Effectiveness of modern infanty squad

[Randy Myers]

It seems to be taken for granted that a modern infantry squad or platoon is far more combat effective than one operating in previous eras, such as World War II. However, how much of this is actually true when considering one squad or platoon in isolation (that is, lacking air support, AFVs, and other such factors)? A M-16, for example, has a far higher rate of fire than a M1 carbine, but how does this actually translate into combat effectiveness? Likewise, a modern SAW is probably more accurate than a BAR or MG-42, but is this difference really that substantial?

[Onikage]

Uh... youd think that the m-16 might just be a teensy weensy bit more effective compared to a carbine or garand when it has a high powered round and a higher rate of fire than both of them combined...

[Airborne]

Don't forget the M203 grenade launcher (M-16 + 40mm grenade tube)---very nice if somewhat awkward to carry and heavier.......

------------------

Land Soft--Kill Quiet

[Minnesota Joe]

Actually, the M16A2 has the same effective range of a Garand. However, the M16 obviously has a higher rate of fire and is a couple of pounds lighter.

As for other modern weapons, how about LAW rockets? Modern day Panzerfausts if ya ask me.

------------------

Ah scheist.

[Mannheim Tanker]

Don't forget communications as a combat multiplier. Get thar the fastest with the mostest.

[howardb]

I don't believe the SAW is more effective compared to the MG-42. In fact countries all over the world (including Norway) has decided to use a modified version (MG3) instead of buying a more modern MG. The SAW looks like it's easier to handle though. What's the rof on the SAW btw?

[chasd]

Well World War 2 did happen over half a century ago.

[Noba]

Quote.

--------------------------------------------

It seems to be taken for granted that a modern infantry squad or platoon is far more combat effective than one operating in previous eras, such as World War II.

--------------------------------------------

Given the above quote, how do you measure the 'combat effectiveness' difference between the two eras ? Raw firepower aside,

some authors (Keegan,who quotes others whom I forget) suggest that only 3 or 4 men in a squad would be effectively firing their weapons at any one time in earlier wars. Is there anyone had the experience in a combat situation who could spread some light on this idea ?

[Private Pike]

"Uh... youd think that the m-16 might just be a teensy weensy bit more effective compared to a carbine or garand when it has a high powered round and a higher rate of fire than both of them combined..." Actually the garand has higher powered round than the 5.56mm fired by the M16. Ask the British Mountain warfare Cadre who had serious problems with their M16 in the Falklands when fighting some Argintinian Marines who had SLRs (fire a 7.62 of a similar size and power to the round fired by the Garand). the British scored multiple hits but the Marines carried on fighting. One 7.62 hit and your down and out.(This was the subject of an interesting BBC programme years ago)

On the other hand if the modern squad was a British Para patrol in Africa then a WW2 squad would win hans down as all the Paras SA80s would probably jam leaving only the GPMG firing.

[Jarmo]

M-16 is definitely less powerful than Garand. The round was downgraded

so that continuous firing would be possible.

Garand would be more accurate at long range.

German SMG platoon would be deadlier at < 50m.

It'd be 100-500 meters where modern assault rifles prove their worth.

Add rifle mounted grenade launchers, bulletproof vests and night

vision equipment. Modern infantry would squish WWII infantry.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Darstand]

In Mogadishu, Somalia. After the fighting that left 18 men dead. Many of the fighters complained that the tungsten tiped 5.56 round was rather ineffective. The enemy needed to be hit several times before droping.

Side Note

Some say the 5.56 is to light and some say the 7.6 is to heavy. So who knows mabey in the future a 6.5 round will be really popular

[Bastables]

AP/tungsten 5.56mm ammo is bloody ineffective when you're shooting at people without body armour. Sure the buggers will bleed to death if left alone for about an hour without 1st aid. The danger is that they're still running around shooting for at least 15mins unless you keep on pumping rounds into them to cause the internal damage that a standred 5.56mm ball round will give you. Sounds as if the poor old Rangers were given incorrect ammo relative to there mission of shooting chaps in T-shirts.

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables:

Sounds as if the poor old Rangers were given incorrect ammo relative to there mission of shooting chaps in T-shirts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In these "clean television war" times you dont want to inflict

ugly wounds. That would make killing look like a nasty business.

------------------

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Joe Blow]

What if both era's had the same tech. In other words, do you think the fighting men of the 40's were made of better stuff then those of the 00's?

I would say that US forces, marching soldiers are probably about the same caliber of fighting man as pre-WWII soldiers. As I recall, it took a few battles before the US soldier toughened up. There is a lot of dependence today on technology today making for a little softer soldier....in my opinion based on little.

Anyway, what do you think?

[Big Sarge]

As a soldier in this modern fighting force I give this opinion.

The fighting man of WWII was a determined, tough-as-nails, gritty opponent on the battlefield, especially after surviving the first few months of combat.

The fighting man of today is also very dtermined, but not quite as tough(societal influence) or gritty. However, if you leave out the considerations of fire support and AFVs as the original question indicates you will still find a very well equipped, superbly trained lethal combat operative. The new tactics alone, in this soldier's opinion, give the modern soldier an edge however small. Add to this the incredible advantage of modern technology and I feel that the modern foot soldier would prevail.

You all havemade good arguements about weapons. Let's consider other equipment such as hand grenades, micro-communication, night vision, global positioning and body armor.

Taking absolutely nothing from the soldier who soundly defeated the Nazi menace is such a hard fought war, I still fel the modern soldier would have the undeniable advantage.

[IntelWeenie]

Others have already mentioned them, but I'll second their motions. Night vision, better body armor and grenade launchers make the biggest difference. I think training would also be a big factor here. The average soldier today has had more and probably more realistic training than a '40s counterpart with similar time in service.

As for the rilfes themselves, the only comparison (for any modern assault rifle) would be to the StuG44/MP44. Both weapons are at least as good as a SMG at close ranges, but still pack a good punch further out.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Splinty]

As a combat experienced former modern infantryman (80-92,Desert Storm)I believe the modern grunts would win hands down.Not because they're tougher or more determined but because modern training is 1000% better

WW2 era soldiers did'nt have the MILES system to bring in factors like accuracy under fire and functional mass fire tactics,

let alone the effectiveness of modern commo,

arty support,better grenades, and don't underestimate the M203 I carried one in the Gulf and believe me it does a very good job.

(not all of us had a video game war)The ability to put explosives on target at long range (for a foot soldier)is very valuable,and lets not forget the 40mm flechette round . by the way howard the max eff. range of a SAW is 850 M. A M16A2 can also use the new SAW rounds and get the same max. range.Sorry ,got caught up in my own rant the Max rof of the M249 SAW is 750 to 1000 rpm

------------------

Nicht Schiessen!!

[This message has been edited by Splinty (edited 08-16-2000).]