29 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Phil
November 25, 2013 9:33 pm

Note the noticeable and notable splashes…

I would say that if you’re slowly walking toward the enemy, get through 2x magazines and then 2x pistol magazines you’re having an industrious day.

Observer
Observer
November 25, 2013 10:24 pm

Not the first time I saw this, but I did have some interesting questions. Is this section level training or individual? If it was section level, then it seems like the SOP is for the shotgunner to cover his mates while they reload. Interesting.

M&S
M&S
November 25, 2013 11:31 pm

I would say that if you are inside ten meters using semi autofire you are asking to get out volumed by autofire first-initiation and had better steal the march by suppressing first.

Facing the threat created a dense target area full of fingers, elbows and arms with your eye over the muzzle flash which a trained shooter _will fire into_, guaranteeing a hit on something which is not covered by the SAPI hardplate.
IMO, we do not see enough exploitation of standoff, angled, body shields (fixed to the web and allowing the user to rest or protrude his weapon through an aperture like a moving casemate) because everyone is worried about the holes in the protection scheme with the arms raised from the pit to the ribs. If you only expose a 10 inch target space and that target space is covered with body armor in a flexible mesh like a cross between a Zeltbahn and a Mirmillone’s Manica rig.

Give rule #1 is never to cross your muzzle over your mate’s unprotected back and the most likely space you are going to be finding <10m LOS in is an alley or a room where there is limited maneuvering space, we needed to see both the weapons control to put rounds into target with a dense field of friendlies forward and a movement plan that both took into account the cover and open field rush lanes that determine who wins a the sudden contact condition by putting explosives in the far field and bullets in the near. Something that new weapons like the XM25 and the Mk.32 (or the SEAL 'pirate gun' cropped M79) make eminently possible on a continuous suppression basis but which you certainly DON'T want to 'walk into'.

We also needed to see a vertical defilade condition where the shooters as the range were configured to allow for safe upwards fire and shooters engaged targets offset from their primary coverage lane and then _returned to support_ the lead shooter when their popup secondary arc targets were engaged.

I observed no sign of offhand shooting which is a must for both fighting after you have taken a shot to the hand and in shooting around obstacles used as defensive cover.

I also see no ability to do a sudden break-contact conditioned fight decision to -separate- from a bad tactical situation. Smoke and backpedal forces the threat to come to you to get past the obscurant barrier and if you have a proper, dual layer, perimeter set up, any attempt to run away sends them crashing into their own ambush conditioned fight.

I see no attempt to take the offense. To set an ambush and control the fire lanes from a random position that lets the shooters maximized fire densities down them.

I see no attempt at a running fight with a threat in pursuit and 'go small' _avoidance_ of contact, once broken. I see no ability to practice the switchover from a broken hide condition to a sudden onset fires if the threat makes out the shooters.

I see no spatial memory tests, where someone calls a terrain feature or a sector and range and everyone shoots from covered positions to saturation and suppress the lane as a function of chosen ground advantage.

I see no acknowledgment that the best way to clear a house is down and thus no attempt to use portable stretchers as ramps or ladders and no understanding of the differences and sightline grazing angle vulnerabilities when it is YOU who have the commanding defilade. Specifically how you trade opposed and oblique fires positions to cover down and prone and kneeling shooters to cover low which are _different conditions_ when you are going rooftop to rooftop.

Obviously, there is no coordination as preemptive scouting support with robotics and that is a real shame because if you can use a 60mm to call bring in fire on targets you don't have to see from in front but _above_, the whole condition of why advance past overmatch distance on your SAPI is avoided.

Marksmanship training is all well and good when it serves a functional purpose but building confidence in false tactics is not one of them.

But what you are seeing here is people making it easy for themselves. If you walk straight at a target your zero the line of sight rate differentials for both of you. But if you are moving fluidly into a room to clear the choke at the door and open up fire lanes on opposed entrances or obstacle hidden threats, you need to be able to shoot obliquely on opening and leading target angles. And you need to be able to do so with controlled bursts that dominate sightlines as you move up and through doors and other LOS blocked threshold events.

Accepting this means learning to move to oblique off angles and _accept the crossfire condition_ as you support each other and lead elements from opposed sides.

You see this all the time in SOF reports where the shift from shock-and-awe idiocy to slink and sneak means being able to get in close and dominate the tight spaces in a lateral, not face-on walk up (See: _No Easy Day_).

CONCLUSION:
We've essentially spent a decade teaching our enemies how we fight. Now we need to go back to the schoolhouse and do a changeup so that we come back with something a little more savvy for next time. Half of that is going to be equipment. Half should be biometrics studies on things like laid-fire as shooting across a braced or cradled arm and moving quickly, diagonally, from cover to cover to the MINIMUM distance at which you want to be to maintain protective certainty before using maximum effect explosive or incapacitant or obscurants to make the final rush.

This isn't about confidence. This is about smarts. A smart enemy who knows he cannot beat the Western military machine with their hours and hours of tactics if going to continue to be desultory and ambush/remote fires concentrated on avoiding the straight up fight. There is no way we should give into that condition by sticking to the same ol' ways.

as
as
November 25, 2013 11:49 pm

Apparently this is something the SA80 is very good at. The sights are perfect for it. Advantage of being short in length.

Phil
November 25, 2013 11:53 pm

@M&S

It’s a CQM lane not a kill house! And one serial at that. And it’s not the only training done on RSOI.

Observer
Observer
November 26, 2013 12:12 am

M&S, you’re being nonsensical again. You worry about friendly fire, then suggest full auto? Contact at 5-15 meters and you are talking about retreating? It just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.

And to give you a little perspective, I HAVE fired M-16s on full auto, full mag live in a simulated trench clearing. At 15m, the round spread was basketball sized and you only had enough rounds for a 3 second burst. Even more interestingly, and something that you do not see in range videos or read is that a full auto burst actually jams your body immobile, you suddenly need to use your entire body weight and balance to hold the weapon in line. This is from a fast sprint charge, the recoil actually stops you from moving forward for 3 seconds.

I also see nothing wrong with their advance towards the enemy. At that range, you are dead. Like Kippling said, “it’s ruin to run” at that range, your only hope is to advance and overrun the enemy and neutralise the threat before he can finish the job. The British go for a steady advance under covering fire, I see nothing wrong with that. Our drills are similar with a slight difference. “Contact Right!!!” “Charge!!” At that range, your only way out is through.

Now an interesting question. M&S, do you have any training or experience in CQB or FIBUA to give training advice?

bigdave243
bigdave243
November 26, 2013 3:38 am

Once again M&S jack of all trades and a master of none. Your posts are becoming tiresome.

If i truly know nothing of a subject I tend to keep my mouth shut. Perhaps you could help sensible discussion by doing the same, just a thought…..just a thought!!

Deja Vu
Deja Vu
November 26, 2013 8:45 am

During WWII there was a British school of thought that Tito in Yugoslavia might be an acronym for a committee. I wonder if M&S may be a collective of some type.

That would explain the wide range of subject expertise. Do I detect some slight variation in style, aviation topics contain more acronyms and project number references whilst land force topics are more verbose?

Obsvr
Obsvr
November 26, 2013 8:46 am

Interesting, I’d note that a gallery type range maximises firer throughput and enables some basic drills to be polished. Jungle lanes are much more testing, but they need space (wide arcs of fire) and throughput is one firer at a time.

Zaitsev
Zaitsev
November 26, 2013 9:19 am

@MnS Step 1: Look at the range.
Step 2: read this comment “I see no acknowledgment that the best way to clear a house is down and thus no attempt to use portable stretchers as ramps or ladders and no understanding of the differences and sightline grazing angle vulnerabilities when it is YOU who have the commanding defilade. ”
Step3: look at the range again.
Step4: have the self realization that your talking bollocks.

http://xkcd.com/481/

a
a
November 26, 2013 10:53 am

And to give you a little perspective, I HAVE fired M-16s on full auto, full mag live in a simulated trench clearing. At 15m, the round spread was basketball sized and you only had enough rounds for a 3 second burst.

It’s an interesting exercise, and a bit of a confidence booster, to try shooting on automatic – especially shooting from the hip – and see just how difficult it is to hit even targets within 100m.

I’d note that a gallery type range maximises firer throughput and enables some basic drills to be polished. Jungle lanes are much more testing, but they need space (wide arcs of fire) and throughput is one firer at a time.

One firer, or one team. But yes. Also, you need a lot more trained safety staff, because there’s a lot more that can go wrong when you have people running and firing.

if you’re slowly walking toward the enemy, get through 2x magazines and then 2x pistol magazines you’re having an industrious day.

I remember being told by a very senior soldier on the pistol range that SOP might well be two instinctive centre mass followed by one aimed to the head, but, if I were ever to have to use a pistol, I should fire fourteen instinctive centre mass and then chuck the pistol at the target’s head, because if I was having to use a pistol things had clearly got pretty desperate.

x
x
November 26, 2013 11:42 am

@ Zaitsev

Dude props for the xkcd cartoon. We only see rare glimpses of high culture here despite my presence. ;)

Have a gold star for your fridge chart.

M&S
M&S
November 26, 2013 11:57 am

@Observer,

“M&S, you’re being nonsensical again. You worry about friendly fire, then suggest full auto? Contact at 5-15 meters and you are talking about retreating? It just shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.”

No, you’re not listening carefully enough.

It can be 2-10m or 200-500m and if it’s the wrong fight, you are better off backing out than pressing through.

You walk through a door or down an alley and take two instant casualties to crossfire conditioned threats firing out of open doorways to rooms on either side, and you _can’t_ move forward because you have downed people blocking the route and no sightlines to shoot back, are you really going to kneel there and let your buddies share your target space? What happens when you wriggle to a corner and shooter number 3 who is waiting for you to turn sideways, opens up from in front as you turn to engage the defiladed threats?

I’ve seen this happen to Marines clearing houses in Fallujah. They ended up being forced out the door they had just come in and then doing a separate dash to get their guys into a separate room as fires from the second floor came down on them. And then handing those downed Marines out a window before again exiting the building to let a tank drop it.

Which means the fight to occupy battlespace was a false one because _the ground had no value in and of itself_. Which is the only reason you want to advance into it.

Bleed for time, bleed for lives, bleed for victory. But never bleed for dirt.

The engagment doesn’t have to be static either (which means that the threat dictates whether or not you get to CQB distancs), it can be moving if you don’t stop and THINK why as whether they are dragging you into a bryar patch condition, all the gunho in the world doesn’t do you any good.

Having your ride debus the other half of the squad on the far end of the ally does because then the rats are trapped inside a perimeter whose exit brings them to Allah.

And you’d better know how to operate in close with friendlies on the far side of the fire lane because you will be advancing from both sides of their position, into a potential friendly fire confliction, like it or not.

Conversely, if you don’t know how to break contact and go into full on retreat when half of Mr. Sadr’s militia is chasing you down _in their turf_, then you don’t have a necessary tool in your bag of tricks.

Fight hard, then run, open the distance, fight hard, then run and open the distance. All the while looking for that moment when you can cut left or right, across the axis of the threat perception of the battlespace, get small and fade completely.

Better by far to burn 2 of your 5 carried contacts and _get away_ than to kill a man with every bullet you fire only to find you are 50 bullets shy of survival when you hear the click on last-mag. This too has happened, with a British patrol in Iraq forced into a building and contemplating who was going to kill the boys so that they didn’t get taken prisoner and butchered by inches by the hostiles.

“And to give you a little perspective, I HAVE fired M-16s on full auto, full mag live in a simulated trench clearing. At 15m, the round spread was basketball sized and you only had enough rounds for a 3 second burst. ”

Full auto doesn’t mean a full magazine in a single burst. If you want to shoot at aircraft, join the ARADCOM.

It means that you put enough rounds down range than the clatter and snap of supersonic rounds past their ears gives them pause. It also means your own people are sorted with noise dampening ear buds and prior training sufficient to withstand the shear intensity of a close-in contact without becoming deaf or noise fatigued.

But more than this, it means, you turn your body oblique to the firing index and walk -away- from the target’s own firing index. Because when you do this, you minimize the amount of target area you expose to him and can fit overlapping, angled, SAPI plates across that angle while walking like a tank with a refused turret as your weapon is locked-to-body and you are using muscle memory or a pointer on the rail to shoot into the threat from HIS side. Thus creating instant defilade as fires volume division since now, he has to turn to track you and you are NOT offering him a clustered set of fingers/forearms/face targets over your cetner mass where he is going to be aiming anyway. By moving laterally, at an oblique angle he has to adjust for range as lead change and because you are the superior marksman, _having practiced this drill_ you are shooting him, where he sits, even though the flat panel effect of an easy target is now effectively turned sideways.

Do you understand how poorly you are training the psychology of your forces when you provide them with ‘shoot him in the face’ target indices rather than ‘shoot where he is looking the other way’ side angles now? If you can see his face, he can see yours. And he who fires the most rounds into the volume will win.

“Even more interestingly, and something that you do not see in range videos or read is that a full auto burst actually jams your body immobile, you suddenly need to use your entire body weight and balance to hold the weapon in line. This is from a fast sprint charge, the recoil actually stops you from moving forward for 3 seconds.”

If you are firing obliquely across-body as across-lane it does not. If you have the trigger discipline to get controlled groups into likely dark windows it does not. Be a professional. Teach your listeners how to fight exploiting rather than being obstructed by the dynamic obstacles and _changing_ line of sight conditions that define a lethal cone around where threat fire cone is laid on a beaten ground. Teach them to look at all objects and obstacles as line of sight conditioned leverages to bring them to the point of overrun. And most especially, teach them to control obliquity as range so that they don’t walk INTO the overmatch zone where no amount of carriageable hard plate saves them.

“I also see nothing wrong with their advance towards the enemy. At that range, you are dead. Like Kipling said, “it’s ruin to run” at that range, your only hope is to advance and overrun the enemy and neutralise the threat before he can finish the job.”

Then you are reacting to the enemy’s definition of the fight. You want to get out of the engagement lane and you want to keep moving fires on the target. If this means walking forward then do so. But _do it on an angle_ because the very act of doing so forces them to turn left or right and opens up the chance for your buddy to kill them all while they engage you. It is harder to shoot obliquely but for those who master the trick, the target area and fire index improvements are worth it.

Doctrine is all about having YOUR definition of how the enemy will react to YOUR will be predominant. And walking up a fire lane, ‘head on’ makes zero sense. Because whatever contempt you have for autofire, they will be using it, enmasse, and they will so saturate the fire lane that anyone trying to walk down the threat in semi auto will be dead.

“The British go for a steady advance under covering fire, I see nothing wrong with that. Our drills are similar with a slight difference. “Contact Right!!!” “Charge!!” At that range, your only way out is through.”

There is no covering fire when there is no space between the individual shooters inside an active firelane. At best, you have three on-line _supporting arms_ conditioned shooters. The problem being that if you engage one, you engage them all, as a group.

Whereas, with _combined arms_, the threat cannot engage one without being hit from somewhere else by another whom he has to turn his back on and thus exposure to maintain contact gives him a decided psychological disincentive to remain where he’s at.

And the only time I said anything that could remotely be confused with ‘running to ruin’ is this-

“I also see no ability to do a sudden break-contact conditioned fight decision to -separate- from a bad tactical situation. Smoke and backpedal forces the threat to come to you to get past the obscurant barrier and if you have a proper, dual layer, perimeter set up, any attempt to run away sends them crashing into their own ambush conditioned fight.”

If you don’t have the means to advance under explosive as de-occupying volume denial fire then you are better off going to ground behind cover and working the edges of the engagement around the fire axes while using maneuver to break into the target area along another axis. Which is, after all, the definition of mechanized infantry.

Walking up-lane gets you dead in a stupid hurry because you are facing a threat which is popping away at full auto and has chosen the ground to create a fire funnel.

The closer you go, the more likely you are to achieve overmatch on the SAPI and the almost certain truth that you will be hit in the arms and the hands holding the gun as or before your core protection is ventilated. It is a center-mass predeterminancy to zeroing the line of sight rates.

No trigger finger, no gunnery and all the rah-rah in the world isn’t going to save you.

Add to this that you are equally certain of being drawn into a secondary explosive or crossfire ambush and just getting to the 10m point without THINKING about what and who is making you do this is bad tactical discipline as control over the engagement.

“Now an interesting question. M&S, do you have any training or experience in CQB or FIBUA to give training advice?”

Nope. But I know what my eyes see. And I could hand these young men an Enfield and tell them to go at it for a Mad Minute and they would come out of this _CQM_ training course with no more useful skills than they display here.

They learned to shoot a rifle in basic. By this point they should be well into clobber college on how to /employ the weapon/, tactically, to beat the threat. Yet they are still walking the line like it was boot and the targets were firing range presets.

If everyone is walking up lane in the same 3X3 meter of space, they will share the burst of any threat firing in full auto back down it and that _will_ ‘stop them cold’. Dead.

Show me a condition where the instructor points and says: “You’re dead, compensate!” And then “You just lost a finger, off hand!” and another where “It’s a wall shoot around it!” they have to adjust their pathing as their posture and coverage arcs to make good use of the terrain and sightline geometries. And they have to do it alone because the psychological reinforcement of the man at your shoulder is not there. And never will be again because the rate of fire simply doesn’t support grouped advance into contact.

Do this and I might believe that this is a worthwhile CQM course. As is… It’s just a bunch of boys at the range, having a little fun.

If they have the basics of how to shoot down. And they expand those basics with TTP to cover how to shoot under the wildly varying conditions of an obstacle dense combat course, the the next step is tactical field problems where you show them how to approach and control given structural as open terrain battlespace geometries so that they can live to reach the other side.

It never fails to amaze me how much competence we lose between real wars. The only thing worse is how many bad habits we pick up, fighting the third stringers when we go adventuring into the primitives.

Real anti ambush conditioned fighting is always about the push-off, de-occupying the threat from where he wants to be as a function of messing with his opplan for how the fight is supposed to turn out. It’s always space-becomes-mindset.

But you have to be able to expect that he will be doing the same to you. Which means that when you maneuver against the threat _here_ by going to _there_ to generate obliquity, you have to expect that he will shoot out of a window or an alley or a rooftop or a hillcrest over yonder and be able to respond to it, sanitizing distant dark doorways and sending frag around LOS blocks in a cluttered battlespace so that you can occupy the dominant points which control the fight NOT to your front but to your enemy’s sides.

Which means autofire and explosives to win short, sharp, contacts and keep moving to the CP where the threat cannot shoot at you and he cannot stay where he is and is thus _disincentivized_ from remaining at all.

Run rabbit, run. Because when you run I can see you and now you are the one who is being pushed into MY gaming psychology. As the Stryker or the Warrior pulls up with the rest of the squad, right into his escape lane.

The failure to do this _when you don’t know_ precisely where the threat is, is what gives you this false sense of fatalistic determinism as ‘through or dead’.

And it’s just never that simple.

It’s always about cover and point to point dominance of the geometry of fire axes as controlled movement by fire that keeps bullets going down range in a manner that lessens the intensity of what is coming back at you. If you are oblique to the threat, the number of ways you can die are reduced to the amount of convergence he can bring to your offset position. If you rush it, you are just generating the kinds of ‘even a Iraqi can’t miss’ zero’d LOS rate closure that multiplies hit probabilities and from hits, disabling or critical wounds that go through and through the hands as the hard plate.

By the time you get to the ranges shown in the video, you are dead ten times over and so fighting the good fight is more about instilling a false sense of confidence in what amounts to participation in Lanchestrian attritional math than it is about everyone living to come through the fight because they fought smart not hard or blindly adherent to false assumptions.

That is why this is not good CQM. Because by the time you arrive at these ranges, you should have already been shooting into his flanks for ages and using explosive fires to push him off his position. WHY is it that these targets are head-on? WHY is it that these men are side by hip? It is because warfare is more controlled by group reinforcement psychology than most people realize. It is about intimidation and fear of not standing tall to the moment when your brothers measure your worth by how you divide the enemy’s fire by standing at their side. And that was all rah-rah okay, back in the day. But now the threat knows how ‘confident’ as bloody minded you are. And he refuses to fight you except in a desultory fashion. While he has the rate of fire and explosive options to make your bravery pointless.

And you’re just not adapting to that reality which will get men killed when the next bunch you face, in Korea or Taiwan or or or, is not only savvy but just as well disciplined as you are in terms of practiced accuracy. Overcoming fear is one thing. Freezing your brain to act without tactical thought is another. Shoot with the hand, kill with the mind.

@Zaitsev,
It’s not my fault that the wrong range configuration has been chosen.

Find a different building, create a different environment within it.

_At a minimum_ turn those target plates at an angle and set them across the wide axis of the lane or better yet, mount them on a powered swivel. Pump in some very loud counterfire noise from both in front and behind using directional sound mikes to mimic the snap of close passage shots and put a muzzle flash simulator that fires propane or the equivalent as flash indication. Have the instructor carry a laser pointer and zap those who don’t move smartly enough to maintain ‘going away as crossing’ line of sight rates. Now, lock those weapons across body and walk a diagonal to _just before_ the point where obliquity generates a crossfire hazard. And cross compare with the same ol’ way technique before asking your students: “So, there are times when simply turning and shooting is the best as only option. But they question you must always answer _beforehand_ is ‘how did I get here’…”

This is the starting point of teaching students CQM as the art of the non-optimum shot and the making use of superior soldier skills to control the battlespace by forcing the enemy to act biometrically and psychologically in a fashion that generates fires dominance through obliquity and superior marksmanship _on the move_ from drifted LOS rate changes. If you need to, give them laser pointers to help range in their shooting eye. If you need to, give them calisthenics beforehand to loosen up their hip muscles and spines. If you need to, have them start shooting, statically, using ‘skinny’ targets to represent target deflection variables.

Put another rotating target on the edges of the fight and perhaps above it (to represent a hill or rooftop threat) and randomly have it ‘go live’ as the shooters face the otherway, on an inwards biased threat to show that flanking is never an absolute condition. Use simulant munitions if safety is an issue to full up rounds.

But always do so with the understanding that you must _mix it up_ to challenge their safe gun control at the same time as you take away the certainty of ‘the man beside you’ understanding of where everyone is as both reinforcement to the intimidation psychology of the close in fight as well as the ‘no worries about crossfire’ conditioning. Because there will be times when the rules go out the window and knowing how your friend acts and what it feels like when friendly fire passes close aboard, is also an important part of the tactical reset on your what your mind will allow before it screams “No Way!”

All this to make sure that you are teaching them, by block segments, the art of the dynamic fight, not the static one. All this to make sure they survive before they get close. By controlling the geometry as the expectation of the firing lanes.

Deja Vu
Deja Vu
November 26, 2013 2:17 pm

@M&S Never mind the quality look at the screen inches.

@Zeitsev – XKCD Brilliant

a
a
November 26, 2013 2:39 pm

XKCD is rather good… a lot of the time this site (and others!) remind me of this one (and I can see myself doing it as well)

http://xkcd.com/386/

Observer
Observer
November 26, 2013 2:40 pm

“I remember being told by a very senior soldier on the pistol range that SOP might well be two instinctive centre mass followed by one aimed to the head, but, if I were ever to have to use a pistol, I should fire fourteen instinctive centre mass and then chuck the pistol at the target’s head, because if I was having to use a pistol things had clearly got pretty desperate.”

+1 on this. And the follow on step is the bayonette charge. One of my gripes against going bullpup. Don’t see why they can’t get a bullpup with a bayonette. And it is still useful for impromptu mine clearing.

““Now an interesting question. M&S, do you have any training or experience in CQB or FIBUA to give training advice?”

“Nope. But I know what my eyes see.”

I think this pretty much explains everything. Anyone can make a nice paper talking about the Superman Army. On the ground is where it all counts. Your wall of text has as much validity as the option of “Drop powered armour from orbit with 50mm CTA and 7.62 MG loadout.” It involves a super idealised situation where the enemy is passive. As many others have been telling you, “LOOK AT THE RANGE”.

And your blab is just a long winded way of saying “do flanking”, but if you think that you are the only one who can think of flanking the enemy, you overestimate yourself and underestimate the rest of the world. Why you do NOT flank at that range is because the range is too close and reaction time is too little. Flanking works 50-100m where you have room to maneuver, at 15m, you try to rush to a flanking position, you’re more likely to eat 7.62S, on single shot, it’s almost impossible to miss at that range. You can miss in full auto.

“If you are firing obliquely across-body as across-lane it does not.” With regards to full auto, this is worse. It pulls your burst to the right, the path of least resistance. And this is practical, I tried it. A flat face on surface is needed to prevent this.

Think I’ll add to the choir on the critique to your post.

“LOOK AT THE DAMN RANGE!”

Seriously, just watching videos do NOT give you insight into the situation, hands on weapons, click to Fire with live rounds do. Think it is about 10 meters?

The one thing I did take home on this is the shotgunner covering the rest of the section, interesting fillip in their tactics, worth a think.

a
a
November 26, 2013 2:54 pm

One of my gripes against going bullpup. Don’t see why they can’t get a bullpup with a bayonette.

But the SA80 does have a bayonet. So does the Steyr… admittedly the overall length is pretty short, and I think you’d be better off with a shovel, or a parang, or a broadsword (“in my opinion any officer without a sword is improperly dressed”).

wf
wf
November 26, 2013 3:02 pm

Just wondering if it’s entirely a good idea to present your side profile to your enemy at really CQB ranges (less than 50m). Less coverage on the body armour front, and theoretical advantages of forcing your opponent to think about leading you really not relevant. Is pepper potting out these days because of the weight, ?

a
a
November 26, 2013 3:16 pm

M&S has thirty-eight drops! (Simulated.)

Observer
Observer
November 26, 2013 4:15 pm

TD, not complaining about the British Army, if the SA80 has a bayonette, then that is the way it should be, I’m just complaining that the new toy they issued me with (SAR-21) does not! As a firearm, it’s ok, as an all round tool, where is the bayonette lug??!! :)

If you looked at the training vid, you can see the rest of the section reloading while the shotgunner is still sending rounds downrange, it seems to imply that his job is to cover for them as they reload. Stopping suicide bombers could also be a job for it, especially if one tried to rush them while they were reloading, or even during the advance. Nothing says a weapon can only be used for one job. :)

wf
wf
November 26, 2013 4:23 pm

@Observer: no bayonet lug, how will you fit a BFA?

Deja Vu
Deja Vu
November 27, 2013 8:36 am

At these ranges I might get them with the gas plug!!

My unit was never formally converted to Rifle 5.56 (as they insisted on calling it at the time). We were right down the food chain and had to keep our SMG long enough for the 9 mm training ammo to run out. Never did master SA80 sling – something about old dogs and new tricks.

Brian Black
Brian Black
November 27, 2013 11:27 am

” we do not see enough exploitation of standoff, angled, body shields (fixed to the web and allowing the user to rest or protrude his weapon through an aperture like a moving casemate) ”

A one-man casemate, brilliant idea. Warfighters walking like tanks across the battlefield with their own personal sangar hanging off them.

With everyone using email nowadays, there must be thousands of surplus Royal Mail post boxes out there. A quick coat of Army Brown and Bob’s your uncle, a ready made casemate with only the minimal firing aperture exposed to the enemy.

Topman
Topman
November 27, 2013 11:33 am

@ BB

I like it, you should GEMS it, get some cash! :)

a
a
November 27, 2013 12:24 pm

Brian: no, no, leave them painted red. Urban camouflage!

BANG
Oh no! Ahmed’s been hit!
Quick, brothers, return fire!
But we can’t see where the British are! Look, there’s no one in sight! Just those entirely motionless and innocuous post boxes over there!
They must be invisible. Invisible infidels! Infisidels! RUN FOR YOUR LIVES!

For crew served support weapons, obviously, you’d want to keep the gunner and the no.2 together. So you need something a bit bigger, like a police call box – which as we all know will blend in to any environment perfectly.

Observer
Observer
November 27, 2013 1:09 pm

“I like it, you should GEMS it, get some cash!”

Oh God, you guys use GEMS too? lol Paperwork really makes the world go round.

@a, they don’t use red post boxes.

“Ahmad, what are those?”
“Don’t know, but they are made of metal, imagine how much money we can get if we smelted it down! Quick, grab it! It’s running away!”
“Captain, that is the 4th patrol that went MIA today, think we have a problem.”
“No worries Sergeant, they just turned up at the gate in their boxers 5 minutes ago.”

a
a
November 27, 2013 1:21 pm

they don’t use red post boxes.

Well then, obviously, changing that has to be Step One of preparing the battlespace in any future countries we occupy. Don’t bother me with trifles, man, I’m revolutionising the future of dismounted infantry operations here.

Topman
Topman
November 27, 2013 1:37 pm