• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

US deploys 'game-changer' weapon to Afghanistan

Redress said:
Cpwill, I don't think it is planned as a personal weapon, but a squad weapon. Your points are well taken and you know more about that end of it than I. I believe the intent is you have one in a squad and it is in use similar to small artillery that was used at one time(no idea if that is currently used), except better.
Click to expand...

^This^
*10 characters*
 
when they say a "squad weapon" they mean a 'squad-level weapon", which means that it will be carried by a single individual. my question is will it be that individuals' personal (his primary weapon) or his secondary (will he have to carry a rifle in addition to it). currently (This is Marine Corps Doctrine, Army squads run with two fireteams per squad) the squad is broken down TO like this:

Squad Leader: M4
1st Team Leader: M-16 with 203 attachment
Rifleman: M-16 (some units are giving him the 203 instead, a move which i support, as it frees the team leader up)
SAW Gunner: M249 (squad-level machine gun)
Assistant SAW Gunner: M-16 and hundreds of extra linked 5.56 rounds for the SAW gunner

and then there are two more teams exactly like that; so each squad supposedly already has 3 machine guns in it and three grenade launchers. at 14 pounds unloaded this thing is going to be another suppression weapon rather than a maneuver one; so take away a machine gun? the SAW is 3/4ths of a teams' firepower in a firefight; that's a big hit to lose. is the increase in grenade launching ability worth either slowing down the squad or reducing its' available firepower?

mind you, i think it's a great concept; i just have grown a little skeptical of the Next Great Weapon that is always Going To Be A Game Changer. this strikes me as a high-speed version of the 6-shooter.
 
Last edited:
cpwill said:
that's a medium problem; it makes the weapon about the same weight as the Squad Automatic Weapon; and it risks making this a vehicle-patrol weapon. is a rifleman going to be expected to give up his personal rifle for this, or carry both?



if this thing carries computer chips designed to blow it at exactly the right points and places by measuring out many times it has rotated through the air, i'm going to bet that it's a little above standard for a 25mm.

however, the standard grenade round has been 40mm. so i'm wondering how many magazines/bandoliers a rifleman can carry.



yeah, but but they still give us the M-16.



thaaat would be another problem. having a personal weapon dependent upon batteries is extremely problematic. NVG's you can do without if you must, ditto for the PEQ-15's, though not for the Radios (though you could survive without them). having your weapon suddenly go down and not having a baggie of batteries handy is inviting disaster.
Click to expand...
I was thinking it would be used more along the lines of, well, a SAW, as opposed to a personal weapon.

One or two people per squad detailed to carry one, depending on what the mission is.

If there is no expectation of encountering enemies behind cover, there would be no reason to have one.

But, as I mentioned before (although in terms of an FPS at the time), it's basically a more accurate and longer-ranged method of cooking a grenade so it explodes in mid-air...

Assuming it works as advertized.

Edit: Another thought - if a group of enemies presented themselves, nicely clustered, it wouldn't be too unreasonable to use an air-burst firing weapon of this type to hit them all at once (although far less accurate than multiple targeted rifle shots)
 
Last edited:
I understand your concerns cpwill. I would assume it would be used similarly to the M203 attachment. I see based on your post how questions about how it fits in are pretty pertinent, and I don't have the real answer on that.
 
Redress said:
The only problem with the rifle is that the ammo is somewhat expensive, but 1 or 2 of these per squad does change the game, significantly. The video I posted goes somewhat into depth on how it works and what it can do, and the various uses are incredible. Mark target at distance you want to hit, fire, round explodes into mini rounds at that distance...so many applications for taking cover out of the equation, which totally changes the infantry battlefield.
Click to expand...

this... big time. If we had this in Viet Nam, that would have ended differently (I am NOT commenting on the issue of should we have been there or not... simply stating that this weapon would have cuased a different outcome).
 
cpwill said:
when they say a "squad weapon" they mean a 'squad-level weapon", which means that it will be carried by a single individual. my question is will it be that individuals' personal (his primary weapon) or his secondary (will he have to carry a rifle in addition to it). currently (This is Marine Corps Doctrine, Army squads run with two fireteams per squad) the squad is broken down TO like this:

Squad Leader: M4
1st Team Leader: M-16 with 203 attachment
Rifleman: M-16 (some units are giving him the 203 instead, a move which i support, as it frees the team leader up)
SAW Gunner: M249 (squad-level machine gun)
Assistant SAW Gunner: M-16 and hundreds of extra linked 5.56 rounds for the SAW gunner

and then there are two more teams exactly like that; so each squad supposedly already has 3 machine guns in it and three grenade launchers. at 14 pounds unloaded this thing is going to be another suppression weapon rather than a maneuver one; so take away a machine gun? the SAW is 3/4ths of a teams' firepower in a firefight; that's a big hit to lose. is the increase in grenade launching ability worth either slowing down the squad or reducing its' available firepower?

mind you, i think it's a great concept; i just have grown a little skeptical of the Next Great Weapon that is always Going To Be A Game Changer. this strikes me as a high-speed version of the 6-shooter.
Click to expand...
Possibly replace one of the M-16/203’s with this weapon? It’s basically a longer-ranged and more accurate grenade launcher…With precision air-burst capability...

If they could cut it down in overall size, possibly a reduced capability version, in place of the 203... Perhaps the M-16/XJ-25 (or whatever) grenade launcher attachment? :D

It sounds like it could be useful, in the right situation - the problems are, as you say, it's weight/size basically displacing a more conventional weapon...
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
What?

Why?
Click to expand...
Because it's a clip from a sci-fi movie and it was a joke, that's why! *smack*

Dutch said:
Sorry, I'm somewhat unempressed. It's a nice, expensive toy. It is not a game changer, or a war winner. I'd have settled for an infantry rifle that wouldn't jam as much and is much more lethal than the one we have now. For that matter our boys could use some sensible rules of engagement policies that make sense. As it is this is just some expensive equipment that will enrich the defence industry at the expense of the american taxpayer.
Click to expand...

How do you make a bullet "more lethal?" Coat it with that deadly saliva from komodo dragons? I mean, once you've put a hole in a dude, what more is there? :D
You make explodey things, that's how!

Ikari said:
5. Can I have one?

They've already forbidden me from having that AA-12, which is complete horse ****. When the Cubs win the World Series next year, I'll have need of things to help me blow **** up!
Click to expand...

:shock:


How exactly are you going to use this? :D
 
Deuce said:
Because it's a clip from a sci-fi movie and it was a joke, that's why! *smack*



How do you make a bullet "more lethal?" Coat it with that deadly saliva from komodo dragons? I mean, once you've put a hole in a dude, what more is there? :D
You make explodey things, that's how!



:shock:


How exactly are you going to use this? :D
Click to expand...
Likes it up the...never mind.

:mrgreen:
 
I feel a little crappy, now - they make a new devise to kill people and all I can think of is my favorite movie and video game.
 
cpwill said:
really. could we take this money and switch to a 6.8 caliber and a piston-powered system instead?
i remember when the 6-shooters came out they were supposed to be So Awesome also.

then it turned out they were heavy as crap, the sights didn't work, they were too imbalanced to aim well, and the buttstock was constantly breaking.

so we put ours back in the armory and just kept our 203's.
Click to expand...

Only if we wanted to provide a better rifle for our infantry, that is currently outgunned and outranged by the taliban's soviet era equipment.

source

Americans outgunned by Taleban’s AK47sMichael Evans, Pentagon Correspondent
The future of the standard issue infantry rifle used by American troops in Afghanistan is under review amid concerns that it is the wrong weapon for the job.

With its light bullets the M4 rifle lacks sufficient velocity and killing power in long-range firefights, leaving US troops outgunned by the Taleban and their AK47 Kalashnikovs and the old Russian SVD sniper rifle.......
Click to expand...
 
Deuce said:
How do you make a bullet "more lethal?" Coat it with that deadly saliva from komodo dragons? I mean, once you've put a hole in a dude, what more is there? :D
You make explodey things, that's how!
Click to expand...

You make it bigger and faster. Not all infantry rounds were created equal. The 5.56 round has always been a loser. I'm guessing you aren't a gun guy.
 
Whovian said:
this... big time. If we had this in Viet Nam, that would have ended differently (I am NOT commenting on the issue of should we have been there or not... simply stating that this weapon would have cuased a different outcome).
Click to expand...

No it wouldn't. The vietnam war was was won on the battlefield and lost on the streets of american cities.

anti-war_vietnam_war_protest_rally.jpg
 
Article also under Warfare.
 
Dutch said:
Sorry, I'm somewhat unempressed. It's a nice, expensive toy. It is not a game changer, or a war winner. I'd have settled for an infantry rifle that wouldn't jam as much and is much more lethal than the one we have now --
Click to expand...

Agree entirely.
That and cpwill's assessment that you may be taking away one of a Squad's machine guns for something that could stop because of battery power worries me. The whole point of the assessment that our boys are outgunned is that AK47's and old Soviet sniper weapons use a heavier round which needs a bigger cartridge to fire it meaning that it goes further and carries a bigger impact when it hits.

I loved the old 7.62 FN FAL, never tried any newer 5.56 weapon and frankly wouldn't want to somewhere like Afghanistan. Personally I feel we'd be better off with all the squad carrying more powerful weapons than having one team member have something like this. Just hope the UK dept of defense is too cash strapped to want any - nice though the concept looks.
 
I know very little about actual warfare, but I'd guess given three engagement types it's only really useful in one.

Guerrilla Fighting - not a game changer
You get surprised/ambushed, once they do their thing, they retreat. Being able to pierce cover is relatively useless here.

Urban Fighting - probably not much of a game changer. aren't going to be using an airburst weapon indoors, and hard to justify in an urban outdoor setting as well.

Other engagements - may be a game changer in cases where the traditional tactics of:
Suppressive fire
Flank their cover at risk to your mobile squad, takes time, can be countered, etc.

Is replaced by:
Suppressive fire
XM25 does the flanking/killing with one squad-mate at long range, quickly, while remaining near support.

And Deuce, I agree, there is absolutely no reason they can't institute a replay feature on this thing.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Possibly replace one of the M-16/203’s with this weapon?
Click to expand...

now you have a soldier/Marine who can't defend himself; this thing is not a short-range direct fire weapon.

If they could cut it down in overall size, possibly a reduced capability version, in place of the 203... Perhaps the M-16/XJ-25 (or whatever) grenade launcher attachment? :D
Click to expand...

then again it would be an issue of weight but a multi-shot 203-esque weapon would be interesting. frankly i think the USMC needs to invest in underslung shotgun attachments; those would be much more useful for our riflemen.

It sounds like it could be useful, in the right situation - the problems are, as you say, it's weight/size basically displacing a more conventional weapon...
Click to expand...

yup; and then it becomes a question of what-does-this-give-us-that-overweighs-what-it-costs-us.
 
Infinite Chaos said:
Agree entirely.
That and cpwill's assessment that you may be taking away one of a Squad's machine guns for something that could stop because of battery power worries me. The whole point of the assessment that our boys are outgunned is that AK47's and old Soviet sniper weapons use a heavier round which needs a bigger cartridge to fire it meaning that it goes further and carries a bigger impact when it hits.

I loved the old 7.62 FN FAL, never tried any newer 5.56 weapon and frankly wouldn't want to somewhere like Afghanistan. Personally I feel we'd be better off with all the squad carrying more powerful weapons than having one team member have something like this. Just hope the UK dept of defense is too cash strapped to want any - nice though the concept looks.
Click to expand...

bingo. LONG before i want this weapon, i want to switch to a 6.8 caliber
 
cpwill said:
then again it would be an issue of weight but a multi-shot 203-esque weapon would be interesting. frankly i think the USMC needs to invest in underslung shotgun attachments; those would be much more useful for our riflemen.
Click to expand...

It was my understanding that one of the rounds firable with the 203 was a buckshot round. Is this not accurate?
 
Redress said:
It was my understanding that one of the rounds firable with the 203 was a buckshot round. Is this not accurate?
Click to expand...
I think I read that on the Wiki about the 203 - equivalent to a 1.2 gauge shotgun?

Eh.
 
cpwill said:
now you have a soldier/Marine who can't defend himself; this thing is not a short-range direct fire weapon.
Click to expand...
That depends...I haven't heard anything about its close-range capabilities, but I would assume it would demand at least the same stand-off range as an M-203 (something like 50 feet, I think? Or was it yards? Whatever). Then again, it sort of fires a (really large) rifle round, so if they could provide it with slug rounds, or contact-fused shells... :mrgreen:

cpwill said:
Then again it would be an issue of weight but a multi-shot 203-esque weapon would be interesting. frankly I think the USMC needs to invest in underslung shotgun attachments; those would be much more useful for our riflemen.
Click to expand...
For close range, sure...

cpwill said:
yup; and then it becomes a question of what-does-this-give-us-that-overweighs-what-it-costs-us.
Click to expand...
Yeah…

Like I said, depends on the situation.

On another tangent, this thing’s electronic systems might make it a good match to a Heli - UAV and/or ground-based combat robot thingy…
 
Mach said:
I know very little about actual warfare, but I'd guess given three engagement types it's only really useful in one.

Guerrilla Fighting - not a game changer
You get surprised/ambushed, once they do their thing, they retreat. Being able to pierce cover is relatively useless here.

Urban Fighting - probably not much of a game changer. aren't going to be using an airburst weapon indoors, and hard to justify in an urban outdoor setting as well.

Other engagements - may be a game changer in cases where the traditional tactics of:
Suppressive fire
Flank their cover at risk to your mobile squad, takes time, can be countered, etc.

Is replaced by:
Suppressive fire
XM25 does the flanking/killing with one squad-mate at long range, quickly, while remaining near support.

And Deuce, I agree, there is absolutely no reason they can't institute a replay feature on this thing.
Click to expand...

I think the term "airburst" has you confused. You can fire this parallel to the ground. In fact, in urban settings it is awesome for being able to fire into a window and then detonate.
 
Redress said:
It was my understanding that one of the rounds firable with the 203 was a buckshot round. Is this not accurate?
Click to expand...

we don't have it; and the shotguns are used more for breaching than they are for direct fire.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom