1944 question

[Andreas]

Originally posted by coe:

Interesting, hmmm an adequate number of tanks? I am curious then as to the general retreat of Army Group South in the late 1943-spring 1944: an infantry issue then? From what I've read is that Manstein did handle (as much as he was permitted to) the forces there decently well but still they were pushed back.

It is a different situation, but fundamentally I do believe the answer is yes, not enough infantry to hold the frontline, and the infantry that was there did not have the AT capability that was needed to stand fast against Soviet combined arms attacks and/or the tactical maneuver capability to engage in flexible defense.

There is a very good book on the subject of the retreat from the Dnepr to the Dnestr by a German regimental commander (in German only) that describes this quite well.

[Andreas]

If you look at this thread I started on AHF, you'll find the numbers for AFVs in AGNU.

Depending on how and which you count, you end up with somewhere around 800, almost 100 of them Tigers, on 1st July. It appears that all of these formations were still with the Army Group by the end of July, with the possible exception of one of the Tiger battalions.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Grapeshot:

I have a question to pose, would the advantages of the M16 over the M4 be offset by modern warfare? Because of modern communications would most target at ranges where the M16 exceeds the M4 in performance be hit by other assets? Infantry are now used to pinpoint targets for M1abrams/bradley/apache/f-16 and then close to finish the job. So wouldn't the M4s of the world (carbines) be more productive option for modern infantry?

Only if the infantry are operating as part of a full-scale, combined-arms team. Even then there will be situations where a full-sized rifle would help. Light infantry in rough terrain carrying only M4s might be in a touch of bother.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Grapeshot:

I have a question to pose, would the advantages of the M16 over the M4 be offset by modern warfare? Because of modern communications would most target at ranges where the M16 exceeds the M4 in performance be hit by other assets? Infantry are now used to pinpoint targets for M1abrams/bradley/apache/f-16 and then close to finish the job. So wouldn't the M4s of the world (carbines) be more productive option for modern infantry?

Only if the infantry are operating as part of a full-scale, combined-arms team. Even then there will be situations where a full-sized rifle would help. Light infantry in rough terrain carrying only M4s might be in a touch of bother. </font>

[Grisha]

The funny thing about operational attacks and deep penetrations into the opponents rear is that the forces you cut off and by-pass are also in your rear. I suppose those in the deep penetrations should face some of the same problems as those cut-off or bypassed but for some reason the cut-off or bypassed troops are at a disadvantage or more vulnerable (even supply wise?)

The reason for the difference has to do with force structure, I think. By mid-1943, a Soviet mobile group was a well-balanced, hard-hitting formation capable of sustained operations in a chaotic environment. It was maneuverable and quick to respond to changes in its environment (in the Vistula-Oder operation 3rd Guards Tank Army received orders while undergoing exploitation to make a left turn to hit stiffening German resistance in the rear. The entire army had its orders, made its preparations and plans, and was on the move along their new vector by 7 hours. Their forward detachments were already moving by 3-4 hours). Granted, it did have an operational tether, but it was fairly loose and long.

Also, a development of lessons learned from the war saw the employment of second echelon exploitation, right behind the first. This offered greater security for mobile groups, taking on or assisting in reducing surrounded enemy forces, as well as responding to impending threats from German operational-strategic reserves. And, ironically enough, it was the realization of pre-1937 Soviet military theory.

These two developments contributed greatly to allowing the Soviets to make good on ground gained in offensive operations.

[roqf77]

"why keep a rifle that will marginally outperform the carbine at distances generally considered beyond "battle range"?"

Well its not just about accuracy, carbines also cause less damge. a complaint i had seen reported was that it sometimes took 2-3 rounds instead of 1. also having mg's and such to engage at at 300 yards plus is not better than having this plus rifle support. if you were engaging a unit with similar support who had m-16's sa80's or the like, then you could find your infantry would have dead ground to close before they could return fire. Also if its purely size that is the matter some rifles are shorter than the m-4 and have better performence at range. i mean simply switching to carbines for the sake of it is stupid.

[Andreas]

Witness the dangers of asking two totally unrelated questions in one post.

[coe]

Andreas that is kind of funny but admittedly I'm benefitting from both questions...

I wonder if it is easier to advance than it is to retreat - lets say removing the hold fast orders from the Wolf's lair, technically the defender is supposed to be more familiar with the ground, and should have less supply and communication problems, whereas the attack is moving over less familiar terrain and must set up supply as he goes but then again the attacker probably has the benefit of concentration, and picking the point...perhaps the way for the Germans to have approached defense was to set up as if they were going to be going on the offensive (i.e. sechond echelon, or ready with the supply convoys etc.)

Granted that the Germans had less forces and had to generally retreat but supposed you had two equal forces both with mobility and one breaks through the front line of the other and bypasses the other - suddenly both sides have mobile pockets in eachother's rear (and theoretically if you could supply the units by passed they might be as large a threat as attacking side which has penetrated.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

"why keep a rifle that will marginally outperform the carbine at distances generally considered beyond "battle range"?"

Well its not just about accuracy, carbines also cause less damge.

It's the same rifle! Same ammo, same damage. The barrel is shorter, that's all. And a collapsible stock. If we are talking about the M16 or C7 as the rifle and the M4 or C8/C7A2 as the carbine. Exact same weapon. Just shorter - which the guys like for CQB. Apparently, it did make a difference - 2 PPCLI during combat operations in Afghanistan exchanged as many C7s as they could for C8 carbines.

[roqf77]

"It's the same rifle! Same ammo, same damage. The barrel is shorter,"

An SA80 or M16 or similar with a 20 inch or so barrel will make about 940 metres per second with NATO standard 5.56mm ammunition.

The M4 carbine manages 905 or so metres per second with the same ammunition.

As anyone knows the simple equation for energy is mass multiplied by the square of the velocity. Dropping the velocity is the best way of loosing energy.

From a 20" barrel nato 5.56mm makes approximately 1350 foot pounds of energy at the muzzle, whilst the carbine makes just over 1200, which is a significant reduction in energy, as much as a fairly hot .22 rimfire round.

Energy isnt the only story. Higher velocity and a longer barrel provides superior stabilisation to the bullet so the weapon performs much better at longer ranges. With a lightweight bullet such as 5.56mm it is important to provide adequate velocity and barrel lenght for it to perform at any significant range and provide good stopping power.

Therefore a weappon like the M4 is somewhat inferior to the full length M16 at anything other than close (sub 150 metres) fighting and considerably inferior to bullpup rifles like the Steyr AUG, FAMAS, SA80 or similar which are as short or shorter but still sport full length barrels.

[roqf77]

that was to qoute my brother. Also there is something known as the wound channel, the large wound caused by steel cord nato 5.56 ammunition is dependant on a high muzzle velocity. a full length 20 inch barrel can create this wound channel up to 200 metres. the reduction in velocity means from the m4 carbine only appears up to 70 yards. This significantly reduces the lethality of the gun. So the difference as you stated is exactly that. with the same ammo a shorter barrel does decrease performence. From what i was told from people i know there have been many complaints over the m4, i assume the c8 is much the same. Certainly everyone i have spoken too in the british army would rather have the full length rifle over the carbine. Other than being slightly smaller, there is no other benefit in terms of ballistic performence atleast the m4 and c8 are inferior at all ranges including close.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

that was to qoute my brother. Also there is something known as the wound channel, the large wound caused by steel cord nato 5.56 ammunition is dependant on a high muzzle velocity. a full length 20 inch barrel can create this wound channel up to 200 metres. the reduction in velocity means from the m4 carbine only appears up to 70 yards. This significantly reduces the lethality of the gun. So the difference as you stated is exactly that. with the same ammo a shorter barrel does decrease performence. From what i was told from people i know there have been many complaints over the m4, i assume the c8 is much the same. Certainly everyone i have spoken too in the british army would rather have the full length rifle over the carbine. Other than being slightly smaller, there is no other benefit in terms of ballistic performence atleast the m4 and c8 are inferior at all ranges including close.

Interesting info on ballistics, I stand corrected,(EDIT 26 July - see quote on page 5 regarding ballistic performance of shorter barrels - apparently I was correct after all) but the Canadians in Afghanistan were gagging for carbines and if it wasn't for the fact the C8 was too puny to hold an M203 (should've used a heavier barrel apparently), they would have used them exclusively (according to a PPCLI company commander who has posted extensively on his experiences there).

If every section of 8 soldiers has two Minimis blasting away at 1100 rpm, I am not sure hitting someone 2 or 3 times would be difficult.

[ July 26, 2005, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[roqf77]

fair enough. but all i mean is that an 8 man section firing 5.56 at 400-600 yards. is still alot of fire power. It may be beneficial to engage inferior second line troops with your troops carrying a lighter rifle. But against a modern first woirld military it definatly is not. minims are in the us and uk armys as well. as well as lsw's, sniper rifles, mortats and etc in the british army they serve to support the fire power of an infantry section not to replace it. over 100 yards a full m-16 or bull pup will have superior performence over a carbine thusly a section of say uk troops with a sa-80 v canadians with c8's is gonna leave the canadians with a serious disadvantage. The longer the range the bigger the disadvantage. especialy in an infantry unit in the uk gets susats. Especialy if the canadians are only using iron sights.

[Grisha]

Granted that the Germans had less forces and had to generally retreat but supposed you had two equal forces both with mobility and one breaks through the front line of the other and bypasses the other - suddenly both sides have mobile pockets in eachother's rear (and theoretically if you could supply the units by passed they might be as large a threat as attacking side which has penetrated.

It helps to understand how each side planned operations, since they differed to a significant extent. This idea would be more possible with a Soviet offensive, than the other way around. By late 1943, the Soviet method of responding to German counteroffensives--ala von Manstein's 'backhand blow'--was to keep the Germans busy while setting up a new offensive in a weakened sector of the German line. This was how the Kiev operation flowed into the Zhitomir-Berdichev operation. The tactical-operational maneuver conducted by the Germans in response to the Kiev operation is textbook material, but seeing how the Soviets absorbed/deflected panzer counterattacks whilst simultaneously building up for another operation just 60km away (and timed to commence on Xmas, no less. The Soviets were very much into the psychological game at this point) is textbook material on operational planning and timing.

In a sense, what you speculate on did occur in 1944-45. During the major Soviet offensives of this period there were a number of kampfgruppen that saw their way back to friendly lines. They did cause trouble from time to time, but the reality of the situation dictated that the Germans were better off trying to make it back alive than thinking of wandering a very active, and multi-layered, Soviet rear.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Sergei:

They should reintroduce armbearers. Or maybe some sort of baggage boy who would hand out the weapon most appropriate for the situation from his gun cart.

Well, Sydney Jary did write a piece for the British Army Review called "Bring Back my Carrier", suggesting a low-profile autonomous or remotely-controlled vehicle for carrying the infantry's heavy weapons, extra ammo, nutty bars and so on.

Sounds like a good idea to me, and certainly better than continuing to overload the trogs, a bad habit of armies since the days of "Marius' mule".

S. L. A. Marshall's "The Soldier's Load and the Mobility of the Nation" is easy enough to obtain, and is an excellent read on the subject of what weight the infantry should be asked to carry.

When I was in the UOTC we were expected to do section attacks with loads of 35-40 Kg, which is a bit silly.

All the best,

John.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by roqf77:

fair enough. but all i mean is that an 8 man section firing 5.56 at 400-600 yards. is still alot of fire power. It may be beneficial to engage inferior second line troops with your troops carrying a lighter rifle. But against a modern first woirld military it definatly is not. minims are in the us and uk armys as well. as well as lsw's, sniper rifles, mortats and etc in the british army they serve to support the fire power of an infantry section not to replace it. over 100 yards a full m-16 or bull pup will have superior performence over a carbine thusly a section of say uk troops with a sa-80 v canadians with c8's is gonna leave the canadians with a serious disadvantage. The longer the range the bigger the disadvantage. especialy in an infantry unit in the uk gets susats. Especialy if the canadians are only using iron sights.

Canadians have switched to 3.5 power fixed optical sights, but apparently many infantrymen prefer the iron sights.

Would engaging enemy troops at 600 metres really be optimal in any event? Sounds like a good way to blow off all your SAA while underemploying your support weapons (or simply giving away your position too soon).

I guess what I am saying is that I see your point, but how often will you really be engaging in firefights out to 600 metres against rifle armed soldiers these days?

[roqf77]

Canadians have switched to 3.5 power fixed optical sights, but apparently many infantrymen prefer the iron sights.

Would engaging enemy troops at 600 metres really be optimal in any event? Sounds like a good way to blow off all your SAA while underemploying your support weapons (or simply giving away your position too soon).

I guess what I am saying is that I see your point, but how often will you really be engaging in firefights out to 600 metres against rifle armed soldiers these days?

okay faie enough again but you missed all my amjor points. one over 100 yards an m-4 is an inferior weapon, it is less acuarate, and has significantly less stopping power. that is not my opinion itss true. secondly in this day and age needs qualification, you mean against substandardly equiped armies. secondly in the british army at least engaging at 300 metres is fine. An m-16 or any bull pup rifle is much better than an m4 or c8 at this range. so its not a case of engaging at 600 metres its a case of engaging over 100 yards.

And as far as iron sights goes, my brother laughed when i told him. Iron sights are inferior to a susat which is a times 4. I would take that with a pinch of salt unless the canadian 3.5 sight is rubbish. which in my brothers opinion it would have to be to be worse than the iron sight.

[Michael Dorosh]

You need to understand why the optical sights are disliked - they focus the vision into a narrow channel and rob you of peripheral vision. I think that is the bigger concern to the infantryman than simple magnification of the target - and if you are using your "substandard" carbine at less than 400 metre distances exclusively, who needs the magnification? All goes down to skill and training; well trained riflemen will be able to perform with iron sights at 0-400 metres - and have the comfort of keeping their peripheral vision ("situational awareness" the pilots call it). To my understanding, anyway.

As far as stopping power, there are many factions that regret the downgrading from 7.62mm to 5.56mm as NATO standard. All I know is that the Patricias in Afghanistan really preferred the 5.56mm carbine to the 5.56mm rifle. Of course, they had the world's best sniper(s) supporting them, too. 2500m away with McMillan Tac50s.

[roqf77]

well my brother mentioned all that. but my brothers point is that, even including all that using a sight is better. a carbine is worse than a full rifle over 100 yards. regardless of the downgrading from 7.62 to 5.56 the point still remains that the carbine stopping power is much reduced. as far as training goes your point is irrelevant. the british army has probably the best trained infantry in the world. The practice in the british army is to use the sights as much as possible.

Besides over 100 yards an sa-80 is far more accurate than a m4 or c8 anyway. The difference is significant,so troops with full rifles will have superior performence over 100 yards with a full rifle.

The benefit of switching to a carbine is non existent. especialy when there are many bull pup rifles that are shorter and have better performence than m4's or c8's either way.

And again on the killing power, the wound channel in the m4/c8 is created at up to 70 yards, the m-16/c7/sa-80 is created at up to 200 yards. There is a big difference. And the benefits of the carbine are? even if what you said is true then it would make more sense to adopt a new rifle rather than crippling the one you already have.

i believe you when you say the canadian army wanted more c8's in afganistan but what was the equipment level of the opposition? or the training level? wait until carbine troops go up against troops of similar training and equipment and see what happens. I guess its something the us and canada is gonna have to learn the hard way.

Certainly in urban fighting there is an advantage to be had over full rifles but again bull pups performe better than both anyway.

[roqf77]

no to just post loads when you are asleep, but if you look at this link.

http://www.army.mod.uk/infantry/current_equipment/the_infantry_small_arms_in_the_section.htm

then you will see despite having plenty of long ranged support, the british army still expects the average riflement to be effective up to 400m personaly. im sorry but what you mean by effective fire is not the same as i do obviously. because as a section sa-80's with susats can effectivly engage untis over 600 yards. so i dont take it personal i guess its a difference of opinion/doctrine. I mean im open to opinion but i dont understand what the benefit of carbines are other than being slightly shorter. compared to there disadvantages i dont see any point. Not just my personal opinion, but the opinion of all the british soldiers i have spoken to. plus most of the americans i have spoken to as well. if its simly the shorter barrel why not adopt a bull pup?

[Panzer76]

Small arms engagement ranges has decreesed the last 50 yrs, you are no longer expected to engange the enemy at 500 m, and the majority of inf combat is fought at between 50-150 m. At this range, it really does not matter if you have a carabine or not.

So while it would be nice to have longer reach, its usually not used.

Also, with a less stable bullet, you get a tumbling effect whice creates very nasty wounds when they hit a person.

[zmoney]

@ Micheal and roqf, a lot of units in the US army especially special operation groups teach marksmanship with both eyes open in cqb situations. Of course at farther ranges one would need to close one eye to get a good bead on the target but the longer the shot the less you'll need peripheral vision. Because you can see a lot in your scope at greater ranges.

In closer situations you can keep both eyes open and look down your scope while looking out for other threats. At first its funny to get used to but after you pratice some it becomes natural. roqf ask your brother about that, that maybe how he even trains.

Micheal I totally agree us nato brothers need to switch to some bigger caliber. Even 6.5mm would do. A long time ago I heard some talk about switching to 6.5 but haven't heard anything lately.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by zmoney:

Micheal I totally agree us nato brothers need to switch to some bigger caliber. Even 6.5mm would do. A long time ago I heard some talk about switching to 6.5 but haven't heard anything lately.

Oh, some would definitely agree, I don't. Couldn't hit a thing with .308 and am just fine with .223

A scale of 1 or 2 larger calibre rifles per squad/section may be in order - since that ammo is used by the platoon weapons det anyway. Probably don't need the whole section with "long rifles."

[flamingknives]

Not so sure about the commonality of ammunition. Do you think a marksmen will be happy if you make him use MG quality ammo?

I recall one of the London Drinks group mentioning that they had trained with a sniper (granted, it's a different level) who bought his own ammunition, with his own money, rather than use the issue stuff.

[roqf77]

1. panzer 76.

Again this is a matter of opinion. the british army does not agree. If you can engage at 500 metres plus and the enemy cant you will win most of the time. Support weapons plus rifle fire is better than just rifle fire. This is not opinion its just common sense. Plus again recently infantry engagments now are against substandardly trained opponents who cant hit over 100 yards all that much.

2.Zmoney.

yes he does and so do all my mates in other units, its basic training. i know people in the t.a who do it and well. A bigger calibre is needed. my brother showed me some info on a rifle the british well mod is thinking of adopting. its 6.8 i think not 6.5 but i may be mistaken.

3. Michael.

Again this is because of the opposition, send people from one army with carbines against people with full rifles and you will see what i mean.

Besides if its just the length of the weapon, bull pups are shorter and have better performence. Unless the money isnt available.

other than being slightly shorter what is the advantage of carbines?