Tag Archives: machine guns

by | May 9, 2012 · 3:14 pm

The Iowa Guard Ironman

This has been floating around the web a few days, and LT Rusty sent me a link, which, I guess means he wanted me to post on it.

 

Carrying ammo for belt fed machine guns has always been a problem for the infantry. 7.62mm ammo for guns comes in watertight metal cans of 200 rounds. Inside, there are two belts of 100 rounds each (in a mix of four ball to one tracer). Each belt is in  a cloth bandolier with a cardboard box inset. Theoretically, this cloth container can be attached to the gun. In reality, it can’t be. The metal can is heavy and awkward to carry. The bandolier is much handier to carry, but is fragile. Further, a 100 round belt doesn’t last very long in a fire fight. But exposed ammunition is fragile and liable to picking up all kinds of dirt and debris. When that happens, the dirty ammo causes jams and malfunctions. There’s few things more useless than a machine gun that won’t fire.

At any rate, a few Iowa Army National Guardsmen in Afghanistan, pondering on the problem, decided to make an improved system to carry ammo, and it’s straight out of Hollywood.

Who hasn’t seen Predator? If you haven’t, report to the re-education camps. Your pop-culture history is sorely lacking. Of course, if you have seen it, you remember Jesse Ventura (before he went insane) carrying a Mini-gun with a backpack ammo system. While the intrepid Iowa Guardsmen aren’t using a Mini-gun, they did pretty much copy the ammo system.

ironman-combat-ammunition-holder-lg

Having hand built an example, they also asked Big Army to take a look and consider building them for everyone. Which the good folks at the R&D lab at Natick are doing.

A couple thoughts. First, I distinctly recall seeing a very similar system a couple years ago. In fact, I can’t find it, but I’m almost certain I blogged a youtube video of a nearly identical system.  That system was being demonstrated at a range facility.

The other thought is, while the feed system probably does work pretty well, adding that much weight to a gunner (who already has an incredibly heavy load, even with a Mk48 instead of a conventional M240B) is problematical.  500 rounds of 7.62mm ammo is roughly 40 pounds of ammunition. 

Also, per the article,  $1,700 for a freakin’ feed chute? It’s stamped steel! Holy cow!

About these ads

2 Comments

Filed under army, guns

Tagged as , ,

by | July 30, 2011 · 10:21 am

Going great guns…

Another repost since I’m too lazy to write anything this morning. 

 

Welcome Reddit readers. Part Two is HERE, and Part Three is HERE.

For an army that has used machine guns for a hundred years or so, we have had remarkably few weapons serve as a standard machine gun. When I talk about machine guns, I mean what the Army calls a machine gun, not Hollywood or the press. A machine gun is a weapon that is primarily designed to provide automatic fire, not just one that can. For instance, the M-16 is an automatic weapon. You can set the selector switch to automatic and pull the trigger. The weapon will fire automatically until the magazine is empty. But it was designed to be used mostly as a semiautomatic weapon, where one pull of the trigger fires one round. Machine guns, which are usually belt fed, almost always fire full auto. Many don’t have any provision for semiautomatic fire.

We aren’t going to go back to the Gatling gun and its counterparts. In many ways, they were considered artillery, and treated as such.

The first really successful machine gun in the US Army was the Browning M1917. This gun fired the same .30-06 rifle cartridge as the standard US rifle, but fired it from a cloth belt holding hundreds of rounds. The big fat thing on the barrel is a water jacket. The water in the jacket cooled the barrel when firing long bursts. How long? Well, when Browning was trying to sell the gun to the Army, he fired two bursts, of 20,000 rounds each.  Right now the Army says that an M-4 carbine is ready for replacement after firing 7,000 rounds over the course of its life.

This ability to place huge amounts of automatic fire on target was very much appreciated by  the infantry during the trench warfare of WWI. And it still had a place long after that. With a range of well over 1000 yards, the M1917 could be used to support our troops during an assault. The M1917 remained in service throughout WWII and the Korean War. The Weapons Company of each infantry battalion had a platoon of them.

The only real problem with the M1917 was that it weighed so much. The gun itself was heavy, then there was the sturdy tripod, water in the jacket and a spare water can, and then enormous amounts of ammunition. It was almost a given that a vehicle would be needed to transport the gun team. As the Army tried to get away from static trench warfare, something lighter was needed that could accompany troops on the move. Since most of the Army moved by foot, this would have to be light enough for a team to carry long distances.

Browning had the answer there as well. By removing the water jacket and placing a perforated cooling jacket around the barrel (to allow cooling air to circulate) Browning considerably lightened the gun. Coupled with a new, lightweight tripod, the new gun was adopted as the M1919. While it could not sustain nearly as high a volume of fire as the heavy, water-cooled guns, it could be quickly and easily moved by a three man team , allowing it to follow troops almost anywhere on the battlefield. The three man team consisted of the gunner, who carried and emplaced the tripod (and then fired the weapon when emplaced), the assistant gunner, who carried the gun (and then assisted with loading the gun when in operation) and the ammunition bearer, who carried additional ammunition, and was armed with a rifle to provide local security while the gun was being emplaced.

While the 1919 couldn’t provide the same volume of fire as the 1917, the gun was still incredibly reliable and capable of laying large volumes of fire upon the enemy. It’s vastly superior portability also meant that it would be up front where the fight was. Normally, each infantry platoon had two machine guns assigned. The M1919 was such a solid design, it remained in service from 1919 up until the early 1960′s. (actually, the initial basis of issue was 2 guns per company, but by the end of WWII, most platoons had two guns-ed.)

During WWII, the Wehrmacht (the German Army) was mostly equipped with bolt action rifles. To make up for this lack of firepower, each squad was centered around the excellent MG42 light machine gun. This provided the bulk of the squad’s firepower. The Americans were greatly impressed with this gun. After the war, the Army looked to find a gun that would be lighter than the M1919 and more portable. They wanted a gun much like the MG42, firing from either a tripod or, usually, a bipod, using a buttstock.

After years of development, the Army adopted the M-60 machine gun as its standard medium machine gun. It had a number of “improvements” over the MG-42. It was chambered in the NATO standard 7.62mm x 51 cartridge. It deliberately had a lower rate of fire, to reduce the ammo needed and diminish the need to constantly change barrels.

While the M60 was issued in the same two guns per platoon manner as the M1919, it was often used in the role of a squad automatic weapon, much like the MG42. The M60 became iconic, seen almost every night on the evening news during the Vietnam war. But the M60 wasn’t without its own problems. It was somewhat fragile. When I was an M60 gunner, one of the real issues with the weapon was the various leaf springs on the gun. Many would fall off, even when properly installed. For instance, it wasn’t unusual to lose the leafspring that held the trigger group onto the gun. Soon thereafter, the trigger group would try to get away. We had to lace the guns together with parachute cord or safetywire. This made it almost impossible to disassemble the gun for clearing jams. The feed tray was made of stamped metal and was vulnerable to being damaged from relatively slight impacts. If that happened, the gun wouldn’t feed at all. And the gas piston could be inserted backwards during assembly after cleaning, leading to a gun that wouldn’t fire on full auto.

After trying several modifications to the weapon, the Army finally adopted a new medium machine gun, the M240. This is the American name for the Belgian MAG58, which, ironically, lost the original competition to the M60. The M240 has been in use as a vehicle mounted weapon in the US for about 30 years, but it was only in the mid-1990′s that the services started using it as a standard infantry weapon.

The 240 is a solid, well designed gun. It weighs just a little more than the M60, but is very resistant to damage and very easy to maintain. It is incredibly reliable. If your gun is jamming, UR DOIN IT RONG!

It is ironic that after the development and use of machine guns for 100 years, the Army is using a gun first designed over 50 years ago, one that initially wasn’t adopted largely because of the “Not Invented Here” syndrome.

Part 2 will cover some of the other Great Guns of the US Army.

3 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, Around the web, infantry, iraq

Tagged as , , ,

by | October 19, 2010 · 10:31 am

Oh, heck yes!

I have GOT to get to Knob Creek one of these days…

 

H/T:Ace’s Headlines

1 Comment

Filed under Around the web, guns

Tagged as ,

by | March 22, 2010 · 12:54 pm

LAARA

Close Air Support is a valuable tool for our troops in the field in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the precision guided weapons CAS brings to the fight have doubtless saved many of our troops lives. The Air Force doesn’t really like doing CAS. They do it, and they do it well. But there are other things they’d rather be doing.

And let’s face it, having a $40-80 million dollar fighter stooging around for 6 hours at a pop, burning upwards of 50,000 of jet fuel at $3 a gallon per mission, just in case someone might need a strike (and they usually don’t) is an expensive way to do business. Further, there are only so many flight hours you can put on a jet. Much of the US jet fleet is old and getting older fast. And most of the time, a strike fighter is overkill. Further, at 20,000 feet and 500 knots, the crews of these jets don’t have the situational awareness we might like.

Attack helicopters are great, but they are limited by their relatively short endurance and light weapons. They also have trouble operating at higher altitudes such as those found in Afghanistan.

And while UAVs have come a long way, there’s still a limited number of them. Further, bandwidth constraints put a real upper limit on how many can be used. With their limited sensor field of view, their situational awareness is even worse.

So what to do? Well, the Navy, and to some extent, are looking at buying a converted turboprop trainer or similar aircraft to supplement the “go-fast” planes in the close air support role. Under a program known as “Imminent Fury” the services want to field a Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (LAAR) Aircraft.

To a certain extent, this is reinventing the wheel.  Even before the US involvement in Vietnam entailed large numbers of ground troops, modified T-28 trainers were being used as light attack aircraft. And the Air Force’s basic training jet, the Cessna T-37 “Tweet” was modified and built as the highly successful A-37 Dragonfly. This is to say nothing of the highly successful, purpose built OV-10 Bronco, which was used by the Air Force, Navy and Marines, as well as several other nations. But after the Vietnam war ended, the services turned their eyes to what was considered the most critical theater, Western Europe. In an area like that, with highly developed integrated air defenses, no light aircraft could reasonable be expected to survive, and accordingly, almost all the light planes were retired.

Now, 8 years into the war on terror, the institutional side of the services are finally beginning to grasp that they have to be able to support the effort, and cannot do so with the existing force structure.

28 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, guns, stupid, war

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | March 9, 2010 · 5:05 pm

Theo Spark: Video: Marines On Patrol – Attack Suspect Bunker

A tip of the hat to Theo.

One point- when you see these young Marines leaving on patrol, take a look at the loads they are carrying. They make it look easy, but it ain’t. All that weight wears you out pretty darn quick, no matter how good condition you are in.

more about “Theo Spark: Video: Marines On Patrol …“, posted with vodpod

Comments Off

Filed under Afghanistan, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, marines, war

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | March 1, 2010 · 11:04 pm

Is the 5.56mm too small for Afghanistan?

There’s an interesting article over at Defense Tech about the problems grunts are having with long range engagements in Afghanistan. Unlike Vietnam, with its dense jungles, or Iraq, with its urban terrain, many parts of Afghanistan have long vistas. Quite often, our troops find themselves in fights at ranges from 300 to 500 meters. As an added bonus, they almost always find that the enemy has the high ground. The M4 carbine, which is the standard rifle for our troops, just isn’t designed to shoot that far.

MAJ Thomas Erhart, as a student at the School of Advanced Military Studies at the Army’s Command and General Staff School, has written a monograph that addresses the concerns, and offers some solutions.

I don’t really agree with all his conclusions. He raises valid concerns about the lethality of the current M855 5.56mm x 45 round. But just because it probably isn’t immediately incapacitating at 500 meters doesn’t mean that a hit on a Taliban is worthless. Would the Army be better off with a 6.5mm or 6.8mm round? Almost certainly. But the Army isn’t going to go there. So the real question becomes, what can we do with what we have?

First, he minimizes the influence of SAWs. The M249 is quite accurate for a machine gun, and can easily reach out 800m or more.  Second, while the M4 is hardly the optimum weapon for ranges past 300 meters, it can place effective fires out to 500 meters. It just takes a lot of training.

And training is the heart of the issue. The Army just doesn’t train troops to shoot past 300 meters. And there’s no real good reason why they shouldn’t. MAJ Erhart addresses some of the reasons why, mostly as a holdover from the days of conscription. And frankly, the current marksmanship training is probably good enough for non-combat arms troops. But there is no reason why infantry troops shouldn’t be held to a higher level of marksmanship.

The Marines have long trained at ranges of 500 meters (though this marksmanship training isn’t terribly realistic, any training at that range is better than nothing).  The Army could quickly and easily address the training concerns, without major changes to doctrine or equipment. They can, and should.

12 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, marines, stupid, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | February 20, 2010 · 11:47 am

Restrepo

This looks pretty damn interesting.

H/T: Armchair Generalist

Comments Off

Filed under 120mm, Afghanistan, army, ducks, guns, infantry, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 22, 2010 · 4:53 pm

Wish List

In the comments of our Bradley gallery below, frequent commenter GaigeM asks what I would like to see added to the Bradley:

If you could improve that Brad in any way, how would you? Trying to get a feel for what would be the next generation of AFV/IFV (with symmetrical warfare in mind).

Well…

Gaige, most of the improvements I’d like to see have been made. My biggest heartburn (as a dismount) was the seating in the back. It made sense when the Army thought the Firing Port Weapons would be important. But they were almost never used. Keeping the complex seating into the A2 variant, which only had the ramp weapons, was lunacy. In any event, the ODS variant introduced bench seating that made a lot of sense.

Improvements to the fire control system went far beyond what I thought it really needed. A laser rangefinder was nice, in that several Brads took TOW shots at targets beyond max range. That was never really a problem with the gun. Now, the fire control system, with a LRF and a lead-generating computer ensure first round hits, in a system comparable to the M1′s fire control. This never struck me as terribly important when the main gun is an auto-cannon. The addition of a Commander’s Independent Thermal Vision sight, with its ability to hand-off targets is very nice. I just wish there was a more elegant place to put it than sticking up like an afterthought.

As for the comm/nav/C3 installation (either BFT or FCBC2), that’s pretty neat, what little I know if it, and I especially like that there is a panel in back for the squad leader to gain situational awareness. In the bad old days, there were theoretically headsets for the dismounts to listen to the intercom, both for fire commands for the FPWs, and to maintain situational awareness, but they never worked (if you plugged them in, they tended to drain so much signal strength that the driver couldn’t hear the intercom, or even the crew in the turret). Even if they did work, it’s a poor substitute for a visual presentation. After all, seeing is believing.

For the hull, we’re rapidly approaching the max weight we can add without suffering some serious drawbacks in performance. We’ve already souped up the engine from the original 500hp to 600hp, just to keep the nominal speed up to 42mph. As a result, you aren’t going to be able to add a lot in the way of armor. Some critics have complained that the Brad’s armor won’t stop anti-tank weapons. That’s not the point. The point is that very few anti-tank weapons will cause a catastrophic loss of the vehicle so quickly that the crew doesn’t have time to escape. To date, the Army has written off 55 Brads in Iraq. That’s an entire battalion’s worth, but it would be interesting to know just how many were casualties. I suspect it is pretty low, especially compared to Humvees.

As for the armament, might as well get rid of the last two FPWs in the ramp, if they haven’t already.  I used to wish there was a commander’s weapon on a cupola around his hatch, but now I’m undecided. I’ve heard that some Brads have had the TOW system replaced with a two-round Javelin launcher, so they can “fire and forget.” That trades a little range and lethality for the ability to shift targets faster. Not sure I’d want to see the whole fleet go that way (I’d rather see Javelin seekers built into a TOW body instead), nor even sure how many have had this done. It may just be a test program. Can’t think of any changes to the co-ax I’d like.

As for the main gun, the 25mm Bushmaster… It’s pretty long in the tooth. I’d really like to see it replaced with something along the lines of the 4omm on a CV-90.  Failing that, I’d at least like to see the 30mm MK46 chain-gun. But you can’t just throw one in a turret and slap it on a Bradley. There’s a relationship to gun size and turret ring diameter, and I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t be able to enlarge the turret ring diameter on a Bradley hull to fit it.  Now, you mentioned this in the context of a next-generation vehicle, I think it’s pretty likely we’ll see a bigger gun. In the next-gen vehicle, we’ll also likely see a greater electrical generation capacity. And a battery charger.

17 Comments

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, Personal, war

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | · 12:51 pm

Mmm… Bradleys

I got nuttin’ today (so far!), so I thought I’d just post some pics.

Click each to embiggen:

6 Comments

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | January 14, 2010 · 12:35 pm

M4 Antics

There’s always been a lot of debate over the M4 carbine, and whether it should be replaced or what can be done to improve it.

One of the complaints is that it overheats after firing several magazines of rounds.

Turns out, Colt and the Army are taking a look at that issue. The carbine that most troops carry is the M4. The M4 can fire either semi-automatically, or in 3 round bursts. But the M4 also comes in the M4A1 version, that can fire either semi-automatically, or in a full-auto mode. The M4A1 is issued to special operations forces. One difference between the two variants is that the A1 has a somewhat heavier barrel to cope with the heat stresses of automatic fire.

What happens when you fire a lot of ammo through an M4 very rapidly? Take a look.  Colt modified an M4 to fire full auto, then put it through a stress test to destruction. I’m frankly a little surprised it failed that fast.

It looks like new production M4′s will feature the heavier barrel of the M4A1, but whether they will retrofit the heavier barrel to existing carbines is an open question.

In my own humble experience, I fired 7 30-round magazines on full auto through an M16A1 (with its notoriously light barrel) and it was getting kinda glow-y. And the handguards were smoking. And the gas tube was white hot. But the barrel didn’t rupture. Then again, I was shooting the relatively anemic M193 round, not the heavier M855.

Anybody else out there ever have a barrel problem with an M16/M4?

H/T: Lex

27 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, marines, war

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | December 15, 2009 · 4:33 pm

Life’s Hard. It’s harder when you’re stupid.

Here’s a friendly tip. If you’re gonna shoot at US troops, don’t do it when there’s not one, but TWO Apaches flying overwatch.

H/T: Linkiest

3 Comments

Filed under army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, planes, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | November 13, 2009 · 12:46 pm

I’m looking forward to this…

Sunday night on the History Channel.

Our Dad missed WWII by about a year, but other family members fought the whole war through (one uncle was at Pearl Harbor) and as a history buff, you just can’t avoid being interested in the war. I’ve seen a goodly amount of the clips in the trailer, but over the course of 10 hours, there’s sure to be plenty of footage that is new to me.

2 Comments

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, history, infantry, marines, navy, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | · 11:07 am

Best of: Iraq/Afghan gun camera footage

more about “33 of the best military combat videos…“, posted with vodpod

 

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, iraq, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | November 11, 2009 · 6:57 pm

Just a little live fire…

No real point to it, just liked the video and thought I’d share. It’s rare to see training footage using service ammo.

 

2 Comments

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , ,

by | November 10, 2009 · 4:14 pm

Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3

Finally, technology has brought simulation to a level of realism that has heretofore been unattainable.

 

Shamelessly stolen from Blackfive.

 

 

6 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , ,

by | October 13, 2009 · 2:30 pm

ACOG

Down in the comments of this post, commenter Kevin mentioned ACOGs. That naturally raises the question, “What’s an ACOG?”

ACOG is the acronym for Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight. Trijicon, Inc. has made a line of specialty gunsights for the M-16/M-4 family of weapons for years now. And last year, after using a variety of different products from different manufacturers, the Army settled on the ACOG as the primary sight for the M-4.

Back in the Stone Age, when I was a grunt, all small arms, with the exception of sniper weapons, only had “iron sights.” They were fairly accurate, but took quite a bit of training to master. Further, they were very difficult to use in low light, such as early in the morning and late in the evening. They were of course, next to useless at night.

Iron sights on the M16A2

Iron sights on the M16A2

Traditionally, the Army (and to a lesser extent, the Marines) have been leery of adopting optical gunsights, mostly because of their perceived fragility. The other big factor was that they cost money. Now, in an era when a jet can cost more than the GDP of many small countries, you’d think a few hundred bucks for a scope would not matter. But that’s not how the defense budget works. When the Army only has a limited amount of money to buy stuff, they tend to focus on the big ticket items. Small stuff, like small arms and their accessories, tends to get pushed aside.

One of the consequences of the Army going into Afghanistan and Iraq was that there was a sudden push to make sure our troops had what they really needed in terms of all their gear. That freed up a lot of money for things that otherwise just weren’t going to be bought. Grunts have been watching police and recreational shooters use combat optics on their rifles for nearly 30 years. Not surprisingly, there was a big push to update the Army with combat optics.

Now, a rifle scope is actually not what you really want in most firefights. A scope actually narrows your vision and can even make it harder to see the target. But combat optics use what are called “reflex sights” that are meant to be used with both eyes open. This greatly aids in target acquisition and generally keeping up ones situational awareness.

The first big batch of combat optics was the M68 Close Combat Optic, or CCO. Unlike the crosshairs of a traditional scope, the reticle of a CCO is illuminated, making it easier to see, and far more instinctive to use. There was just a simple red dot. Put the dot on the bad guy, pull the trigger, make the bad guy go away. The CCO didn’t even magnify. It just made it easier and faster to aim. About the only drawback to the CCO is that it takes batteries to illuminate the “death dot”, and grunts already have enough to carry, without having to worry about carrying extra batteries.

M68 CCO

M68 CCO

Next up, and recently standardized is the M150 RCO (Rifle Combat Optic). This is the Army name for Trijicon’s Advanced Combat Optic Gunsight. The ACOG works along pretty much the same lines as the CCO, but provides some magnification (either 3.5X or 4X) and doesn’t need batteries. It uses radioactive tritium to provide the illumination for the reticle.

ACOG, or M150 RCO

ACOG, or M150 RCO

Variations of the CCO and the ACOG are also mounted on the M249 SAW and the M240 medium machine gun.

6 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, iraq, marines, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | · 1:21 pm

Infantry in Action

via a blog I’d not seen before, Present Arms, a very interesting snapshot of a small unit action. An infantry platoon in the mountains of Afghanistan gets into a small scrape.

Comments Off

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, war

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | October 12, 2009 · 11:03 am

Ownership

We occasionally get questions from our readers. Unlike Al Gore, we think this is a good thing. In the comments of the last post, reader Kevin Creighton asks:

Ok, this is quasi-related and may be out of your area of expertise, but when I flew into Baltimore-Washington International last year and saw a lot of soldiers transiting thru the airport with rifle cases strapped on to their baggage carts.

How are rifles and sidearms handed out in the Army? Does each infantryman get their own rifle to have and to hold, or are they doled out on a first-come, first-served basis? I figure the SpecOps crowd probably does things differently and snipers/Designated Marksmen as well, but what is the process to get the average soldier get a rifle when they need one?

Good question. This is the kind of thing people who aren’t familiar with the Army want to know, and which I’m happy to address.

Each company sized unit in the Army is of course, organized along the lines of a Table of Organization and Equipment, or TO&E, which specifies how many troops of which grades and specialties that it is supposed to have, as well as all the equipment is is allocated, from Bradley Fighting Vehicles to 3/4″ ratchet wrenches.  Of course, this list also includes all the weapons that the company possesses.

When a company has a change of command, as they tend to do every 18-24 months, one thing that occurs is that the outgoing CO and the incoming CO jointly hold an inventory of every single piece of gear in the entire company. Indeed, the supply sergeant of a company isn’t there so much to order stuff, but rather to keep track of what is on hand. After the inventory, the new CO will sign a receipt for all the equipment. He in turn, has his subordinates sign a further receipt for the equipment they use. For instance, the CO has a receipt for all 13 Bradleys in the company, then has each platoon leader sign for their 4 Bradleys. The platoon leader then has the drivers for each Bradley sign for their vehicle.  Every piece of equipment in the Army? Someone has signed for it and is responsible for it. Lose it? You just bought it.

When you leave a unit, you have to turn in all the equipment. For large items, like a Bradley, this is simply a matter or signing it over to the next driver. Kinda hard to misplace one. But it’s a foolish driver who signs for a Bradley that doesn’t make a very, very close inventory of all the ancillary equipment, such as the tools that come with it. No sense buying wrenches and sockets that someone else lost.

Weapons are a wee bit different. Guns, and to some extent, night vision devices, are what the Army calls “sensitive items”. They get a little testy if you lose one. In fact, if you misplace a weapon during training stateside, pretty much the whole post will be locked down until it is found. If you’re out in the field, you aren’t going home until the weapon is recovered. Units have been known to spend an entire month out in the field, doing nothing but combing the ground looking for a rifle. So, don’t lose your weapon.

Now, to answer Kevin’s question, let’s take a young grunt reporting in to his first unit as an example. PFC Snuffy is assigned to a light infantry company. The First Sergeant assigns him to the 1st Platoon, and the 1st Platoon Sergeant decides to assign him as a rifleman in the 1st Squad, Alpha Fire Team. As a rifleman, his assigned weapon will be the M-4 carbine. Our platoon sergeant will inform the company armorer that PFC Snuffy needs to be assigned an M-4. The armorer will take a look at his list of unassigned carbines, and assign one to PFC Snuffy. So far, this is all a paper transaction. Snuffy hasn’t even seen the weapon. Heck, he might still not have arrived at the company yet. One of the first priorities for Snuffy will be to take a trip to the range. He’ll edraw his assigned M-4, zero the weapon by firing it at a  short range target and aligning the sights until the rounds are striking where he’s aiming, then go to the qualification range and shoot for record with that weapon.

So long as PFC Snuffy is assigned as a rifleman in that company, he’ll have that weapon assigned as his responsibility. He’ll sign for it every time he draws it from the company arms room. He’s responsible for keeping it clean and maintained. He’ll have to qualify with it every six months.  If PFC Snuffy is later assigned as a M249 SAW gunner, he’ll be assigned one of those, and will similarly zero and qualify with that weapon. He’ll clean and maintain it.

Occasionally, the pressures of duty will dictate that someone carry a weapon that isn’t their normal assigned weapon. Let’s say that Snuffy’s team is in the field. The normal SAW gunner is away attending an Army course, and not available to go to the field. PFC Snuffy might be termporarily assigned to act as a SAW gunner for this trip to the woods. He’ll sign out SPC Jones SAW and perform those duties. Afterwards, he’ll get to enjoy the thrill of stripping and cleaning a SAW. But his normal assigned weapon still awaits him.

Let’s take a personal example from my days in Colorado, at Ft. Carson. When I arrived at A/1-12IN, I was  a Specialist (E-4) assigned as a Rifleman/Dragon Gunner for the 1st Squad, 1st Platoon. I was duly assigned an M-16A2 rifle (S/N 1714966, if I recall…). Soon after my arrival, I was promoted to Sergeant (E-5) and assigned as team leader for one of the two fire teams in 1st Squad. As a team leader is supposed to be armed with the rifle, I didn’t change my assigned weapon. I was later assigned as a gunner for a Bradley, and still later as a Bradley Commander. All these positions are normally armed with the rifle, so I never changed my assigned weapon. But when I left the company and moved to a different unit, I left the rifle behind.

To answer Kevin’s question in  a shorter form, what you do for Uncle Sam in large part determines what you are armed with.

As to the Designated Marksmen part of the question, what generally happens is that the company will have a given number of DM rifles, and the company will distribute those between the platoons, who will then choose the troops best suited for the job. There’s not a real hard and fast doctrine to this. There’s bound to be a good deal of latitude extended to very low levels of command to choose who shoots what. But as  a rule, a young grunt doesn’t have much say in what he ends up carrying. That’s up to the needs of the platoon he’s in.

7 Comments

Filed under army, ARMY TRAINING, ducks, guns, infantry, war

Tagged as , , , , ,

by | October 9, 2009 · 11:00 am

Close Combat Marksmanship Training

There’s certainly still a place for traditional marksmanship training in the infantry. A lot of fighting in Afghanistan takes place at fairly long range, since the Taliban usually don’t want to come to close grips with our troops. But since there’s an awful lot of close combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army has finally started to update some training to make it more realistic. If I had tried to shoot like this in my day, I would have been tossed off the range and subject to rather severe discipline.

5 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, ducks, guns, infantry, iraq, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | October 5, 2009 · 10:09 pm

Obama’s War

There’s a lot of controversy today about Afghanistan, Obama, and GEN McChrystal’s request for more troops. Basically, the issue is that GEN McChrystal wants to shift to a counter-insurgency strategy of having our troops live among the population full time. One reason we never tried this strategy before is that there was concern about being seen as an occupying army. The other part is, it takes a lot of troops to do counter-insurgency this way. In the 24 minute video below, you’ll see a young Marine asking where the people are that would normally be at a market. The local tells them they’ve gone to a different market. In a perfect counterinsurgency world, the Marines would have enough men to cover the other markets. But they don’t. That’s part of what the argument going on right now.

There’s concern, legitimate concern, about how effective this would be. There’s also concern that logistically supporting a force would be difficult. And of course, there’s a very good chance that by spending more time with the local population, and less time patrolling the Taliban’s infiltration routes, we might face more attacks similar to the one that killed 8 American’s this weekend. It’s a real risk.

But manning an outpost in the middle of nowhere that might, or might not, interdict Taliban infiltration doesn’t win the population over. Winning the population over generates intelligence, denies the Taliban the use of the population for shelter, money, and other support. It removes the sanctuary every insurgent force needs.

The nearest analogy I can think of is convoys in WWII. The U-Boats of Germany were sinking merchant ships at a frightful rate. The British Admiralty was loathe to have merchant shipping travel in convoys, as they saw them as a defensive measure, when the warships that would escort them should be used offensively.

But that turned reality on its head. In fact, the convoy was an offensive measure. Instead of having warships hunt willy nilly for U-Boats, by using a convoy, you created a group of merchant ships that U-Boats had to attack, and therefore brought them into range of the escorting warships.

Similarly, if you can provide full time security for a village in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, the Taliban will be forced to either come to you, on ground you are prepared to fight on, with all proper support, or they cede the battle.

Watch the video, make your own judgment, and let me know what you think.

H/T: chad at DPUD for the video.

9 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, Politics, war

Tagged as , , , , , ,

by | September 27, 2009 · 11:25 am

US Army Action in Afghanistan

Whenever we are pressed for time to write, or just uninspired, we steal from Theo Spark. He and his co-bloggers always find some good stuff.

Again, we watch a patrol of light infantry in the hills and hamlets of Afghanistan. The placard calls it a movement to contact, which is a term of art for an attack when you don’t know where the enemy is.  The idea is to move forward in a sector until you find him. In addition to the laudable goal of finding and killing enemy insurgents, a movement to contact is used to generate tactical intelligence. You’ll notice the patrol is speaking with villagers, presumably asking if there is any insurgent activity in the area, and if so, what type.  Of course, there’s also a “show the flag” aspect of this as well, letting the locals see you and know that you are watching.

Some NSFW language, but as I’ve said, that’s what you get from grunts.

1 Comment

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, infantry, war

Tagged as , , , , , , ,

by | September 3, 2009 · 12:22 pm

A little more Bushmaster…

We’ve talked before about the Bradley’s main gun, the M242 Bushmaster 25mm cannon. The M242 is also mounted on the Marine Corps Light Armored Vehicle family of wheeled APCs. Additionally, the Navy uses the Bushmaster.

Several years ago, the Navy realized that their large combatant ships were very well equipped to sink the ships of just about any other Navy. What they weren’t equipped to deal with were small boats swarming around them in confined waters such as the Persian Gulf. Even before the suicide small boat attack on the USS Cole in December 2000, the Navy realized the dangers small boats could pose to large ships. But 5″ guns and Harpoon missiles aren’t the best weapons to defeat that threat. What you need is a smaller, faster firing gun. The first weapons mounted were old standbys, such as the M-60 machine gun, and that old reliable, the M2 .50 cal machine gun. But machine guns have a fairly short range, limited penetration against even fiberglass hulled boats, and aren’t terribly accurate when fired from a moving platform. Something bigger was needed.  And in stepped the Bushmaster. The Navy quickly developed a simple mount for the 25mm gun that could be bolted to the deck of a ship. The Mk38 mount could be operated by one man, was fairly inexpensive (compared to shooting a Harpoon at a Boston Whaler), and was quick to produce. And since they could be bolted to the deck, they could also be unbolted, and shifted from ship to ship. That meant the Navy only needed to buy enough to equip those ships that were in harm’s way. As ships entered the Persian Gulf, they would swap out the guns with those that were leaving. That meant the Navy didn’t have to buy a whole lot of guns.

As you watch the video, you’ll notice that even on a  large ship, there’s quite a bit of motion, and that mak es aiming the weapon difficult. And even with a gun as great as the 25mm, if you don’t hit the target, you’re not doing much good.  Something better was needed.  The gun itself was fine, but the mount left a lot to be desired.

Enter the Mk 38 Mod 2 mount. It is still a bolt-on mount, but it is quite a bit more sophisticated. Instead of being manually aimed, it is a remotely operated system, on a stabilized mount, with an electro-optical sighting system for day and night use.  By stabilizing the mount (much like the gun stabilization on a Bradley), the pitch, heave and roll of the ship no longer effects the aim. This increases the effective range of the weapon greatly. And of course, now with the E/O sight added, it can be used at night. As an added benefit, the system is now run from the ships Combat Information Center. The display from the sight can be used for surveillance, not just aiming the weapon.

The Mk 38 Mod 2 will be a self-protection weapon aboard US ships such as guided missile cruisers and destroyers operating in confined waters such as the Persian Gulf.

The M242′s bigger brother, the 30mm Mk46 will serve as secondary armament on board amphibious ships such as the LPD-17 class and the Littoral Combat Ships (LCS).

Comments Off

Filed under army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, navy

Tagged as , , , ,

by | June 14, 2009 · 1:00 am

Happy Birthday!

Not me. The United States Army. Established by an act of the Continental Congress on 14 June 1775, the Army was initially composed of six companies of infantry, and was to act as the umbrella under which the various militias would serve to fight the British Army during the Revolutionary War.

Since that time, the Army’s strength has waxed and waned several times. Historically, the people of the United States had an aversion to a strong standing Army. It wasn’t until after WWII, at the beginning of the Cold War, that the Army maintained a large peacetime force. Since then, the Army has been at war several times, while arguably, the Republic has not.

Today, the Army is one of the most trusted institutions in American life. Soldiers enjoy a public approval greater than almost any other period in the history of the Army.

Each year, the Secretary of the Army selects a theme to emphasize during the year. This year is the Year of the NCO. The NCO corps, Corporals through Sergeant Majors, is the backbone of the Army. They are the middle management. They get things done. They are the folks who train soldiers. They provide purpose, direction and motivation to their teams. If you want to learn about leadership, learn about NCOs. As you’ll see below, you can’t recruit NCOs from another industry. You have to grow your own.

We are extremely proud of our service as a Noncommissioned Officer. While much of what was fun in the Army consisted of shooting things and blowing stuff up, what was rewarding was leading, training, and mentoring younger soldiers. Even some aspects of recruiting duty were similarly rewarding. I met a lot of young folks that just weren’t going to join the Army. But I still had a blast talking with them about their plans for the future. Some were obviously on the right path. To them, I said, more power to you. Others hadn’t figured out their path in life. I hope I was able to give a little substanative guidance to some of them.

Today’s NCO is entrusted with a level of responsibility that I could only dream of. They still have to execute their core competencies of leading and training soldiers. But they are also in many ways the face of America in lands far from home. When the average Iraqi or Afghani sees an American, it is a damn good chance that he’s seeing a Sergeant in the US Army. His perceptions of America and her people are formed by how that meeting goes. There’s a concept put out by a former Commandant of the Marine Corps called “The Strategic Corporal”- the actions of a junior NCO can have immense impact on how our foreign policy is shaped and executed. The NCOs of today’s Army have embraced that and realize they have a heavy burden.

NCOs also have a burden to make sure that none of their soldiers are killed or wounded because they weren’t well trained. Training never stops. No, not even in war. Before missions, briefings and rehearsals. After missions, and After Action Review to see what worked and what didn’t.

We personally aren’t big fans of leadership by slogan. We weren’t a big fan of fads. We tried to stick with what had worked over 200 years of experience. From time to time, the Army comes up with things like various creeds and mottos. We don’t spend a lot of time memorizing them. But there are seven core values that the Army has promoted. It’s kinda cheezy, sure, but the fact is, we support and endorse these values. They put into words what NCOs put into action.

  1. Loyalty – Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and fellow Soldiers.
  2. Duty – Fulfill your obligations.
  3. Respect – Treat others as they should be treated.
  4. Selfless Service – Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own.
  5. Honor – Live the Army Values.
  6. Integrity – Do what’s right, both legally and morally.
  7. Personal Courage – Face fear, danger, or adversity, both physical and moral.

If you look, the first letter of each value forms the an acronym, LDRSHIP. Leadership. It’s what NCOs are all about.

And let’s not forget that today is also Flag Day. Long may she wave.

american-flag

Comments Off

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, history, infantry, iraq, Personal, Politics, recruiting, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , ,

by | June 10, 2009 · 7:21 am

Road Trip

We’ll be out of town the next day or two, so no posting. Sorry.

In the interim, here’s a little something to tide you over. Our best tour in the Army was in the 4th Infantry Division, rising to the position of a section leader for a section of two Bradleys. In garrison, we were responsible for the crews, training, and maintenance of both vehicles. In the field, the Platoon Leader took command of the other Bradley, and we worked as his wingman.  Here’s a good look at some of the firepower and mobility of a Bradley. Lots of nice shots of the 25mm and the TOW missile system.

There’s some obvious Iraq footage, and some from operational units, but a lot of the footage seems to come from the 29th Infantry at Ft. Benning. The 29th is the demonstration unit at the Infantry School. They provide the vehicles for basic training for infantrymen, and troops for young infantry officers at school to practice with. They also periodically provide firepower demonstrations to VIPs to show what the taxpayers are getting for their money.

1 Comment

Filed under armor, army, ARMY TRAINING, ducks, guns, infantry, iraq, Personal, war

Tagged as , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by | June 9, 2009 · 4:08 pm

We own the night…

We’ve mentioned the Nightstalkers before, the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR). They’re the Army’s dedicated unit to provide aviation support to special operations. They are the most highly trained helicopter unit in the world.

2 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, army, ARMY TRAINING, guns, recruiting, war

Tagged as , , , , , , ,