Imperial Grunt

Every patrol that leaves the wire in Iraq can call for artillery. I imagine it is the same in Afghanistan. But CAS is more responsive and used much more frequently. The problem with artillery after OIF1 is the collateral damage, the deconfliction of fires required, and that it is not as accurate as some kind of PGM. Mortars fired from the FOB are much more responsive, but are even less accurate. Walking artillery or mortar rounds through the fields and villages to your target to get good effect just does not work when fighting insurgents. Not every US base has artillery, just key ones. And it usually just a few guns, each one pointed in a differect sector. If your target was outside a sector, then you would have to wait for the gun to shift. And fire for effect is one round at a time, unless the other guns shifted as well. But for major operations, like Fallujah, artillery could be massed somewhat, but nothing like it was for OIF1. I would LOVE to see a battalion 5 fired in CM:SF. One note about counter-battery radar. It only covers one sector at a time, which is fine when you expect the enemy coming from one general direction. But when the enemy fires at you from random places, you have to get a little lucky. Of course you cover the mostly likey and past firing spots. The insurgents keep repeating themselves. At our FOB, we put up several fake counter-battery radars after it became apparent that they knew what direction our radar was looking. Sneaky bastards.

Its not so much the systems that provides for good artillery, it is the targeting method and control. No MiddleEastern country, except Israel, come close to US capabilities in that regard. And the US has really good counter-battery radars. D-30 shoots, round goes up into air, counter-battery firing solution is calculated before the round impacts. So, within minutes, the least the D-30 tube gets is a 155 battery 3 in return, but more than likely, a 1000lb LGB dropped from the CAS stack in orbit on high. During OIF1, when RCT-1 was south of Al-Kut, a BM-21 fired in our general direction in anger. If I remember right, it happened about 0400 local in the morning. About a dozen 122mm rockets impacted on a road intersection about 5 klicks behind us. Actually, the RCT COC was about a klick away from that intersection as well. But no one was there to get nailed. If a company or other unit was there, they would have been hit pretty good. 1st Bn, 11th Marines, the RCT's artillery battalion, was johny-on-the-spot with their counterbattery fire. Even at that distance, the attack was very loud and the rapid succession of impacts really made us wonder what the hell had happened. The company went to 100% alert, but there were not any charging Iraqi infantry to follow up the attack. Too bad...

The RPG series of weapons were made in mind to employ different types of munitions and most are reloadable. The US rockets tend to be more disposable and geared for anti-armor. The Marines use the SMAW, which is reloadable and does have HE, HEAT, and themobarbic rounds. But the AT-4 is HEAT only. Same with Javelin and the TOW series. The Marines also brought back the 66mm LAW with an HE warhead for urban warfare. I have not seen one yet and I forgot the nomenclature. I am hoping that some Syrian formations will allow for some decent guerilla tactics like that used in Chechnya. A motivated squad broken into two teams, one with 4-5 RPGs and AKs, and the other with 3-4 SVDs and an RPK or PK would be alot more effective compared to the typical old Soviet doctrinal squad against US forces. Especially if the Syrian player could place several caches on the battlefield so a squad could fire several volleys of RPGs, zap a driver or VC or two, flee and hide, re-arm, and go hunting agian.

Something like this would be great for the game. Especially to encourage team play. I think it would be a good feature in the game for non-team play players to get a very limited view of the overall battlefield. I guess I like grand manuevers too much. No way to do that "left hook" when the enemy sees it coming. I suppose a commander can string out jammers ahead of the manuever force, but coordinating that in the current command structure appears difficult. I have not had a chance to play in the command role yet, got to upgrade. One thing that I would change overall is the whole sensor ID thing. While the sensor jammers do mitigate this to a degree, having the exact location of nearly every opponent on the battlefield seems to make it more of shooting game than a tactical game. It seems to me that a platoon of conventional vehicles, with a mix ATGMs and guns would be very deadly on the battlefield, since the only way to find them would be for the enemy to spot them with Mark I eyeballs through direct line of sight and then have to positively ID them as enemy, while they get to see 90% of the enemy anywhere on the map and spotted units have that little icon above them in the HUD. (I sure wish we had that little identifier for enemy forces in Iraq). For the span of a typical engagement, the tactical advantage of not being detected automatically as compared to the magic engines that run forever but emit the all revealing signal would be decisive. Especially since the resupply ship can just drop on them and re-fuel them and there are no LOCs to secure. On that note, how come every vehicle does not have some kind of jammer? That could be a critical component, that if taken out, would put the vehicle at a serious disadvantage. Or why are there not any "stealth" vehicles with jammers. You could make them have to turn off the jammers to fire accurately, maybe the jammer interferes with the targeting computer or somthing like that. Lastly, there should be a way to camoflague vehicles. With a jammer in place, you can set up a fire-sac, but it would help alot if vehicles could be dug-in and camoflaged. Same for turrets. A few turrets placed in a treeline overwatching an avenue of approach, camoflagued, with jammers, would be a great defensive asset. And things like that will give the future infantry something to do...

No gouge intended at all Lt. Col!!!!! Your description of improved checkpoints and symbology is very clear. It's easy to see what a difference these added features will make in the commander's ability to do his job effectively. We've put them on our feature list so keep an eye out for them! </font>

Claytonius, thanks for the gouge... What I mean about checkpoints and other military symbology on the tactical map is that the commander should have a way of showing the tactical situation to his team in a simple manner. -Checkpoints are like waypoints, but waypoints are really for a single units manuever. Checkpoints would function in a similiar manner but they would never go away and they would be ID'd in some way so that they can be used as a reference point. As such, the commander could order his team to rally at checkpoint charlie, or for a particluar player to push towards checkpoint 1A while ordering another player to establish an overwatch position 200 meters south of checkpoint 4. Things like that. Spotted red dots should not be red dots but a symbol of the actual type of unit on the map. A diamond for tanks, a box for APC's, whatever. Suspected or last known positions could have a question mark. But something to give a player som e situational awareness. Dropping in right in front of a tank that other team mates knew about is pretty stupid. DZ locations would allow a commander to get players to drop within a certain sector of the map so that they come in at the right place. No-go terrain would be good for illustrating where not to go. These command and control tools would allow a commander to coordinate team actions in a more user friendly manner that is also more realistic. Players who joint a game in progress should only be allowed to drop into the commander's predesignated DZ, that way the commander can see what kind of unit dropped and where he wants it to go.

I think this would be great. And to take it further, the player could give orders to subordinate units by clicking on them in the tactical map screen. The tactical map screen should be like the "battle board" I talked about above, using real military graphics and not simple red and blue dots. The player would only physically see units and activity if his command group was within LOS of his own forces or the event. Usually the command group would be moving with the platoon that is the player's main effort or some other location to where he can best control the battle. If the player looses radio comms with a subordinate unit, then that particular unit's location is not automatically updated on the battlemap. Units could then get "lost". The Styrkers digital suite drastically reduces this, but those systems do go down, and once a squad dismounts, only the vehicles location is digitally transmitted. Pop-ups, smoke, etc...could be put into the game for their real-world applications. Lost a squad? Order them to pop smoke or fire a red-star cluster. Of course there might be consquences for doing that with the enemy lurking about. This kind of play would present players with many real-world difficulties that no other wargame has attempted to simulate. Clauswitz said that “In war everything is simple. But in war even simple things are hard" Jumping around from a first-person view of each squad and team to give commands would not be as realistic, if realistm is the goal. That is like a commander walking willy-nilly across the battlefield and getting behind each squad leader and teamleader to see what they see and then issue orders. Really not much different from the game in God's view mode, just more restricted. I think there should be a time-limit option as well for the orders phase, or an over-all time limit for orders per game. So if a player takes too much time micro-managing every team he has, then he will run out of time to give orders on subsequent turns. Something to keep up some pressure rather than looking for the perfect tactical option every 60 seconds or so of game time. This option will really put the player in the position of a young platoon commander when the **** hits the fan and the question is asked...What now lieutenant? All you got is your map, your mission, and your view of the tracers and muzzle flashes coming from that treeline or buildings 150 meters in front of you. Make a call, or die.

I am a complete noob to DT but I wanted to throw out some comments, okay, a barrage of them.... First and foremost the ATGMs are surprisingly so 1985. They have not evolved much despite the huge leap in technology. The current ATGMS in use today are more sophisticated and more lethal against the tanks they are meant to be used against. To me, it would seem that in the world of DT, the ATGMS would have at least a similiar ratio of capability against the targets they are meant to destroy. Here is a video of an old Javelin missle test against a combat loaded T-72 at 4000 meters. Javelin missile 2001 test The smoke trails of the DT ATGMs look cool, but no ATGM does that and it completely gives away the vector from which the missle was fired from. I do not understand why the missiles are not fire and forget, like the javelin. The Javelin's warhead locks onto the thermal signature of the target (whatever target the gunner selects-a vehicle, helo, building, cow, etc...) and follows it to impact. The missile will still track the target even if the vehicle moves or is already on the move. The targets only chance of not getting hit is if it accelerates suddenly and the warhead seeker looses it (not likely), if masking terrain or vegetation blocks the seeker's acquisition, the seeker malfunctions, or if the orginal lock was poor. Today's Javelin, TOW, and Hellfire ATGMs reach out beyond most tanks effective range on flat terrain. Is this the case in DT? How come there are not any ATGM missile turrets? Should'nt there be some kind of fortification to protect turrets like a bunker? The ATGMs should also have a direct attack capability as well as a top attack flight profile so that the gunner may choose the best attack profile. Obviously, top attack is optimal since the warhead will detonate onto the weaker upper deck armor of the vehicle, but sometimes a direct flight attack is best for the situation, especially for short range engagements or for a target that has overhead cover. In the future, I would expect ATGM platforms to have a multiple target tracker, much like combat aircraft today. The gunner should be able to lock onto multiple targets and launch either several missiles rapidly in succession, or even more practically, 3-5 simultaneously, and for that matter, if there is anti-matter radar that shows most targets, what is preventing the ATGMS being fired in top-attack mode at these signatures? Assuming that all friendly vehicles have some kind of IFF or Blue Force Tracker in them, ATGM vehicles should be hurling missles without direct line of sight, or at least in tandem with another vehicle that does have line of sight to a target. The ATGM vehicles should have at least a 20mm or 30mm gun or at least a BB gun for self defense. Kinda like a Bradely IFV. Maybe they are there, but can the DT vehicles pop smoke or some other screening measure? I would modify the graphical interface a little or allow the player to modify it. Memorizing all the hotkeys is great, but having some optional function keys around the edge of the screen, like many modern tactical computers today, would be ideal. That way a player can just click and go, or if he wants, he can still use the hotkey. A computer voice that sounds off bearing, range, and time of flight to a selected target make it a sexy female voice!) would be outstanding. On the command map, the commander should not only be able to put in waypoints but also checkpoints that all friendly players can see. Each checkpoint should have a name or number for use as a reference point on the map. Additionally, some kind of grid system should be overlayed on the tac map. Last known enemy positions, destroyed vehicles, good DZ locations, no-go terrain, etc... should be able to be put on the map by the team commander or be automatically displayed and updated as they occur. Just some initial thoughts. I know this sounds very critical coming from a guy who has never designed a game in his life. Overall the game is very good and fun to play.

Well, the main problem I see with proximity fuzes against helos, especially in flight, is the pure mechanics. 1) acquiring helo and estimating speed and lead in addition to the range, even to get within 10 meters of the aircraft. Max effective range is 300-400 meters, and helos are moving really fast that close 2) grenades do not have tracers and would be difficult to adjust onto target when firing into the air 3) the GLs would be a decent "golden BB" weapon, like the RPGs, but not an effective AA weapon. Unless you have a horde of aircraft orbiting at low level like during the TF Ranger's battle in Somolia. Thermobaric rounds would have less effect than standard HE rounds. Thermobaric rounds depend on an enclosed space, like a building or cave to create its effect on the target.

Here is an article about how the US Army has changed its training for its brigades. It has turned 180 degrees. Article from US News and World Report. Army Training

Well the 40mm HEDP grenade the US uses supposedly can penetrate up to 2 inches of steel. I recall stories of MK-19s making mincemeat of some Iraqi BMPs but I was not there to see it first hand. If ANY grenade hit a helo, all I can imagine is that it would be very very bad. But hitting it while in flight would be difficult, hovering or landing, not so hard. I find the 80mm claim to be a little of a stretch, but you never know until you can get one and experiment. Maybe they got super 35mm grenades. As far as the cage of a Stryker goes, I would think it would have an added effect of causing the grenades to detonate prematurely and possible causing them to ricochet, depending on the strike angle. It cant hurt to have it.

Claytonious, that sounds great but to be honest, I do not have any idea what you are talking about. How do I check the catalyst drivers? Could not find no such animal in the device manager. I emailed you the DROPTEAM.LOG message that I found in the error report. If that is not what you need, please let me know if you have the time. Thank you for the help.

I am sure this is why the Marine Corps is experimenting with the weapon, to see how it should be issued. I just went with the current doctrine as an upgrade. The M-32 would not replace a rifle, the gunner would probably carry an M-16A4 or M-4 as well, just as mortarmen, SMAW team members, and machinegun team members all carry rifles as well. With the M-203, both weapons are never engaging at the same time, in fact, the 203 sometimes is not used because the Marine carrying it forgot about it in the heat of the moment and was employing his rifle. By carrying the M-32, the natural first responce would be to shoot grenades first, unless the target required a rifle instead. Too ways of looking at it. Maybe the Marine Corps will keep the 203 at three per squad and add in one or two M-32s per squad as an additional weapon. And in terrian like Afghansitan, the M-32 would be a good weapon for all the dead space in that kind of terrain. But mission requirements can be planned out, especially for patrols. If the mission does not really call for the firepower of a M-32, then it can always be left behind in the armory or with the company gunny. It makes for a great defensive weapon as well. Paired up with a SAW or M-240G machinegun, it could do alot of damage to enemy forces pinned down. Just like when you pair up a .50 with a MK-19.

That was 18.6 GB total, not 1.6...

Got same problem: "I've just installed the public test, and it refuses to run. My problem: screen goes black, looks like its trying to work, and drops me back to windows. The standard "send error report" message comes up." I am not much of a computer whiz though. My computer has the following: -Radeon Mobiltiy (Microsoft) display adapter? -Intel® Pentium® III mobile CPU 1200 Mhz -1.6 GB of memory, 5.43 unused (including DT game), 640 MB of RAM -Windows XP SP2 -color is set at 32 bit. My computer is a little old, (2003) but it plays games like Ghost Recon just fine. Any advice?

Having the M-32 replace the M-203 at the fireteam level will add a significant amount of firepower to a US Marine rifle squad. That gives the squad three M-32s, a rifle platoon would have nine. Massing them on one target would probably have very good effect in a firefight. Additionally, the M-32 can have laser designators mounted, so targets can be marked at night, etc... I would imagine that the Marine carrying an M-32 would be armed with an M-4 vice an M-16A4 once it becomes formally adopted. Add since it can fire so many grenades, everyone in the squad would be carrying a few to spread the load. Just one more thing to carry!

Here is another pic from the current "Air Assault" op going on. In my opinion, the 101st's strength as an "Air Assault" force is not at the tactical level. Flying helos into hot LZ's is like marching troops in a column of files against dug in machineguns. That was tried a few times I believe a few wars ago. But the capability to move an infantry battlion or an entire brigade by air to a new operational position hundreds of kilometers a way, over or around enemy positions, in a few hours is a great option for a commander. Helos can haul alot more stuff than you can drop by air. The trooper of the 101st functions as light infantry, backed up by the Apaches or they function to hold ground to protect the FARPs for the Apaches, allowing the Apaches to fight as a manuever force against enemy manuever formations. During the Gulf War this was very effective. If the US invaded another country, like Syria, I would think that elements of the 101st would be on the senior commanders force list. But applying Apaches as a manuever force against insurgents is very difficult, just as applying tanks as a manuever force. It does not mean they have no role, just not thier traditional role in the US Army. I believe this operation is more of a demonstration of capability for the Iraqi government and against the insurgents. The sweeps will find caches and a few suspects, but unless the insurgents decide to fight, or are trapped, there will probably not be any fights like there were during Operation New Market and Operation Matador, among others. But sweeps do have a place in counter-insurgency operations, but they must be done carefully and minimize negative impact on the local population as much as possible. Its not reported, but I am sure the PsyOps and CA teams with the 101st are very busy as well. They really are the main effort a good commander during this kind of war. The 101st is a very unique unit but it has some drawbacks. Deploying the unit takes alot of strategic lift and its logistical tail is like a mech unit. And bad weather grounds everything but the grunts. To tie this all back to CM:SF, I think a module with Army's elite forces, the Rangers, 82nd, 101st, and their light infantry forces such as the 10th Mountain would be a good addition to the game. After the USMC module is made, of course! Making a modern version Grenada or Falkland island scenario against a notional enemy would be a good way to simulate assault operations. Maybe we can invade Scotland! No....too cold and dreary. How about Tahiti! They need to be liberated from the French.

I like the "Iron Man" FOW rules idea as well. But the AI has to be able to make sure squads and teams dont to obviously stupid stuff, like stop on the wrong side of a wall or stopping in a street when you wanted them to stop in a building. In CM, I found it absolutely necessary to micro-manage alot of teams because they did not go where any sane human would go. And the AI has to be strong enough to do all the things I mentioned before. But if you were playing another player with the same restrictions, then I guess alot would equal out, just not very realistically. Another feature has to be that you can only observe the battlefield that you, as the CO with a command group, could observe within your LOS. But you would have your trusty military map (with all of the graphics that a map would have on it for a mission) and Stryker units would have thier digital things working for them as well. But these have to be seperate from the actual battlefield. A "battleboard" screen that continually updated and showed known and suspected enemy positions, friendly positions, control measures, fire support coordination measures, and force status would be really good. The player would use the battleboard more than actually looking around on the battlefield, but would do so to control the most vital part of his plan. A commander who runs around the battlefield to micro-manage his entire force will not only slow down the operational speed of his unit, but he will most very likely get killed, something that is not good for his unit. (Unless he was an asshole, in which case they might not grieve so much). If a command group get engaged itself, then it would have to get busy defending itself, and not control the battle. This would also work well with simulating the reality of maps not portraying the terrain accurately. The Syrian player could have certain terrain and intel advantages that the US player will not know about until he gets boots on the ground at that location. This would simulate "rat lines" and other hidden or unknown LOCs that the Syrians will be able to use from the beginning of a battle that the US player will not know about. A replay feature from a "God's view" would be priceless at the end and excellent for AARs. And some scenarios may turn out to be fairly funny since this is game simulating combat and not combat itself.

Well, I thought this thread was about firepower, in its kinetic forms. But then hurling brains at the enemy might be very effective as well, because that would totally freak me out if I was back in Iraq and the insurgents attacked us with brains splattering all over the place.

Not sure. I know that the Navy is phasing them out. But they look cool!

Actually these are just examples of US firepower. And CM:SF is not a game about counter-insurgengy. But even if it was, all of these systems have their place in counter-insurgency operations. Artillery is used most often in a counter-battery role. Insurgents fire some 122mm rockets at a base, 3 155mm rounds fire back in minutes at the exact point of origin, provided that the counter-battery radar picked up the rockets and the rockets were not fired from the middle of a village, etc.. Counterbattery is a judgement call, but if you were ever on a base that got mortared or rocketed, you would want to shoot back too, rather than just let insurgents walk mortar rounds back and forth across your chow hall, billeting areas, and motor pool. Jets have played a large role as well, especially when units find insurgent strongholds. Not just for precision guided munitions delivered on target, but for rapid response, presence, aerial recon, ELINT, etc... "Get Some!" is the unofficial motto of 3rd battalion, 5th Marines and a popular Marine Corps phrase.

I really like the idea of playing the CO of a company and being restricted to a first person perspective of the battlefield. That is as close to realistic combat command you can get without really doing it. Alot more mistakes would be made by players (exactly where is 3rd platoon's 1st squad?) And force on force scenarios where both players had to play in first person as the CO would be great. The confusion of not seeing things first hand and listening to reports and looking at a map to guess what the enemy is doing would be very realistic. However, I do not think it is doable. First of all, you would have to be able to get a mission, be able to assess the situation and develop your plan, establish control measures such as check points, axis of advance, phase lines, etc.., issue unit tasks, plan fire support, etc.. because, unlike CM, all that has to be planned out in advance as much as possible in order for the unit to fight as a unit and not as a mob with guns. And all of that stuff takes some knowledge of military doctrine. Second, there would have to be alot of SOPs that you as the player would have to know, and the AI would have to know to perform under certain conditions. And the subordinate units would have to continually report what they are doing, what they see, etc...Little things like tone of voice, gunfire in the background of the radio transmission, etc...mean alot. And you would have to be able to somehow talk to them to give frag orders and guidance. Very hard to do with a pull down menu. Finally, if such a sim could be made, it would be an ideal small unit tactical sim, but not all that fun for most game players. The CO usually does not get to see much fighting personally. The command group and the fire support team (FAC, FO, NGFSpot teams) usually move together to get on dominate terrain so they can observe and manage the battle and firesupport. But that is not always doable. After developing a plan and issuing orders, the command group might just follow in trace of the main effort, with little input until the situation changes to a degree that a new course of action needs to occur. A God's view movie would be great to watch afterwards though. People would realize why and how things can so wrong in combat so easily.

Here is new weapon that the USMC is fielding in all of its infantry battalions. Marines Carry Six-Pack Attack Marine Corps News | Mark Oliva | March 13, 2006 Camp Mercury, Iraq - Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to want one. Marines with Regimental Combat Team 5, based in Camp Fallujah, test-fired the latest in the Corps’ arsenal of weapons’ improvement, the M-32 Multiple shot Grenade Launcher. It’s a six-barreled, 40 mm beast of weapon that has just about enough attitude for Marines. “I thought it was pretty bad the first time I saw it,” said Cpl. Jason H. Flanery, a 23-year-old mortarman from St. Louis, Mo., assigned to RCT-5’s Personnel Security Detachment. The M-32 MGL looks like something straight out of an action movie or a weapon ginned up by designers of futuristic video combat games. It’s a bare-bones, shoulder-fired weapon with a bulging six-barreled cylinder. There’s no bones about it. This thing’s all business when the trade is knocking out bad-guys at a distance. “You can put six rounds on target in under three seconds,” Flanery said. “I thought this thing was sick.” Sick might be right for the insurgent on the other end of the sight. The M-32 MGL is step up from the M-203 grenade launcher Marines have used since post-Vietnam days. It fires similar 40 mm grenades and at similar distances. It just puts more rounds on the bad guys faster. “The ‘203 has been around since the ‘60s,” explained CWO4 Gene A. Bridgman, the regiment’s gunner, or weapons expert. “It keeps improving. This is a progression in the weapons system.” Flanery put the comparison of the two similar weapons in more simple terms. “It makes it obsolete,” he said. “It’s that much better.” The idea to bring M-32 was the brainchild of Marine gunners across the Corps, explained Bridgman, a 43-year-old from Garden City, Kan. During an annual symposium, they decided an improvement was needed over the M-203. One option was to bring back a rifle-grenade. The M-32, won out, however, and now each Marine battalion will field them as an experimental weapon. Bridgman added the M-32 isn’t a new idea altogether, though. Brazilian, Italian and South African military have carried them in the field for years. Marines, though, took it one step further. A fore-grip was added and a scope was mounted to the top, eliminating the old leaf sights like that of the M-203. The scope allows a Marine to follow the grenade to the target and immediately adjust and follow up with a lethal volley of indirect fire. “The ‘203 was on shot at time,” Bridgman said. “The ‘203 became a signal weapon. This is more of an offensive weapon. With this, you shoot, adjust and fire for effect.” The average Marine said it’s just about that easy to shoot. Lance Cpl. Alexandro R. Raymundo, a 20-year-old from Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., isn’t an infantryman. He’s a network administrator by trade. He shot the M-203 before during initial training, but this was his first time picking up the M-32 MGL. “I thought it might be like the ‘203,” Raymundo said. “But is shoots more rounds, faster. It’s really simple. I had ‘hands-on’ once. I picked it up really quickly.” As far as how it felt shooting it, Raymundo said the weapon was about as beefy as it looks. “I felt like there’s more recoil than the ‘203 and the trigger’s a lot heavier” he explained. “It’s heftier than the ‘203.” His likes about the weapon included the small scope added to the rail-mount system on top of the weapon. “The optic was nice,” he added. “It’s a lot easier to sight in.” Of course, there’s the part about lots of things going “boom” downrange too. “My favorite part was being able to fire out so many grenades and not have to reload between each shot.” Sgt. David G. Redford, a 35-year-old from Kennebunkport, Me., has more practical experience when it comes to what grunts like in the field. He’s an infantryman by trade and has logged in his own hours carrying the M-203. “I didn’t know what to think about it before we came out here, but it’s nice,” Redford said. “It’s easier to shoot. You don’t have to constantly load. If you run into something, you’re already loaded.” Redford predicted that most infantry Marines will welcome the addition of the six-pack attack weapon. That’s exactly the reaction Bridgman wants to see. Adding the M-32 MGL could realign the way Marines operate at the small-team level. Fire teams could become more lethal, more mobile and more independent. The idea of a dedicated grenadier might just be reborn. “Now you have your own indirect fire support right in the fire team,” Bridgman explained. “You have someone who can lay down (high explosive rounds) against someone in a trench. It would be used against enemy in fighting holes or behind cars, because of the indirect nature of the weapon. It’s the only weapon aside from mortars,” at the small team’s disposal. Still, Bridgman stressed the weapon is only experimental. Marines will be gathering data about its’ effectiveness and durability from experiences on the streets of Fallujah. For Flanery, though, the M-32 is already welcome. “I think it’s one of the most simple and effective weapons systems,” he said. “I just want buckshot rounds.”

Here is a cool pic of some soldiers from the 101st being inserted into a LZ in Iraq.

Well, that did not work...so lets try again.