Gary Childress
Posts: 4895
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Mech Infantry do not use the Carl Gustov nor the 60mm mortar........they have 120mm or 4.2" mounted on M113 tracks. Now a days it is the AT4 and the Javelin for AT firepower on the dismounts. But Mech mainly rely on the Brads for AT firepower.
Most Mech infantry do not have designated marksmen assigned. Not in the traditional sense anyway.........why have a sniper rifle when I have a Bradley close by with a 25mm and thermals. You will find that most have M16/M4 and M249 as weapons with at least 1 M203 per squad.
Obviously I'm no expert, this is all just for the fun of playing around with unit organization, however, going back to designated marksmen. You say that they are not needed because of the M-2 Bradley's capabilities close at hand. Doesn't the same also apply to just about any weapon being used by the dismounted element? Why have M136s when the Bradley has the much more capable TOW system? Why have the M-249 when the Bradley can lay much more effective fire with the 25mm? It would sort of seem that the purpose of the small arms carried by the dismounted element is to fight in situations where their IFV's weapons can't as easily reach, places like urban environments or where cover is thick. In such situations the dismounted element might be able to deploy itself better against the enemy than a big clunky IFV. I would think that a designated marksman would come in handy if the enemy is tucked away someplace where only the dismounted element can effectively reach him. Also, the Bradley's 25mm is not exactly a precision sniper rifle. I would think a well aimed sniper round would serve a purpose even for the Bradley team.
Obviously the US Army knows a lot more about mechanized combat than I do but I wonder if just because the Army does something in one way, that way is always the best way to do things. I'm sure even the US Army can occasionally outfit their troops better than it does. Plus occasionally things the Army does I know are due to factors like budget constraints or even politics when congress foists a weapons system on them which they don't want becuase Senator Z's nephew happens to work for Northrop Grumman or something. Then there is always the possiblity that generals fighting their last battle don't see the utility in something which might actually be a good idea. Think of Billy Mitchell and the airplane. Some in the military thought Mitchell was crazy talking up the capabilities of airpower.
But most importantly if the TO&E for the Army is already perfect, that would take all the fun out of coming up with alternative TO&Es. 
|
Printable Version
RE: Fun with Alternative Military Organization - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread