Jay RappThe problem with this arguement, as stated previously in some degree is that the general thought is "Suppression equals volume of fire". While that may be true from a purely emotional aspect, I would continually argue that true suppression comes from accuracy and control. I will never give up the notion that a man is more likely to seek cover when rounds are hitting 1-2 inches away, rather than 3 to 5 feet.
Then again, conventional forces have never been to great at the marksmanship piece of armed conflict in my opinion.
All of this though, is being discussed with the "Squad of the Future" concept and Force 2025 studies and discussions that are still ongoing at the MCoE. At least on the Army side of the house.
_______________________
Chad Mercer...then factor the nature of today's threat. They are either there to die, have been shot at and missed their entire life, and/or they are doped up with extra jihad juice. Limited exposure targets are limited. If you get one look at the enemy, would you rather drive him to cover in an extended exchange of fires? I know the discussion has drifted to capabilities and uses, but the salient theme here is lethality.
COTS or PIP upgrades to the MTOE weapons need to increase lethality without detriment to the system. (i.e. m855A1 is hot as fuck and has crazy terminal effects... but it kills weapons rapidly)
_______________________
Tore HaugliJay and
Chad, there is no argument from me regarding how to suppress an enemy. Merely making noise is not as effective as getting accurate hits, or making sure that any round that does not find its target at least misses by a narrow margin.
We saw this to be true in Afghanistan, against a battle hardened enemy. Ammo with explosive effects, like .50 cal Multi-Purpose or 40mm HE, were alot more effective, even if they missed by a few feet, than SAF that missed by a few feet.
And as you said, volume does not mean suppression. One comment I hear a lot, regarding LMGs and GPMG is that they have a good suppressive effect. I have always countered with the argument that a machinegun excels at the sustained fire role, ie being able to put rounds down range over a longer period of time.
Managing the teams or squads rates of fire is paramount with regards to ammunition conservation. That is why, for us, a platoon commander issues as part of his fire command, the effect he desires - covering or supressive fire, and the squad leader should direct his men and weapon to shoot at targets and suspected enemy positions at a rate that achieves this objective within his sector. If you go winchester before you have assaulted through the objective, you did something wrong.
And because of that, I do not think it is realistic to expect a certain shots fired to hits ratio, as not all shots fired will be aimed fire at a visible target.
You will sometimes have to use fires to deny the enemy movement through certain areas, and terrain in order to shape him for the breaching/assaulting element.
And Chad, I do agree with what you are saying in regards to how a better overall system (weapon, optics, ammo, shooter) will produce better results down range. Hopefully.
_______________________
Chuck HaggardTo steal a quote from
Claude Werner, "I find that suppressive fire works best when you are plowing bullets into the bad guy's skull. That's really suppressive"
_______________________
Mike GriffinGreat points and discussion. My thought with asking this question is what would the carbine look like that would take advantage of modern technology to improve accuracy, reliability, and longevity while taking into account that we do not know for certain where our next fight will be so we need to find a balance of ballistics and maneuverability (barrel length).
Free float rails improves repeatable accuracy, adjusting barrel designs/construction techniques potentially improve longevity or at least the life of an accurate barrel, coatings potentially increase the ease of cleaning and maintenance while still using lubricants, integration of sling points to make it easier to carry, improved standard issue furniture, muzzle devices that aid in signature reduction, recoil management/accuracy and choosing a model that allows potential addition of a suppressor, etc.
All of these things are currently available in the commercial market and are fielded to many SOF units in one variant or another. I would like to look at this with the eye towards what is the optimum current tech for each component or subgroup that could be combined that make the standard issue carbine last longer during train up/deployment and be a more accurrate/precise carbine for the average joe to replace the 14.5" colt with drop in KAC RAS, Safe - S/A - 3rd burst, etc.
I think what the M27 showed was that a better base gun allows even a mediocre rifleman to perform somewhat better but it also allows a good/great rifleman to perform substantially better.
Without a crystal ball it is hard to know what our next fight will be but it seems like with the exception of barrel length there is a lot of current tech that could be leveraged to build a better base carbine. Maybe I am off base though.
________________________
Chad MercerYou aren't off base. The Corps is floating a PIP for its carbines and rifles.
________________________
Chuck HaggardHow tough would it have been to take
Pat Rogers' EAG mk2 gun, NP3 the BCG, add an appropriate optic, load it with mk318, and call it good?
________________________
Matt Landfairif only this was on the forum.....
________________________
Mike GriffinI would love to see some science and art level debate about a number of items, including FSP, FH vs comps, rail and barrel lengths, etc that would take into account current tech and realities of grunt life (little parts get lost, non-gun guys carrying guns for 13 month deployments, potentially shitty logistics, the reality that grunts might get some of the stuff SOF has but not all and some things are not appropriate if they are not issued as a system, etc).
________________________
Chad MercerIf it were up to me:
All M4's would get CHF bbls that are nitrided... I'd love to see PROOF be able to incorporate CHF process to their barrels. *hit return and posted early*
All trigger packs would be Geissele SSF's or ALGish
Rails, sheeit... Geissele's
LWRC ambi CH's
LWRC Improved DI BCGs
I do know that the Corps has been looking at a system wide integration of suppressors, who knows if that is still a go.
The M16's would be replaced by 16" free floated uppers, CHF barrels, Mid-length gas. Or the 20" musketts could get an A5 buttstock.
_________________________
Matt LandfairEpic forum post
_________________________
Mike GriffinI will register after lunch, been in meetings all day.
_________________________
Mike GriffinWould you issue Geissele rails (or any non-quad rail) to line guys? I say this from the perspective of a picatinny quad rail minimizes small parts (mlok or keymod nuts and bolts). Is this a big deal or just something that needs to be stocked heavier with the armorer.
_________________________
Chad MercerThat would be ancellary... Geissele rails have for integral rails and QDsockets. So additional rails could be handed out as needed.
We hand them ATPIALs, machine guns, ect... Not worried about rails. Not every add on is needed. I would like to see thru holes in the appropriate mating parts so armorers could safety wire equipment as needed.
_________________________
Chad Mercer...full rails tend to run heavier.
_________________________
Mike GriffinYeah, I relate it to the contracting side of things with TCNs. We gave them machine guns AND their first pair of shoes. Jaded ever since.
_________________________
