Page 2 of 2

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:06 am
by Andy
he wasnt refering to the snipers label, but how firefight would be able to keep the two of them pinned together.

if i was the leader of my country's army i'd have each standard fire team of 4 with a light machine gun, a marksman weapon and 2 assault rifles. 2 fire teams in each section, 3 sections in each coy, 4 coys plus HQcoy in each regt. naturally having role specific platoons and companys dispersed appropriately amongst the regts such as mortars, arty, mgs etc on a large scale and FOOs, sniper sections, signallers etc on a smaller scale. Behind this general approach of having less, better trained infanteers i would massively support it with AFVs such that the majority of my forces can be considered mechanised, with as much close air support as i could afford, and a huge effort made with supplies and other rear echelon neccesities.

the initial argument was not would i rather have 120 snipers or 40 mgs vs the same choice, but in a general company operation with most guys clutching a No.4 or similar, would i rather have a couple of snipers about or an MG section. I would pick the MG section every time. The vast majority of war is not about shooting to kill, but shooting to suppress so that other members of your force may advance to the kill. This is shown in the british army's tactic (and im assuming most armed forces worldwide) or rotating 3 groups through attack, support, reserve until the objective is taken.

I have stories that would make you blush with shame at some of the drivel you've been coming out with. I suggest you go and find out about something before declaring yourself to be correct - start by getting a sven hassel book or two, theyre fan-dabby-dosy
________
no2 review

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:11 am
by StateRoute170
:oops: im so embarrased.NOT!you are so full of shit andy. :roll:

Shut the fuck up ~cough~ 8)

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:50 am
by StateRoute170
Andy,your location is Edinburgh!(its le balls),but you act as though you dont have any balls... :lol:

You probably dont get the joke,but wat ever...

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:47 pm
by Andy
i know! and btw im still real pished at your mum for that. what i said was a bit harsh, but the treatment i got was jus uncalled for!
________
buy glass bong

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 10:40 am
by Andy Brown
Andy wrote:if i was the leader of my country's army i'd have each standard fire team of 4 with a light machine gun, a marksman weapon and 2 assault rifles.


These days the "standard" fire team org seems to be:

- Standard calibre (5.56) belt-fed LMG/SAW/whatever you want to call it.

- Designated marksman-type weapon (some sort of long-range rifle - I believe the Brits now use SA80 LSW in this role, having decided it's not very good for fire-support).

- Some sort of rifle-grenade launcher combo (gotta have that indirect, "bombing" capability).

- one other rifleman.

As the calibre of all these weapons tends to be circa 5.56 most armies these days have one or two 7.62 LMGs in platoon HQ for direct fire engagements beyond 600 metres. How this will be affected if the standard infantry calibre is increased from 5.56 to something greater (6.85 is often mentioned) remains to be seen.

There is a really good article titled "Firepower at Platoon and Company Level co-written by Sydney Jary (authour of "18 Platoon") in British Army Review Number 114 (came out late '90s). It deals with exactly the sort of organisational stuff you were discussing.

Cheers,

Andy Brown

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 11:18 pm
by Ezekiel
Well,I would say that a freakin team of snipers would kill way more infantry than a MG(even though an MG has a much higher fire rate).

you guys would get akick out of this:

Image