U.S. blocks Turkey's F-35 equipment over S-400 deal with Russia

[beerftw]

But there is a Machine Gun Squad in an Infantry Company. In the Marine Corps there are 2 of them, each having 2 M240 machine guns for a total of 4 guns. Each gun has a 4 man team. One carries the gun, another the tripod, and the next the T&E, spare barrel and most of the ammunition. 2 teams per squad, 2 squads make up the Machine Gun section of the Weapons Platoon.

And I can't imagine the Army does it much differently. In almost everything I have discovered, the Army and Marines run their light infantry units pretty much the same way, other than rank differences between the two.

And this really has not changed much that I am aware of in decades. The only difference from when I was a grunt and now is that they have moved from the M60 to the M240. But other than that the gun section has remained the same.

Your modern Infantry company has a staggering 22 machine guns, between M240 and M249. That is a hell of a lot of firepower, dwarfing what even the Germans had.

However, I would barely call the M249 "crew served". I know I had never seen them operated in that way. In all my years, I have never seen one mounted on a tripod, and even as a SAW gunner I carried the spare barrel myself. At most, 1 or 2 drums of ammo would be distributed to each of the other team members, but that is about it.

And those gun teams can be assigned out by the Company Commander to accompany patrols if it is needed. This is most seen if the entire Company is on the move, and there is no rear base camp for them to protect. At that point 1 gun is normally assigned to each Rifle Platoon, with the 4th normally working with the rest of the Weapons Platoon and Headquarters Platoon.

The army considered the m249 crew serve, even though most of the time it was not.

There have been many setups for squads, however in the army the standard layout was 2 machine guns per squad or one per team, they could be varied but often were not. This however is ground infantry as in a convoy it was common to carry one gun every 2-4 trucks depending on who planned what, often it ended up being every other truck alternating between the m2, m240b and m249 offering good coverage to the convoy.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I hear heavy weapons company (d) no longer exists, but when I was in 16 gun trucks (four per platoon) there with 50s or 19s.

Oh, it does. That is the group that has the heavy stuff, like TOW, M2, and 81mm mortar.At least, in the Marine Corps it does. Since that is all Light Foot Infantry, there is really no such thing as "gun trucks" there. For the Army, I really do not know.

 

[ecofarm]

Oh, it does. That is the group that has the heavy stuff, like TOW, M2, and 81mm mortar.At least, in the Marine Corps it does. Since that is all Light Foot Infantry, there is really no such thing as "gun trucks" there. For the Army, I really do not know.

I'm speaking army. I dunno if airborne is different as far as infantry companies. My mos, 11H, no longer exists and I hear the 11H company, delta, is now just a fourth company of bravos. I guess they mixed 50s and dragons into everyone. Or maybe airborne still has a humvee company.

We (D company) didn't have mortars. 11C assigned to a bravo (A, B or C) company, as opposed to a hotel (D) company, had mortars.

Anyway, my point is that back then (at least), in addition to infantry platoons having saws, delta company had 50s and mk19s, 16 trucks devoted to them (gun trucks, meaning with turret), plus 6 command trucks (crew of only 2) and command platoon. It hadn't occurred to me that only light or airborne infantry might have a heavy weapons company, but maybe they all did.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Sams were in use since the 50's, even the invincible sr-71 managed to get hit by a 1950's era sam, though it did not take the aircraft out it cause a shutdown of ops for the aircraft until the military could evaluate the situation and change doctrine accordingly. They are not new, the military has been dealing with them on a regular basis since vietnam, they may be more sophisticated than they were then but so are our aircraft, and even then 1950's russian sams were not something to take lightly, they are still capable of taking down even modern jets quite well.

So the sams has changed things idea actually happened in the early 1960's, since then with the problems in vietnam to our highest flying aircraft the u-2 being shot down twice by antique systems it is very evident sams are old news and not something new to this gen. Hell even manpads are not new, the us stinger and the russian igla entered service around th early 80's. many decades behind us, time to realize what you are calling a new threat is an old one we have long dealt with.

Jesus christ dude, you are really struggling with this concept aren't you?

Tell me, after the F-117 was introduced, how long did it take to be found in every single fighter squadron the USAF fielded? Oh, it never was?

Well what about the M-1 Abrams? When we made that, it was fielded by every unit, right? Oh wait, we still used the M60 for years after the Abrams was built. Huh.

What you continuously fail to grasp is that simply because a technology exists, doesn't mean it's immediately deployed everywhere and to every unit!

Why wasn't the S-200 given to Soviet Motor Rifle Regiments? Because it was a big, bulky, strategic weapon meant to be used to defend strategic targets like factories, airfields, and cities; not to be towed alongside Soviet battalions as they conducted cross country maneuvers.

Which means an A-10 wouldn't have to worry about the S-200, because as you have so repeatedly claimed, the A-10 doesn't commit deep strikes, it's made for close engagements against the enemy. So why on earth do you keep thinking that just beacuse it existed it was a threat to A-10s, when they were designed for completely different environments?

The reason A-10s became vulnerable to SAMs isn't because SAMs were invented, it's because they became more proliferated. Look at the number of Soviet SAM systems being built and you'll notice, very obviously, that in the late 60s and 70s there was a major increase in production towards MOBILE SAMs stuff that could actually be brought closer and closer in the battlefield.

And guess what happens in the late 70s? Soviet Motor Rifle Regiments start getting Air Defense MISSILE Batteries, AKA SAMs! It took YEARS for the Soviets to get from Strategic SAMs to get to the point where they could equip their from line units with missiles, and yet you keep peddling this stupid argument that since they existed since the 50s it's not a problem.

I mean for ****s sake dude, look at the topic of this conversation, the F-35! How long did it take for us to get from the first stealth fighter, the F-117, and mass production of the F-35? These things don't happen instantaneously, so your argument that since SAMs have existed since the 50s the A-10 is fine is retarded because you're ignoring how they were employed!

 

[Jredbaron96]

Machine gun squads though would be a blunder in itself, there is a reason we did not do it then or now.

You really just don't understand any of this do you.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'm speaking army. I dunno if airborne is different as far as infantry companies. My mos, 11H, no longer exists and I hear the 11H company, delta, is now just a fourth company of bravos. I guess they mixed 50s and dragons into everyone. Or maybe airborne still has a humvee company.

We (D company) didn't have mortars. 11C assigned to a bravo (A, B or C) company, as opposed to a hotel (D) company, had mortars.

Anyway, my point is that back then (at least), in addition to infantry platoons having saws, delta company had 50s and mk19s, 16 trucks devoted to them (gun trucks, meaning with turret), plus 6 command trucks (crew of only 2) and command platoon. It hadn't occurred to me that only light or airborne infantry might have a heavy weapons company, but maybe they all did.

Well, remember that I did say I was talking about Marine Corps configurations.

In the Corps, 60mm mortars, M240 machine guns, and the SMAW are all part of the Weapons Platoon in an Infantry Company. The M2, Mk19, 81mm mortars, and TOW-DRAGON are all part of Weapons Company. And because the Corps is all "Light Foot" infantry, there really are no "Gun Trucks". Now if they are in a situation where vehicle convoys are part of the mission they will be issued vehicles to use, but it is not really part of their normal operations.

 

[PirateMk1]

All Air Defense systems are defensive in nature, and that goes all the way back to when it was first created, as an off-shoot of the Coastal Defense Artillery Corps.

And that is simply because you really can't bring the guns to the target, you have to wait for the target to come to the guns. Or missiles, or whatever the system uses to knock down their foe.

And yes, we have tried putting our ADA right behind the forward units, but it still relies upon the airplane coming to the weapon, the weapon does not go off into a forward position to go hunting the targets. Even the cases where Air Defense weapons were used in other ways "The Bridge at Remaggan, the use of the Vulcan in base support in Vietnam) it still relied upon the enemy coming to the gun, not the gun going out looking for the enemy.

So yes, they have always been used defensively. The only possible exception is MANPAD.

Oh I could see lots of ways to use manpads offensively. Manpads deployed with Spec Ops or Par troops running around in an enemies backyard causing random havoc. That would be sure to make ones enemies severely annoyed. Observe an airport, and watch a plane get loaded with something special and shoot it down as it takes off. Perfect target, hot and slow. Call in a cruise missile or 2 loaded with cluster munitions for extra flavor and a bit of cover. Exfil to a new airstrip wash rinse repeat.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Oh I could see lots of ways to use manpads offensively. Manpads deployed with Spec Ops or Par troops running around in an enemies backyard causing random havoc. That would be sure to make ones enemies severely annoyed. Observe an airport, and watch a plane get loaded with something special and shoot it down as it takes off. Perfect target, hot and slow. Call in a cruise missile or 2 loaded with cluster munitions for extra flavor and a bit of cover. Exfil to a new airstrip wash rinse repeat.

But this goes right back to what I had already said before. MANPAD is not really "Air Defense", no more than a mortar is "artillery".

It is an Infantry weapon. In fact, there are far more STINGER trained soldiers in Infantry and SHORAD units than in ADA units, by a long shot. AVENGERS in ADA are a very rare thing, only 1 Battalion out of 6 at Fort Bliss was so designated an AMD Battalion as opposed to an ADA Battalion.

And BTW, at this time all SHORAD units in the Army are National Guard. This has been done and they have been removed from the Brigades simply because they were not needed in the last 20 years or so of fighting enemies with no air capability of note. But at this time the Army is in the process of rebuilding SHORAD in the Active Duty forces, and doing so as part of larger combat operation units. The first 2 will be the 173rd Airborne Brigade, and the 2nd Cavalry Regiment.

Just because something fires a projectile from a metal tube and it goes "boom" on the other end, that does not make it artillery. And just because something can repeatedly fire explosive rounds at a target, that does not mean it is an "auto-cannon". And in the exact same way, just because something fires a missile and can shoot down a place, that does not mean it is "Air Defense Artillery". Exactly like Mortars and the Mk19 Grenade Launcher, STINGER is an Infantry weapon. Most times in fact it is not used defensively at all, but in an offensive manner sent well forward of movement elements to take out any air units it finds.

But it is purely a line of sight weapon, with absolutely no form of "advanced warning" other than the MK1 eyeball and ears.

 

[ecofarm]

Well, remember that I did say I was talking about Marine Corps configurations.

In the Corps, 60mm mortars, M240 machine guns, and the SMAW are all part of the Weapons Platoon in an Infantry Company. The M2, Mk19, 81mm mortars, and TOW-DRAGON are all part of Weapons Company. And because the Corps is all "Light Foot" infantry, there really are no "Gun Trucks". Now if they are in a situation where vehicle convoys are part of the mission they will be issued vehicles to use, but it is not really part of their normal operations.

We drop the trucks before we jump and cut them lose when we hit. A gun truck is a humvee with a turret; that's what we called them. The turret provides fully supported 360 degree fire and makes the truck a Tow mount.

So, maybe it's only the 82nd Airborne, and maybe only back then, but when we discuss the machine guns in an infantry battalion, let's not forget Delta Company.

 

[Jredbaron96]

But this goes right back to what I had already said before. MANPAD is not really "Air Defense", no more than a mortar is "artillery".

What does a MANPAD do?

 

[ecofarm]

What does a MANPAD do?

Helps control heavy flow days.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Helps control heavy flow days.

 

[Oozlefinch]

We drop the trucks before we jump and cut them lose when we hit. A gun truck is a humvee with a turret; that's what we called them. The turret provides fully supported 360 degree fire and makes the truck a Tow mount.

So, maybe it's only the 82nd Airborne, and maybe only back then, but when we discuss the machine guns in an infantry battalion, let's not forget Delta Company.

Once again, Army Terminology in regards to an Infantry organization, that I do not understand.

In the Marines, there is not "Delta Company" in an Infantry Battalion. You have Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, then Weapons in 1st Battalion. Echo, Fox, Golf, and Weapons in 2nd Battalion. India, Juliet, Kilo, and Weapons in 3rd Battalion.

And vehicles, in the Corps the battalion really does not have enough to support the entire Battalion. They either call for more from Regiment if more are needed, or simply assign them to the units that need them the most.

 

[ecofarm]

Once again, Army Terminology in regards to an Infantry organization, that I do not understand.

In the Marines, there is not "Delta Company" in an Infantry Battalion. You have Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, then Weapons in 1st Battalion. Echo, Fox, Golf, and Weapons in 2nd Battalion. India, Juliet, Kilo, and Weapons in 3rd Battalion.

Same, just different names. 1st, 2nd and 3rd bat all had a,b,c and d companies. The d companies (weapons) have humvees. But our mortars were with a, b and c companies, not d (weapons).

And vehicles, in the Corps the battalion really does not have enough to support the entire Battalion. They either call for more from Regiment if more are needed, or simply assign them to the units that need them the most.

Sometimes Sheridans with us, that's about all that's droppable.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Helps control heavy flow days.

It is pointless, he still does not get it.

What is artillery? Well, generally speaking it is a long metal tube that is used to fire explosive projectiles in an indirect means of fire at an enemy.

But that does not mean mortars are artillery, they are not. The weapons do seem similar, but there are huge difference in how they operate and how they are deployed, so mortars are not artillery, they are Infantry weapons.

An auto-cannon rapidly fires explosive projectiles in either a direct or indirect manner at a target. The Mk-19 rapidly fires explosive projectiles in either a direct or indirect manner at a target. However, it is not an auto-cannon.

The F-117 Nighthawk since the day it was announced to the public has been called a "Stealth Fighter". However, it is not. Half public relations and half disinformation it actually should have been called either the A-117 or B-117 because it lacked any kind of air to air capability whatsoever (which is what the F designation means). But the F-117 fighter seems to sound more cool than the A-117 attack aircraft, or the B-117 bomber.

Some are so obsessed with "MANPAD shoots down planes", that they completely miss the fact that it is more than the mission, it is how it is integrated and into what units it is used, as well as tactics and operating procedures.

That is why the C-130 is a cargo aircraft. But the AC-130 is not a cargo aircraft, it is an attack aircraft.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Same, just different names. 1st, 2nd and 3rd bat all had a,b,c and d companies. The d companies (weapons) have humvees. But our mortars were with a, b and c companies, not d (weapons).

In the Corps, all of that is half and half.

60mm, SMAW, and M240 is Company level in Weapons Platoon. These are all Company level assets.

81mm, TOW-DRAGON and Mk19-M2 is in Weapons Company. Among other things like the MULE LASER designator units. Those are all Battalion level assets.

I am not even sure if an Airborne unit would have 81mm mortars.

 

[ecofarm]

In the Corps, all of that is half and half.

60mm, SMAW, and M240 is Company level in Weapons Platoon. These are all Company level assets.

81mm, TOW-DRAGON and Mk19-M2 is in Weapons Company. Among other things like the MULE LASER designator units. Those are all Battalion level assets.

I am not even sure if an Airborne unit would have 81mm mortars.

I don't think we had 81mm. A, b and c company had 60mm (and dragons). D (weapons) had 50s, 19s, Tows. Every squad had a saw, and/or m60 until those were removed. 240 is after my time. I think I heard jokes about jumping with an 81mm.

I wonder how different our battalion layout was than a light or regular infantry.

We didn't call our 11 Charlies (infantry, mortar) and their 60mm artillery.

I hear there's no more 11C and 11H (infantry, heavy weapons). It's all been integrated to 11B.

I might recall division arty. Is there droppable arty? Heh. Not sure I remember seeing them.

But where we started was, regarding machine guns in infantry, don't forget weapons company.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I don't think we had 81mm. A, b and c company had 60mm (and dragons). D (weapons) had 50s, 19s, Tows. Every squad had a saw, and/or m60 until those were removed. 240 is after my time. I think I heard jokes about jumping with an 81mm.

I wonder how different our battalion layout was than a light or regular infantry.

We didn't call our 11 Charlies (infantry, mortar) and their 60mm artillery.

I might recall division arty.

Yea, in the Corps Artillery and Tanks were Division level assets.

The definition of modern Infantry pretty much assigns all non-mechanized Infantry as Light Infantry. But in many ways, a Marine unit is heavily over-gunned in comparison to a similar Army unit. Portable laser designators capable of guiding in M712 COPPERHEAD missiles or air strikes has been part of the Battalion level toolbox for over 30 years.

And while trained for insertion by amphibious transport, helicopter, or simply walking in, a Marine Battalion expects to be almost entirely self-sufficient for weeks at a time, short of the needs for food, water, and ammunition.

 

[ecofarm]

Yea, in the Corps Artillery and Tanks were Division level assets.

The definition of modern Infantry pretty much assigns all non-mechanized Infantry as Light Infantry. But in many ways, a Marine unit is heavily over-gunned in comparison to a similar Army unit. Portable laser designators capable of guiding in M712 COPPERHEAD missiles or air strikes has been part of the Battalion level toolbox for over 30 years.

And while trained for insertion by amphibious transport, helicopter, or simply walking in, a Marine Battalion expects to be almost entirely self-sufficient for weeks at a time, short of the needs for food, water, and ammunition.

10th Mountain is probably like you guys, while a mech infantry would be a different beast.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It is pointless, he still does not get it.

No dude, you're the one who doesn't get it.

You see everything through the perspective of the American military point of view. This isn't surprising, given you are an American service member, but your complete inability to see anything from outside the American military perspective is why debating with you is more often than not a complete waste of time.

Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of what military weaponry is knows that a MANPAD is used to shoot down aircraft. It offers small tactical elements defense against aerial threats. Anyone can understand this, but because you've been trained to say it's technically an infantry weapon, you parrot it and refuse to do anything that deviates from such pointless semantics.

For the record, the definition of artillery is heavy ranged weapons built to launch munitions far beyond the range and power of infantry's small arms. Artillery doesn't mean "long metal tube"; artillery had existed since antiquity in the form of catapults and ballista.

And all you do is parrot information that you've learned, and refuse to change it.

How many times have you claimed that Iraq was a massive and powerful military force in the Gulf War, only for me to point out how incompetent they were, which you respond to with "No you're wrong" before you run like a startled goat when I start providing sources proving you wrong? Or how how many times have you claimed that you understand "Soviet Doctrine" yet you completely fail to identify the actual key tactical and operational elements of said doctrine?

You're not an idiot Oozlefinch, far from it, you actually know a lot; but you refuse to contemplate that the information you know might be inaccurate, and you refuse to debate it. If you think otherwise, feel free to revisit our discussions on Iraq and the Soviets.

 

[beerftw]

You really just don't understand any of this do you.

I understand it quite well, would you like me to explain.

The us military uses weapons companies in the army, they have machine gun platoons rather than just squads, but they also focus heavily on other heavy fire and are used for support of light infantry. The german squad model later in the war tried to push automatic weapons for all, the mg42 as the main gun, with others with the stg44 and mp40, but others being support for the machine gunner. Their earlier squads were ten man, had one mg42, riflemen and a leader, their purpose was to carry ammo parts etc for the mg42 as well as provide cover fire.

This means the german setup relied entirely on the mg-42 which could burn up to 1800 rounds a minute meaning the rest of the squad had to support the gunner with either carrying a crapton of ammo or extra barrels or providing cover fire for the machine gun. This made the squad completely immobile by comparison to nations setups. They wreaked havoc mostly due to the scare factor of their fast firing machine gun, which worked early on when most of america and europes military had never seen a war as they were too young for ww1. Later on as tactics changed and the worlds militaries gained experience the german machine gun squad proved to be inferior, nothing more than them clinging on to ww1 trench tactics rather than moving on with the rest of the world towards more mobile fast and versatile infantry.

 

[beerftw]

Jesus christ dude, you are really struggling with this concept aren't you?

Tell me, after the F-117 was introduced, how long did it take to be found in every single fighter squadron the USAF fielded? Oh, it never was?

Well what about the M-1 Abrams? When we made that, it was fielded by every unit, right? Oh wait, we still used the M60 for years after the Abrams was built. Huh.

What you continuously fail to grasp is that simply because a technology exists, doesn't mean it's immediately deployed everywhere and to every unit!

Why wasn't the S-200 given to Soviet Motor Rifle Regiments? Because it was a big, bulky, strategic weapon meant to be used to defend strategic targets like factories, airfields, and cities; not to be towed alongside Soviet battalions as they conducted cross country maneuvers.

Which means an A-10 wouldn't have to worry about the S-200, because as you have so repeatedly claimed, the A-10 doesn't commit deep strikes, it's made for close engagements against the enemy. So why on earth do you keep thinking that just beacuse it existed it was a threat to A-10s, when they were designed for completely different environments?

The reason A-10s became vulnerable to SAMs isn't because SAMs were invented, it's because they became more proliferated. Look at the number of Soviet SAM systems being built and you'll notice, very obviously, that in the late 60s and 70s there was a major increase in production towards MOBILE SAMs stuff that could actually be brought closer and closer in the battlefield.

And guess what happens in the late 70s? Soviet Motor Rifle Regiments start getting Air Defense MISSILE Batteries, AKA SAMs! It took YEARS for the Soviets to get from Strategic SAMs to get to the point where they could equip their from line units with missiles, and yet you keep peddling this stupid argument that since they existed since the 50s it's not a problem.

I mean for ****s sake dude, look at the topic of this conversation, the F-35! How long did it take for us to get from the first stealth fighter, the F-117, and mass production of the F-35? These things don't happen instantaneously, so your argument that since SAMs have existed since the 50s the A-10 is fine is retarded because you're ignoring how they were employed!

It sure the hell got deployed to vietnam in a hurry which considering vietnam got the soviet scraps already destroys your logic. The s-75 was already widely used by the north vietnamese since early in the war, long before we designed the a-10. They were prevalent enough the navy and airforce regularly trained pilots on evading sams, and the f-111 ardvark was designed to fly fast hugging the ground due to the realization that the soviet sams could not shoot low flying targets then so by the late 60's they already had an aircraft functioning to counter russian sams they faced on a constant basis in vietnam.

 

[Jredbaron96]

It sure the hell got deployed to vietnam in a hurry which considering vietnam got the soviet scraps already destroys your logic..

My god man you really are just not capable of reading are you.

How many S-75s were deployed as tactical air defense systems? Oh, what? They were used to defend strategic targets like airfields and cities, so they have no impact on the discussion since we're talking about CAS?

Jesus dude. This is sad.

 

[Jredbaron96]

IThis means the german setup relied entirely on the mg-42 which could burn up to 1800 rounds a minute meaning the rest of the squad had to support the gunner with either carrying a crapton of ammo or extra barrels or providing cover fire for the machine gun. This made the squad completely immobile by comparison to nations setups. They wreaked havoc mostly due to the scare factor of their fast firing machine gun, which worked early on when most of america and europes military had never seen a war as they were too young for ww1. Later on as tactics changed and the worlds militaries gained experience the german machine gun squad proved to be inferior, nothing more than them clinging on to ww1 trench tactics rather than moving on with the rest of the world towards more mobile fast and versatile infantry.

lol, okay

In Reality, the machine gun is the one providing covering fire, which was central to German tactics. It was in fact very successful, which is why on numerous occasions during the Allied push across France and Germany you had literal handfuls of German soldiers holding up much larger American formations.

Secondly, most armies of the time understood the importance of the LMG; it's why the British pumped out as many Brens as they could. Your claim that "everyone was just scared of how fast is fired" is nonsense. Both the Russians and the British recognized the importance of having a machine gun to lay down covering fire and did their best to implement it themselves. Meanwhile the Americans tried to shoehorn the BAR into the LMG role, along with trying to press the "walking fire" tactic; which proved to be largely ineffective.

The ability to lay down suppressing fire has time and time again proven to be an essential capability in infantry warfare; it's why every country in the world that is capable of doing so has pursued machine guns in that mold.

 

[braindrain]

Visual confirmation is very required, even with visual confirmation we have lost to friendly fire, but situations like with the b1 where we bomb our own troops or with the british where a tiny error in coordinates misheard through the headset led to friendly fire that visual confirmation could easily avoid.

Heck the green berets thought the airforces cas was a joke, as did the navy seals, which is why they pushed for a dedicated cas in afghanistan since the airforce bent over backwards to keep the a-10 number there as tiny as possible. They ended up with the a-29 which congress blocked, but it shows the ground troops widely disagree with the airforce, who is looking to eliminate any and all dedicated cas role aircraft so their budget could be used elsewhere.

Visual confirmation is absolutely not needed.
We can and have had the AF drop a bomb based of the grid we give them from our EUDs(really nothing more then a Samsung smart phone) Our JTACs can see what the pilots are seeing when they are using their rover to receive the down link from fighters and drones. Is visual confirmation a nice to have thing. Of course but it's no where near a requirement.