Last week the US Army announced the results of extensive field interviews with combat soldiers regarding their equipment used in Afghanistan and Iraq. They interviewed 4500 soldiers from the 82nd, 101st and 3ID. The results of the interviews are, to me, quite predictable and are paraphrased.

M4 - Troops that have it love it, troops that don't have it want it. Aren't too happy with 500 meter(+) terminal results, but it is the cat's ass closer than 500m.

M249 SAW - The most popular weapon system in the infantry squad. New, cloth magazine is much more popular than the rigid plastic one. 200 round magazine just doesn't work, but 100 round magazine is excellent. Makes the soldier feel like superman on the battlefield.

M240B GPMAG - Thank you Belgium. Finally the US Army has discovered what the rest of the world has known since the '60s. Best medium machine gun ever. Weighs a ton, but gunners quit bitching about the weight after the first engagement.

.50 cal Sniper rifle - The ultimate status symbol on the modern battlefield. A .50 cal sniper can defeat an enemy platoon by literally dismembering it's leadership from over a klick away. Impresses the hell out of both sides, when used. Only problem: it uses an itty-bitty Leopold scope on top. It shoots a couple klicks, but the scope magnification isn't good enough to acquire targets at its effective range.

M9 - Universally hated, detested and reviled. The 9mm is useless in combat, and the Berettas wear out very quickly. Also mentioned was its charming tendency to feed dirt, sticks, rocks little fingers, small furry rodents, etc. into the chamber when the open backstrap design cycles.

So, there you have it. It looks like, equipment-wise, the army has got it's ducks in a row. Now, if they could make a comfortable issue boot, life would be grand.

The SAW really is nice from everything I've seen and from what I've been told. Watched it fire a few times and was impressed. "Back in the day" all we really had was the 60 and all I liked about it was it's rate of fire was about right for the 7.62 cartridge and when it fired it gave you a warm fuzzy that you could take on anything. I think the SAW is about 10 times better than the old 60.
Is the 50 still fitted with only a 10 power scope as before? I know the mil dot system is set up for the 10 power but that would certainly be inadequate out at greater range if your target was an individual. Perhaps for material it would suffice. A few friends have built rifles based on the 338 Lapua and really like it also.

All those comments seem in line, the onl negative to the 240 is the bottom ejection, hot brass piles up under the weapon. We had a trooper seriously injured when he cleared a jam and the round cooked off under the weapon...
Jason Connerley

Very interesting post! Out of curiousity: Does the US still use the Stoner LMG with the belt feed or the 150 rd Stoner box system? Probably phased out of service as it was the only 5.56mm weapon I ever saw that I was actually impressed with.
Thanks for the data and for what you are doing.
God bless, and best regards,

[ 07-20-2003, 18:26: Message edited by: 'Trapper' ]

I can't say none are in thE inventory but it is not issue to any conventional forces and any that are owned by SOCOM are no doubt just curio pieces by now.
Jason

i take it the M240B is the American designation for the original FN MAG aka what we Britis call the GPMG???

Thanks Johan,

The old M60 in its various forms must have been pretty bad if you guys are impressed with the FN MAG. I used one for quite a while and was fairly underwhelmed by it. It was heavy and over enginered for a section weapon and we found it none to reliable either even when cleaned regularly. As an SF weapon it was ok, but i always felt that role would have been better served by a .5 Browning.

As a section MG, I really liked our old LMG which was nothing more than the old Bren gun reworked to 7.62 nato. It was far more reliable than the FN Mag, had a faster barrel change and was quite a bit lighter too at around 22lb if i remember correctly. There will always be the argument about mags ~v~ belt, but i never felt limited by a mag...in various competions between LMG and GPMG teams on the ranges, it seemed to be the standard of training of the teams that made the major difference. Now if someone could take the basic LGM design and "simply" convert to a belt feed, that would be the best of all worlds and would take somebeating as a section weapon...

Regards,

Pete

The Stoner Weapon System is and always has been a Navy piece. Most in the inventory reside at the Naval Special Weapons Center in Crane, Indiana. I was honored to be admitted to that hallowed place to see what's cookin' a few years ago and they had a butt-load of SWS and Swedish Ks and the similar S&W sub-guns that were being worked on for some reason not disclosed to us. They also have the "Predator" backpack minigun there. BTW, that puppy doesn't really work. I mean it fires, but a) a man can't shoot it and stand, and b) a man can't carry enough ammo to make a difference.

They had a personal protection suburban there, being made for the king of Jordan. As these are used by the secret service, I'll share no details, but you wouldn't believe what kind of firepower that bad-boy has.

Swedish K's! Brings back some memories from long ago. Also wonder if they still have any of the little French MAT 49's - what a POS that thing was! My personal favorite was the Uzi - always worked and very easy to use. And the Stoners were awesome with unmatched firepower - three or four guys with those things could do some real damage.
Thanks for the info.
Regards,

Not heavy enough for sustained fire? As used in the M1 Abrams and M2/3 Bradley/CFV, this puppy is well known for it's 150-200 round bursts. How sustained of fire do you need? This was the most trouble-free weapon in the tank!

And the M60 was THAT bloody awful!

120 - The army has always had good boots. The problem is they make sure you get the wrong size.

The Army has crap for boots. The powers at the top are more worried about how the shine than how the wear or fit. The M60 I carried and suppervised could be a good weapon. However, because most of the Army didn't know how to match barrels with guns
,we had problems. The lacing wire on the gas piston was on wrong most of the time. Training for the most part was the major problem.I have fired 1000 rds through a M60 without a stoppage just heald the trigger down until the belt was gone.I thought the SAW was the best piece of equipment I had seen in a long time when it was fielded. JMHO

Pete, didn't the Czechs have a belt version of the BREN (seeing as how they invented the thing in the first place, let's toss a little credit where it's due)? I found using the BREN easier and more accurate then either the BAR or the CDN FN C2. Haven't had the chance to try out the FN SAW's, but looking forward to it. - Dan

I've never liked the M-60, not the first time I fired one in 1971, or anytime thereafter. Yes, it was our squad automatic weapon for a long time, and the only one we had, but does that make it any good?

I have a problem with changing out the front sight, bipod, and half the gas system for a simple barrel change. Sorry, but after seeing the barrel change for an MG3 (MG42), I just couldn't buy the concept.

Between the M60 and M240B, I'll take the 240 any day. It's heavy, kind of clumsy, but BOY HOWDY can it shoot. Just the other month in a course I was taking, 18 of the 20 soldiers had never seen, or ever fired the 240B. On the range the worst score was about 25 out of 40. The average score was about 32 out of 40, and six shot better than 38 out of 40. These scores were obtained after firing only 180 "Fam fire" rounds, and impossible with the M60.

This gun is so accurate it's not funny. Yes, it may have some issues that others do not like (bottom ejection for one), but it's the absolute best machine gun the U.S. Army has ever had. The SAW is good too, and much more fun to pack.

Now, if only we had adopted the MG3 and the Spanish CETME Ameli.

Regards,

Eric

All my favorite guns are Czech. CZ 50, 52, 75 & 97, ZKK 601, and the amazing line of Skoda-designed and built military weaponry.

I do believe the Czechs have belt-fed version of the Bren. I am currently campaigning to drop the R&D for the Stryker wheeled combat vehicle and just buy the OT-64 from the Czechs. I would be happy with an entirely Czech-designed/built NATO standard: Belt-fed Bren, Brno sniper rifles, CZ97B pistol in .45 +P, and whatever individual rifle the geniuses at Stratonicze or Brno think best.

They also make my favorite beers - Pilsner-Urquell and Budvar.

I don't know much about the BREN as I never fired one but it is the only LMG I know of that has had a poem written about it. I found this a long time ago and still like it:
A poem by Jim Craig (ex para)

quote:

---

LOCK STOCK AND BARREL

---

"This, ma lads is known as the Bren
a much better killer than the rifle or Sten
At a thousand yards it'll stop ye dead
's got a group ye could cover wi' a pencil lead.
Ye'll learn to love this little gun
for after all has been said and done
Yer job is to stay alive an' kill
an' if ye master this weapon, ye surely will.

This if the rear sight, this is the butt,
ye adjust the trigger wi' this 'ere nut.
The selector's right by the pistol grip
to allow full automatic fire. straight from the hip.
But keep the weapon on single shot
till the bastards are close, then slaughter the lot.
There's thirty-two rounds in the magazine
each one a life in this killing machine

A quick-change barrel wi' a fixed foresight
will keep ye firing in the hottest fight
this is the breech block, ejector and ram
keep the gun oiled, it'll never jam
The bipod will keep ye right on yer aim
learn all the parts, know them by name.
Practice yer shooting an' sharpen yer skill
an ye'll do all right when the time comes to kill.

Quite a tribute, I should think.
Regards,

120mm, great post. Where did you get the info? Army Times? CALL? Unit 1SG? I 'd like to read the entire survey.

v/r Dogger

PS, I haven't been in the turret of an M1 since Somalia in 1993. I suppose your experiences are a little more recent.

Well, Dogger, I suck. My last turret time was 1998. Since then, I've been in remf-land doing much-ignored and unappreciated intel-work. They got tired of me and put me in an NBC slot for this war, where I've done absolutely nothing.

Get me out of here and into a tank, pc, hmmwv, freakin' anything!

OBTW - the info came from the June 7 or 14 issue of the Army Times.

120mm,

That there OT-64 is fine for most troop carrying applications, but what chaps my hide about that or the Stryker is that they're too darn big for a scout vehicle.

The scouts I know up at Ft. Lewis kept lobbying for the Panhard VBL for the scouts during the test process. No joy. The powers that be don't want to complicate the logistics apparently, so again, the scouts will have to make due, and again, get their asses shot off.

Everything we have is either "too soft," "too heavy," or "too bloody noisy." Yah think?

Regards,

Eric

1894,

You may very well be right my friend, but as 120mm said, "the M60 WAS that bloody awfull." When I first enlisted active duty in 1970, the M60 was still pretty new. I never saw one that didn't have a weld somewhere on the receiver to repair a crack.

Granted, these were training guns, but that only means that the guns being used in Vietnam were a problem waiting to happen.

Regards,

Eric

Eric, I agree with you 100%. The OT64 would make a good infantry mounted patrol vehicle or a high-speed armored people mover, but that's about it. I was walking back to work, from chow this morning, and some TF 20 dudes were lounging about in their Panhard. They had the one with air conditioning and the armored windows. .50 cal up front and two M240s off the side. Got all misty and stuff.

As a National Guard Cav Troop commander, I had M60A3s, 113s and ITVs. The 113s are STILL the best scout track in the inventory, though I could think of a bazillion ways to make them better. The unfortunate thing is that it doesn't take a potful of money to develop good recon tracks/vehicles; they are plentiful. And most anything with wheels is too high profile, obtw. The up-armored HMMWV is a joke. The M114 was a good concept, executed badly. The Canucks had a good compromise between the 113 and the 114 that I thought had promise.

Whatcha think about the Scorpion/Scimitar as a scout vehicle?

120mm,

I spent 3 years driving a Fox CVR(W) before converting to track and getting to play with a Scimitar for a little while.

As a scout vehicle the Fox has a lot going with it but you needed a good, expirienced crew to get the best out of it. They excelled at long road moves and i would imagine would be quite effective in the policing duties now going in Iraq. It was a little top heavy and you had to watch it on a side slope but other than that it was pretty good. The 30mm Raden cannon was very effective although target selction ect was entirly manual as was the turret traverse. Air Con was none existant apart from the hatches! Despite the very 1960's technology, we always managed to give the guys in "proper tanks" a surprise or two! I think the main reason they were withdrawn from service is that with the introduction of Challenger 1, they simply would not have the cross country performance to match or to keep ahead of them on a hard push....I am pretty sure it did not have an NBC pack either...

The Scorpion with its 76mm gun has been withdrawn from service and the old Fox turrets have been retro fitted instead and the vechicle is now known as Sabre..I heard a rumor that the old Fox hulls were sold to Mexico, but i don't know if that was true or not.I never got to see a Sabre so I am not sure what other changes were made.

The Scimitar suffers some of the same drawbacks as the Fox as far has being 1960's technology, but does have the advantage of increased cross country performance. Drivng over rough contry at speed still feels like driving in a blender though compared to a modern MBT.

The armour on all the CVR range was alluminium and was supposedly good against small arms fire, but I would imagine an RPG7 and such like would really ruin your day!

The APC version of the series was called "Spartan"
and I seem to recall could hold (8 guys 3 plus 5?)which was supposed to represent a British Infantry section...the anti armour component was "Striker" which fired Swingfire, another outdated product of the 1960's. Again I did not have anything to do with either the Spartan or Striker so i can't really comment on them....

Regards,

Pete

[ 08-08-2003, 12:01: Message edited by: Pete E ]

Pete and 120mm

When my Battalion was in a Mech Infantry role, back in the good old days of West Germany, I was a driver, gunner, and commander (in that order) on a Scimiter in the Recce Platoon.

The Scimiter and all the CVR(T) series Scimitar, Scorpion, Striker (ATGW variant), Sultan (Command variant, Samaritan (Ambulance), Spartan (APC) were designed to be narrow enough to go through rubber plantations in Malaya.

They all had a 4.2 litre petrol Jaguar Engine and were known as the sportscar of the battlefield. I vividly remember overtaking a 2CV on the Autobahn.

There was an NBC pack but it's effectiveness is a matter for debate.

The 30mm Cannon was extremely accurate. Like Pete says, the aluminium armour may be slightly light.

I think the British Warrior may make a good Recce Vehicle. What do you think?

Deerdogs,

They were certainly quick and I believe that they could aledgedly be made quicker if the governors were removed!

With regards size, you could just about squeeze two Fox into a standard shipping container and i have a feelling the others would go in too...the Scimiter also had a lower ground foot print than a man...

You know I still don't recall the Fox haveing an NBC pack...I am sure that if it did have, I would have had to service it at some stage as we seemed to service everything else on the vechicle endlessly!

Those engines were a dream; I remember the first time I saw in the engine compartment which was spotlessly clean, I mean no oil or anything anywhere. The were all painted that sickly light green as I recall!

The Striker did use Swingfire didn't it? Or was that the ATGW variant of the F432?? I always get those two mixed up..Did you guys ever get to fire the ATGW??I believe they were a bitch to hit anything with?

Did they ever give the Spartans a Milan capability? Memory loss is a terrible thing!

Regards,

Pete

Pete,

The Scimitar certainly had a NBC pack, and a decontamination kit - bucket and stirrup pump!! Not sure about the Fox, but I doubt it had a NBC capability.

The Stiker was equiped with Swingfire, but I never saw one.

In '86 the Spartan had a Milan attached up top, usually with bungees! We would travel in packets of two Scimitar and one Milan platoon Spartan.

Aside from the green engines I remember the greasy black sandwiches very well.

Don't forget the B.V tucked away next to the driver; the real power source for the vehicle!

If there was one item I wished I had managed to "liberate" before I left, it was one of those!
My Trooper has 2 batteries and I am sure with a little ingenuity I could have got it working...

Seriously though I am surprised nobody has made one for the civie 4x4 market; I am sure it would sell like hot cakes...

regards,

Pete

[ 08-08-2003, 18:08: Message edited by: Pete E ]

Pete,

A BV would be great but bearing in mind a standard generator won't run a kettle I'm sceptical you could run one off even a HD battery.

120mm and assorted dudes,

Ah yes, here we go again! O.K., this is MY OPINION, as it relates to my experience (not much, only 12 years). Tracked vehicles attract attention, ergo I can and will find any track, which means he (the bad guy) can find me. So, I don't like tracked vehicles.

If you have a primary weapons system in a tracked vehicle bigger than a .50 caliber, American officers will think and believe you have the capabilities of a tank. Not true, but try to convince them otherwise. (Oh, the missions I've had to endure loosing all my people and vehicles because someone thought armored vehicle equals tank.)

As a scout, small is good. The bigger the vehicle, the better the chance to be seen, right? So, why do our vehicles keep getting bigger? "Oh, so you will have protection!"

Ya frigging twit! I don't need protection if he can't see me! And if he does? That bigger vehicle will still be blown to shit!

Some folks (the ones with the purse strings) just don't seem to get his picture. Oh, well, that's the way things go!

Ths Scorpion is a good vehicle, I just have an opinion based on my experience. Tracks also have more maintenance. I'd rather me and my boys got some sleep.

Yours for victory,

Eric

Whoa, Nellie! I mean Eric! Not disagreeing with you at all. I've been a scout in H-, J-, and L-series Divisional Cavalry Squadrons. I was on the team that developed the L-series, and NONE of my ideas were ever implemented.

I'm really disappointed that all the Regimental CAV nazis have ended up taking over the "real" CAV world by forcing their mech task force on the rest of us "scouts" Now they have the "CAV" doing Advance Guard missions, in order to blind the division by losing its "eyes and ears" at first contact. How much good tactical info was 3-7 CAV giving 3ID during the battle of BIAP? Try none. And what mech task-force couldn't have done the same job just as good, if not better?

So, we appear to agree completely, except for one thing. I am a big fan of cross-country mobility. Tracks have it all over wheels in that category. Tracks are naturally lower profile than wheels within similar capabilities.

On the other hand, I am also a big fan of the LPC for scouting. Very underused. I also think the UAV needs to be pushed down to the lowest levels. The Army has a little UAV that is designed for specOps guys that would be appropriate. Of course, with the current active force scouts, they'll never have their job long enough to get competent at their jobs. I have been both and active and a national guard scout, and comparatively, the national guard guys are 10X as competent, especially with their equipment. The active guys simply don't have enough training time and by the time they get halfway good, they get rotated to a different job.

Anything wrong with the Danish model of a combo wheels/APC/Light tank (US M24, believe it or not) section? It gives the section leader a lot of flexibility and full-spectrum without overly arming your scouts. It would also require a de-ignorantization of the US Army's orificer corps.

"Garry Owen"
"Sabers Ready"
"Bushmaster"

Perhaps modern armies should take a lesson from the British Daimler Dingo scout car of WW2. This was a very compact and manoevrable 4x4, and was not fitted with a turret at all (although a Bren and/or Boys could be fitted to a pintle). Despite its small size it had 30mm of frontal armour to cope with unpleasant surprises but the lack of a turret reminded the crew that they were there to gather information, not pretend to be a tank!

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion
forum

120mm,

I believe we're on the same sheet of music buddy! There seems to be a complete lack of the intelligent us of 19Delta's service wide. We train the doctrine of being the "eyes and ears" of the formation, but when the rubber hits the road, we're screwed.

For example, when Troop E, 1/82nd CAV (my home before I started this instructor stuff) deployed to JRTC in '98, I knew we were in trouble the first day. Brigade set the order of march into "the box" with the MP's and civil affairs people first. We scouts were somewhere in the middle of the convoy.

As soon as my troop hit the box, we got the word to halt and herringbone. We spent the next several hours providing near security and monitoring radio traffic. Seem "the bad guys" ambushed the lead elements and pretty much wiped them out. After several hours we finally got the word to "assault into the ambush site, recover survivors, and rejoin the convoy." They attached a dump truck to my troop. We did as ordered, filling the dump truck with the "wounded and dead" and unassed the AO. No losses in my troop.

We pretty much spent the rest of our time driving up and down roads doing "Hasty Route Recons" as ordered by Brigade. (Read "React to an Ambush.") We got to do some dismounted patrols, but only two or three at the most. We did get to perform one Screening Mission the night before the last battle. We were ordered to establish ourselves in a "pecker pole" forest, set OP's and engage and destroy any enemy recon vehicles, in the forest, with our M220's. Huh? Excuse me? Wire guided missles in a forest, against fast moving recon vehicles? We called in all contacts to "Spooky" orbiting up there around 5,000 feet and he got them.

Bottom line, not many senior officers really seem to understand how we are really supposed to work. Kind of bites, but we always suck it up and continue the mission. I think it's still the best job in the Army. As for the Guard, we've always kicked ass against the active guys. We don't march too well, we look and act kind of rowdy, but we can recon the heck out of an OBJ.

And, about tracks. Your point of cross country mobility is quite correct. However, I still have a problem with the size, and we've taken our hummers to some pretty scary places where a track couldn't go. Safely. Because of the terrain. I also really, really like, the ability to just drive into a lake or river and just motor over with no preperation what-so-ever. And being NBC safe is a cool thing too, as well as that 70 KPH top speed.

Anyway,

"Temeritas" (With Balls)

Eric

[ 08-12-2003, 18:32: Message edited by: Eric ]