A tip of the boonie hat to Irregular Michael, who provides us this link to
"Tank Snipers!" by Jack Murphy:
More and more reports are coming out telling us that the Taliban in Afghanistan has finally figured out the limited range of American rifles and other small arms. Acting accordingly, we are told that they are maintaining as much stand off as possible when engaging US forces, remaining just outside the maximum effective range of our soldier’s ammunition while firing at them with heavy machine guns and RPGs. The Carl Gustaf has the potential to change that when employed properly. “Existing systems…such as the M141 Bunker Defeat Munition, M72 LAW, M136 AT-4 and the SMAW, are only effective inside of 500 meters. The Army says the Carl-Gustaf [max effective range 1,000m] is more effective than waiting on mortars and less expensive than artillery or Javelin missiles.”
Afghanistan has also seen the resurgence in interest of the old M40 series 106mm recoilless rifle as well. Murphy follows up with another story on the ins and outs of the Goose: Carl Gustaf, Tactical Employment and Training
14 comments:
It seems we always have to relearn how to fight a war. Time and Time again, I've seen the U.S. armed forces reach back to old arsenals for effective weapons. The BAR was one that was brought back into service during Viet-nam. The weapons system I'd like to see revived for Afghanistan is the old Army M-42 Duster. Originally designed as an anti-aircraft platform, it's twin 40mm Bofors cannons were a mean SOB against infantry. It's 500 hp engine moved it at about 45 mph. As an infantry escort weapon, I believe it would be extremely effective in eliminating some of these ambushes and long distance firefights. The Marines didn't have any in Nam that I ever saw, but the Army sure made good use of them.
Biden says the Taliban isn't an enemy of the United States.
It's great to know our second-in-command is an utter moron.
'[T]he Taliban in Afghanistan has finally figured out the limited range of American rifles and other small arms. Acting accordingly, we are told that they are maintaining as much stand off as possible when engaging US forces, remaining just outside [their] maximum effective range..."
This "stand-off" trick would work just as well using a scoped .30-06 deer rifle or .308 battle rifle. The US Army has few peers at CQB. To fight them, it is necessary to do so from a distance.
The bolt-action rifle is viewed by many as being obsolete for military use but it is the perfect tool under the right circumstances for arming a resistance movement.
MALTHUS
Howse about also going away from the lightweight 5.56 & back to the heavier .308 or 30-06? Heavier? Yes. Less rounds? Yes. More effective over longer distances, with less rounds shot? You tell me.
B Woodman
III-per
Back in the day the Army used the 45/70 which pretty much knocked off the 45/60. Many of the plaines hunters as well as many out west got on the 45/70 band wagon. Pretty much any firearm that used the 45/70 an excellent gun for buffalo. That was until the buffalo figured out how far that bullet could travel. Then the hunters came out with the 45/90, so the slug could reach out farther. Then the 45/110 and the 45/120 came into being as the buffalo kept moving out farther to get out of range. Back in those days of the buffalo hunters the hide skinners would retrieve the soft slug on the inside of the other side of the hide. The hunters would recast the lead around the campfire and that was called, running lead.
Nevertheless, moving out of range is common as animals and man has proved for centuries. However the American plains hunters meet the challenge with more brass and powder behind the .45 cal slug. The folks who run government will have brain farts that can last for many years before they give the GI's something that works so they can do their jobs and stay alive.
I have heard from many different officers in and retired from all the branches of our military. That the 9mm was the replacement for the .45 acp because the woman in the military could handle the 9mm much better. Never mind the 9mm would be a disadvantage, things needed to be political correct.
Don't learn the wrong lesson.
M4 and SAW are a bad choice to replace the GPMG and M16 for most infantry tasks, MOUT being the exception.
ROE that limit indirect fire are the cause of the range standoff problem, and the solution is fire support.
Affectionately called "Charly G." Awesome fun to fire, no fun at all if you have to carry it.
My first MOS (0351)was on the M40 106mm RR. Mounted it on a cute little M274A5 Mule.
Don't see any reason they wouldn't work well in A'stan. And it wouldn't cost 1/4 $million a shot either. But we just can't get past the 'new and improved' mindset here in the US.
Nah, boys, next up is the .22 rimfire. After that comes the .17, carry 10,000 rds in your back pocket.
They're working on something smaller.
Mountain Rifleman
I'd like to see more military versions of the AR-10 (7.62NATO/.308) employed along with more M-14s in updated stock platforms and maybe even a few M1 Garands in 30-06. Maybe throw in a few SCAR17s and train more platoon members as designated marksmen with sniper/accurized hunting rifles in .300 Win Mag or .338.
Like the 106RR and BAR ideas too!
I realize there would be logistic issues to resolve but ...
Imagine the enemies surprise at next fire fight.
Diamondback
It looks simple enough to reproduce given the blueprints or a example to reverse engineer.
my dad LOVED the old 106RR and even went out of his way to get qualified as an ONTOS driver and gunner.
one of the few stories he ever told me about Vietnam was destroying a fishing boat in Da Nang harbor after repeatedly telling him NOT to go out at night with black sails. the secondary explosions I guess were pretty spectacular.
The description gives more than enough reason to deny this weapon to the empire's troops.
They will use these against us.
butterknife
Post a Comment