Pass, plus we got rid of a whole host of artillery formations in order to have more guys to kick down doors in Baghdad), rotary wing often can't fly in high/hot/windy/cloudy/slightly less than perfectly ideal conditions, and fixed wing CAS is sporadic and heavily restrained by ROE, so we can't solve the problem with HE or other things in the same way we have in other conflicts. Which means, in an awful lot of cases, you're left to solving the problem with your small arms and company mortars, and those things aren't very good at solving such problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
Marine Corps decided to go with just m4s for infantry units
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
One of the common motifs of officers complaining about less well trained troops was that they weren't willing to shoot things they didn't think they could hit, so a good part of remedial training is to teach men to take part in area fire. Also in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, the NVA/taliban/etc learned to just randomly shoot with a single mortar tube or recoilless rifle from outside small arms range to force a patrol into a combat deployment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 23:14
|
|
FastestGunAlive posted:Marine Corps decided to go with just m4s for infantry units because its difficult to shoulder and fire a fixed stock m16 in body armor and its hard to maneuver a 20" barrel in vehicles and buildings KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:I'm pretty sure that you can tell the difference between small caliber and intermediate caliber rifle fire but I haven't been directly shot at so I'm not a great source. no you cant
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
You hear the crack of the bullet and you duck I would assume, rather than interrogating exactly what manner of armament is producing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:no you cant You can if you have the time to perform an autopsy on your buddy. quote:You hear the crack of the bullet and you duck I would assume, rather than interrogating exactly what manner of armament is producing it.  told us that the AK has a distinctive sound, and sure helps situational awareness to be able to recognize distant sounds of gunfire - but once you're under fire it's a moot point.
Nenonen fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Nov 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:
 Yeah I would be demoralized as well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:18
|
|
Nenonen posted:You can if you have time to perform an autopsy on your buddy. calipers are on the gear list
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
Also, exactly what reaction do you think a Taliban insurgent would have to being shot at by an M4 at long range? "It's okay guys! Those bullets are only traveling with enough energy to cause painful and crippling but likely non-fatal wounds! Just ignore it and keep firing!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
MassivelyBuckNegro posted:because its difficult to shoulder and fire a fixed stock m16 in body armor and its hard to maneuver a 20" barrel in vehicles and buildings Yep they decided to take a small loss in range to have something more maneuverable and convenient
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Kind of amazing that the situations the coalition forces found themselves in in Afghanistan are exactly the same as those the British found almost 150 years previously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
lenoon posted:Kind of amazing that the situations the coalition forces found themselves in in Afghanistan are exactly the same as those the British found almost 150 years previously. How did the British try and solve the issue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How did the British try and solve the issue? They left.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Possibly the only way it is resolvable without attempting to systematically depopulate the country via remote strikes. Oh. Bugger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
In retrospect, the great game as it was called really got out of hand. The first time in Afghanistan for the British Army did not end well and it is bizzarely constantly ignored.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 00:48
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Mah granpappy fought in the war and he said he got three Germans right a'tween the eyes at Normandie and Guadalcanal. You callin' mah granpappy a liar? I work at a bookstore in Oklahoma, and had a woman buy some WW2 book a while back. She made an offhand comment about how her grandfather had helped liberate Auschwitz, so I said it was pretty cool that she'd had a family member in the Red Army*. "No, he was at Auschwitz, in Germany." * I'm aware it wasn't called the Red Army by then.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 02:49
|
|
|
dublish posted:I work at a bookstore in Oklahoma, and had a woman buy some WW2 book a while back. She made an offhand comment about how her grandfather had helped liberate Auschwitz, so I said it was pretty cool that she'd had a family member in the Red Army*. didn't it change the the name after the war?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:02
|
|
|
dublish posted:I work at a bookstore in Oklahoma, and had a woman buy some WW2 book a while back. She made an offhand comment about how her grandfather had helped liberate Auschwitz, so I said it was pretty cool that she'd had a family member in the Red Army*. Most Americans don't even know basic facts about the Holocaust, like how prisoners were only given number tattoos at Auschwitz.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:07
|
|
|
Hey Hey Gal, the PYF historical fact wants early modern fashion. I mean I want it and it's on topic there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
xthetenth posted:Hey Hey Gal, the PYF historical fact wants early modern fashion. +1
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:22
|
|
|
To be fair to the grandfather, that is more likely a case of broken telephone - maybe the pops had at some point mentioned that he'd seen some camp or the other, and idiot relatives then spun a tale of it. But even veterans lie, sometimes just for kicks  Hieronymus Karl Friedrich
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 03:33
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:To be fair to the grandfather, that is more likely a case of broken telephone - maybe the pops had at some point mentioned that he'd seen some camp or the other, and idiot relatives then spun a tale of it. Heck, might even be that it was Auschwitz and he or the relatives didn't realise they were in Poland and not Germany. I wouldn't count on a random draftee/conscript's geography knowledge in 1945 being all that great.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Boiled Water posted:How did the British try and solve the issue? The second time around, in the 1870s, by booting out the extant king, installing their own, vaguely promising to protect Afghanistan from the Russians in return for a vague promise not to raid the North West Frontier too much, announcing that Afghanistan's foreign affairs were administered by Britain, and leaving. It worked until the 1920s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:08
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:The second time around, in the 1870s, by booting out the extant king, installing their own, vaguely promising to protect Afghanistan from the Russians in return for a vague promise not to raid the North West Frontier too much, announcing that Afghanistan's foreign affairs were administered by Britain, and leaving. It worked until the 1920s. would you mind posting more about that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 20:54 |
|
|
I've read about how the German Blitzkrieg was fueled not only by gas but also by meth, and how the Fnnish long range patrols were using the same poo poo, but how much did the other countries use drugs for military purposes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2016 04:21
|
|