Infantry squad fire power 1944 vs. 2004

[17thfabn]

The military channel has a rerun of the program I refered to above, Operaion Anaconda: the Battle of Robert's Ridge. In this battle lightly armed Rangers fight for several hours against over 100 terrorists with very little support. It is on tonight. It is a beautiful day here today, but I am stuck at work. The program will probably be repeated through out the week.

[daxmanio]

Originally Posted by Xracer

Agreed, islenos.

There have been numerous complaints coming out of Eastern Afganistan (near the Pakistani border) about just that thing.

Seems to be a standard tactic by the BGs to engage at 400-500 meters with WWII bolt Moisin-Nagents & Enfields........effectively beyond the range of our pipsqueek M-16s....and then boogie out of there before backup arrives.

Modern technology isn't always the answer. Sorta reminds me of the problems the Brits ran into in the Falklands. Their ships couldn't support their infantry.

The Brit Destroyers carried only missles....too expensive and not enough of 'em to take out Argentine hard points, machine gun nests, etc.

The Brits would've killed for a couple of WWII Sullivan Class destroyers with their 5"/38 turrets.

They used several of the Royal Navy's frigates for artillery support...

one of which was the HMS Ambuscade which was armed with a 4.5in gun

[Bill]

Good discussion here.
In a nut shell small arms have not improved since WW2 at the same rate as larger hardware. I think it true that a well trained team, squad, or platoon using the best small arms of WW2 could hold their own or defeat a similar sized opposition armed with modern US small arms. But in the real battlefied of today this is somewhat meaningless except in small skirmishes due to all the other technical advancements at the disposal of the infantryman. However, I do think it was a wrong choice for the US Infantry to almost solely depend on the 5.56 as the universal cartride of choice. I think the M-14 or something similar may play a larger role in the future.
Bill

[rangerruck]

but todays soldier has access to things not dreamed of in those days, laws m4/96 dragons tows, tiny batt powered spotter planes, laser range finders, infrared, night vision. if you were to fight agianst a ww2 group. you could pick em off at your own pace, on a very dark night. with a simple npvs or even an ir / pvs mounted scope

[17thfabn]

Welcome rangerruck.

All the modern electronics are impressive. But in the first 2 to 3 minutes when a nine man infantry squad (5 M16, 2 M203 rifle/grenade launcher, 2 M249 squad automatic weapons), runs head long into a small band of the bad guys all that will initialy come into play is the weapons they are carrying. I would like our guys to have every advantage.

[polishshooter]

Boy , it seems like deja vu, like I had this conversation YEARS ago... but...

I still think, you spot the typical 9 or 12 man WWII squad everything on your list AFTER the "dragon-TOW," And they, with M1s, M1 Carbines (with one or two having the M8 Grenade launcher with some M9A1s, M19 WPs, and a bunch of adapters for their standard MkIIs) a couple of BARs, (and a Model '97 or 12 also )and a fold up M9 Bazooka with a couple of rounds, and they would at LEAST hold their own against the M4s, M249s, M203s and the Dragons and Tows...the ONLY thing they are giving up is being able to deal with HEAVY armor...

Just my opinion.

[Light Coat]

We've actually gone through a period of de-evolution as far as military firearms are concerned. The weapons of WWII are considerably more reliable and much more versatile than our late issue weapons.

My kick-butt era of military weapons is the early Vietnam era. The M-14 was one hell of a system. There's a reason the bolt carrier is part of the bolt; most of the time a blown case can be extracted by kicking the bolt back. The old hog was hell on wheels for a light squad machine-gun. That's an M-60 to the unwashed. Both firearms capable of ripping through undergrowth, other soft/semi-hard cover, and the human body. The M-79 wasn't all that bad; but, by late war some M-203 type lauchers where available.

The only advantage of the modern military is just as everyone has agreed; technology. We've got satellites that could identify gnats by their license numbers.

Just for aggravation value; I have been told that Styr, Austria is supplying Iran with .50 BMG type rifles. Several cases of recently imported AUG rifles have been confiscated near Baghdad. Austria is moving very close to sharing my opinion of France.

[stash247]

Polish, you said most all of it! If I face armor, I need fire support, either Tac Air, or Artillery; otherwise, at least short term, I must be self supporting.
In an urban environment, the M-4 is a very useful weapon; if I buzz you, you cease to be a threatIraq-good, Afghanistan, not so good-no "urban", to speak of) but the same result would occur with a single center mass shot fron a Garrand or M-14!
Takes me back to training. We spend a shitload of dollars training our troops on exotic weapons systems that may, or, may not, work, reliably, but only a small fraction of these troops can shoot, accurately, with the weapons they are issued.
I hunt solely with single shot rifles, for a couple of reasons, non political in nature.
First, with only one riound aboard, every shot has to be my "best"
Second, ammo costs money, and I'm kinda cheap, so, see #1
Last, they are 100% reliable.
We send our kids into battle with lots of technology, and no means to support it, in many cases, or 'good tools- no real training', to put it simply.
There exists no rational reason why we could not support, and train with, two or more 'weapons systems', i.e., the M-14, and the M-16, and apply them as need dictates, or, at the whim of the end user!
The result could indeed be an adequately equipped soldier, in gear, and in training, for any theater of operation!

[Pistolenschutze]

Interesting points, Stash, and I tend strongly to agree with you. High-tech weapons systems are fine, but the basis of an effective infantry is still the rifle and the rifleman using it. Too many so-called "trained" infantrymen today can't hit worth beans with the M-16 or any other rifle. I went out to the range a few weeks ago with one of my students, a man who had been through BIT only a few years ago (just before the 1st Gulf War). I was shocked when he asked me why I had the sling of the rifle I was shooting wrapped around my arm! The guy actually didn't know what a rifle sling was for! Once I explained its function and showed him how to use it, his groups, needless to say, tightened up considerably.

[wolfgang2000]

Stash,
You are applying logic to the military. Bad mistake!

All large bureaucracies are run by 2 basic rules.

1 It's never been done that way before.

2 It's always been done that way before.


Of course could apply rule 3, It easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. If you are worrying about your career you have to live by rules 1 and 2.

It's sad.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by Xracer

And another rant....The Pentagon seems to have forgotten, that even with the "Gee Whiz High Tech" gagetry, you've still gotta "take the high ground and hold it!" And that takes "feet on the gound".....and that means enough feet on the ground to take, and hold, and occupy, and pacify the territory.

Alas, I fear you are right, X. High-tech stuff is fine up to a point, but bombs and missles can only destroy infrastructure and positions, not hold ground. I especially agree with your use of the word "occupy" in your comment. That, in my view, is among the main reasons for the debacle in Viet Nam. We spent ten years wandering around in the Green, but never made any serious effort to actually TAKE and HOLD territory, to deny it and its resources to Charlie. I sometimes wonder if we are not making the same mistake in Iraq.

[inplanotx]

Originally Posted by Pistolenschutze

Alas, I fear you are right, X. High-tech stuff is fine up to a point, but bombs and missles can only destroy infrastructure and positions, not hold ground. I especially agree with your use of the word "occupy" in your comment. That, in my view, is among the main reasons for the debacle in Viet Nam. We spent ten years wandering around in the Green, but never made any serious effort to actually TAKE and HOLD territory, to deny it and its resources to Charlie. I sometimes wonder if we are not making the same mistake in Iraq.

PS, we took many grounds in RVN. However, we gave it back once we took it. Therein lies the problem. Just take a look at Khe Sanh with the Corps and LZ Xray with the Army. Each time we took it, we gave it back. How many Marines were lost at Khe Sanh. We gave it to the Army and they gave it back to the NVA. Not blaming them, but we lost a lot of good men there, only to give it back to the NVA.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by inplanotx

PS, we took many grounds in RVN. However, we gave it back once we took it. Therein lies the problem. Just take a look at Khe Sanh with the Corps and LZ Xray with the Army. Each time we took it, we gave it back. How many Marines were lost at Khe Sanh. We gave it to the Army and they gave it back to the NVA. Not blaming them, but we lost a lot of good men there, only to give it back to the NVA.

Essentially my point, Inplano. It is certainly true that we took enemy positions and enemy strongholds at times. I was involved in my share of those operations. The problem is, we never seemed to hold on to them, not because the Army or Marines COULDN'T, but because the brass or the politicians decided we SHOULDN'T.

[polishshooter]

I dunno guys, I was (slightly) too young to have fought in 'Nam...although my brother seriously considered going to Canada if he got drafted...(He wasn't, thank God, so he didn't have to be "disowned" by my WWII vet Father!)


BUT that doesn't mean I can't STUDY it with an open Historian's mind!

We were actually WINNING the damm war. Tet DESTROYED the VC. "Linebacker" and "Linebacker II" were CRIPPLING North Vietnam...9WHY do you think they came to the TABLE!!!?!?!?) and there was LITTLE chance we were going to face the Chicoms or Russians "officially" like what happened in Korea...the "Phoenix" program was working FINE, we had pretty much destroyed the NVA AF, etc, etc, etc....and our "potsmoking. poor" draftees were doing a FINE job...



The MAIN parallel I see between Vietnam and Iraq is that we lost Vietnam because of the lying and/or biased bastards in the "Press,"....


....and a bunch of wacko dopesmoking long haired radicals funded by the KGB, along with a lot of OTHER "activist" causes (Most ALSO funded by the KGB!) , along with the "reformed" "Progressive" Democrat party. causing such a ruckus at home as to turn the stomach of "mainstream" America against a "long war...."




And don't forget we WON...




THEY agreed to "not invade South VIetnam, and to release the POWs."








We just didn't have the GUTS or BRAINS to PUNISH them like we should have when they reneged on the treaty in '75!!!!!














The only difference NOW is it's George Soros and Moveon.org instead of the KGB and the SDS.....the Democrat PARTY is the same one as in '75, just a little older...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

We just didn't have the GUTS or BRAINS to PUNISH them like we should have when they reneged on the treaty in '75!!!!!

Punish them how, Polish? Nuke Hanoi and start WWIII? Re-commit a half-million men to a ground war in Asia? Please understand, Polish, it is not my intention to sound confrontational here. I only wish to make the point that by 1975 there really wasn't a damn thing we could have done other than make a glass covered, self-lighting parking lot out of Viet Nam, and not even Richard Nixon would have done that, much less Gerald Ford. Nor would the American people have stood for a re-committment of ground forces. We lost that war for two basic reasons, as I see it:

1. Failure to commit and use overwhelming force, quickly enough, in the early years of the war, roughly 1964-66, to utterly destroy the ability of NVN to carry on the war in the South. "Gradual escalation," in large degree, lost us the war.

2. A political policy of "containment" in the South, rather than invasion of the North. Wars are never won by defense, only by offense--taking ground away from the enemy and holding it. Destroy the enemy's ability to make war, and the war will end.

Yes, I certainly do agree with you that what was perpetrated stateside by the liberal media and others was nothing short of treason. As far as I am concerned, Jane Fonda should still be rotting away in a dank cell at Marion Illinois instead of making exercise videos, and the New York Times . . . well, you get the drift. That, in itself, did not loose us the war, the idiocy of the "political decisions" made in Washington did.

[polishshooter]

Easy! Resume bombing, and remine Haiphong! THAT is what brought them to the table willing to TALK in the FIRST place!


Even if only a "token" response, International law IS based on the fact you make a treaty, you face the consequences if you BREAK it. (What no "diplomat" wants to face, is it's only MILITARY consequences that matter in the end, real or implied...)

WHAT consequences did Hanoi EVER face for breaking it?

GRANTED, the US had no stomach for any other involvement, and were torn apart by Watergate,but we should have done SOMETHING. That hurt US prestige for the next couple of years more than Vietnam as a whole! That, and Jimmy Carter, it's a wonder we SURVIVED the 70s.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

Easy! Resume bombing, and remine Haiphong! THAT is what brought them to the table willing to TALK in the FIRST place!

I'm not saying you're wrong in asserting that is what we SHOULD have done, Polish, only that there was no way that could happen. By 1975 I think the American public and the Congress would have lynched any president who tried to resume bombing over the North, or took any other direct action against NVN. And another point: Since resumption of bombing would not have changed the ultimate outcome, would it have been worth the sacrifice of additional airmen and machines simply to prove a political point?

[17thfabn]

I believe we lost in Vietnam because it was not important enough to us (US). The regime in the south that we were supporting was seen as no better than the commies in the north. Were we willing to be their another ten years, spend another huge sum of money, and more importantly lose thousands of more service men killed and wounded to keep a corrupt regime in power?

[polishshooter]

That's part of the problem, 17th, but the REAL problem was Johnson, with the FULL agreement and support of the "conventional" military hierachy at the time, going "conventional" in what SHOULD have been just one more "low grade" unconventional war.

Just like in Greeece, in '46, where we "WON." Just like in Malaysia, at about the SAME time, where the Brits "won." And like Algeria in the 50s, where even the FRENCH "won..." and COUNTLESS other "insurgencies from the late 40s to the 90s where the GOOD side won...on just about EVERY continent of the world!

And as MUCH as I don't think he should have won the election, and a LOT of his ideas and actions are questionable, I believe if JFK had NOT been assasinated Vietnam would have REMAINED a "Green Beenie" and "advisor" war, and we would have "won" too!


TOO many WWII vets were in positions of power both in politics and the military that saw ANY war as conventional, and NOTHING could stand up to US!!! Much LESS some slant eyed PEASANTS! When WE have the BOMB, much LESS B-52s!!!


Granted, the corruption of South Vietnam and the ARVN did NOT help at ALL....


"Hearts and Minds" operations, with small VOLUNTEER units, COULD have won in Vietnam, but "Search and Destroy" couldn't, even though it came CLOSE.


And I still hold that against Gerald Ford....LEADERSHIP says screw the polls and public opinion! SOMETIMES the "Masses can be Asses," and our national interests in the FUTURE must be protected, not just the PRESENT...

The North invaded and conquered the South CONVENTIONALLY. Those columns of T-34s and T-55s in DAYLIGHT on the coastal highways were BEGGING for strikes by A-4s and F-4s from the very carriers the Hueys were landing on (and getting pushed over the side into the South China Sea! )

It would have bought us TIME to retreat HONORABLY, as WELL as punish the NVA for breaking the treaty!


All it took was some STONES. And it just MIGHT have got him elected, INSTEAD of the now Traitor, then merely incompetent, Jimmy Carter...

[17thfabn]

Does any one know the composition of Army and Marine infantry squads in Vietnam?

World War II, infantry:
Army 12 men, One squad leader , One assistant squad leader, one B.A.R. gunner with browning automatic rifle, one grenadier with 1903 springfield bolt action rifle. All men in the squad had M-1 rifles (ten M-1 rifles) except the B.A.R. gunner and grenadier. (Squad leader was a sergeant, latter in the war a staff sergeant. Assistant squad leader was a corporal, latter in the war sergeant) (Some units were said to have added a second B.A.R. or substituted a M1919A6)

Marines 14 men, One squad leader, three fire teams four men each, each fire team has one man with B.A.R. other three have M-1 rifles. (not sure what extra mans duties were)

(The Marine squad is slightly larger but has much more fire power with three automatic weapons vs. only one for the Army squad.)

Modern U.S. Army Infantry:
Nine man squad: Squad leader w/M-16, two fire teams with four men. Each fire team has one team leader w/m-16, one basic rifleman w/m-16, one grenadier w/M-203, one S.A.W. gunner with M-249 squad automatic weapon.

Unsure on Marine rifle squad composition.

[polishshooter]

Good job, 17th! The only difference is that is the TOE for the "standard" mid to late WWII squad, but equipment varied not only during the year of the war, but also between straight leg, para, Ranger, Engineer, etc...and in the USMC, between Raiders, Paramarines, "Assault" Marine platoons, recon, etc.

For example, earlier in the war the non-coms MIGHT be carrying 1928A1 Thompsons, and later M1 Thompsons, M3 SMGs, or more probably M1 Carbines...and the Grenadier MIGHT be carrying the M7 Grenade launcher on an M1, or the M8 on a carbine...(They all preferred the Springfield OR the Carbine for the rifle grenade work, because you could fire regular ammo through the grenade launcher, not like the Garand's M7...although the MOST common launcher issued was the M7...)

And once a unit got "bloodied," there is NO telling how the men would have "equipped themselves" from battlefield "pick-ups" and trading and outright theft! There COULD be many more BARs, for example. (and EVERY US soldier in combat probably had at least ONE pistol, regulations be DAMMED. Either a 1911A1, 1917 Colt/SW, a "commercial" one sent from home, or a "captured" one...)

And finally, there were a LOT more Springfields in service in various Army units throughout the war than most people realize...Canfield had photos of army units in Italy in late '44 and half the Infantry have 03A3s,,,just like a lot of people don't realize just how important the rifle grenade was to a WWII US squad...most PREFERRED it to a Bazooka, (probably simply because it was easier to hump!) but some accounts claim it was more effective on tanks and pillboxes than the bazooka.

Plus the Marine squad WOULD have one or two M1897 or M12 "Trench Guns..." plus an attached "Dog Handler" and flamethrower team, after the Marshalls...

Plus each squad was usually "understrength" to TOE, but actually made "overstrength" through addition of a MMG or Bazooka team from the platoon weapons or HQ squad...

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by polishshooter

And finally, there were a LOT more Springfields in service in various Army units throughout the war than most people realize...Canfield had photos of army units in Italy in late '44 and half the Infantry have 03A3s,,,

Very true, Polish. My Dad, who was an artilleryman, carried only the Springfield and a .45 Colt pistol. He was never issued the M1.

[17thfabn]

Anaconda & the Battle of Robert's Ridge:

This show is on tonight at 2 a.m. I know that is late, but set your vcr.

This shows a small unit of U.S. Army Rangers batteling a large force in Afghanistan with little out side support.