Just for fun...How much firepower would a modern rifle squad have?

[Gyrene]

For example, a current USMC rifle squad is made up of: (The only modern squad I'm familiar with)

3 x M16A2 + M203

3 x M249 SAW

6 x M16A2

Also added is an average of 3 AT-4 single use AT rockets.

The M203's and SAW's would really tip the scales, any take on what kind of numbers that translates to?

Any other modern squad compositions?

Gyrene

[CMplayer]

I'm looking forward to seeing the answer to this, especially if someone can figure it out and make the spreadsheet over range like in the game's pop-up windows.

[Bad Monkey!]

Well, until the real grogs show up...

I'd say the M16A2 is reasonably comparable to the MP44, which is 34,12,and 2 at ranges of 40, 100, and 250 meters. The SAWs will probably be comparable to the MG42LMG, which has a firepower of 25, 22, 15, and 9, out to 500 meters.

So call it 3 MG42's and 9 MP44's, for :

MP44 (M16A2): 216 108 18

MG42 (M249SAW): 75 66 45 18

Total: 291 176 63 18

The M203's are probably comparable to rifle grenades, with much greater range (plus the fact they would be much more plentiful, accurate, and much easier to use), and the AT4's with the Panzerschreck, again with much greater range and fire power.

edit: now that I think about it, the M203 is probably more comparable to a 2in mortar.

[ April 19, 2002, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Bad Monkey! ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Bad Monkey!:

I'd say the M16A2 is reasonably comparable to the MP44

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the M16 should have a better rating at longer ranges than the MP44.

[BloodyBucket]

How about the effects of body armor on the defense?

[flamingknives]

Isn't the M16A2 the one without full auto (3 round burst only) {grog trap }

If it is, then the firepower at close range would be less than the MP 44.

And would they get more ammo? (~0.22cal as opposed to ~.30cal)

Plus I'd say a LAW would be better compared to a longer ranger 'faust (that said, I don't know much about the AT 4)

Interesting idea though.

Oh yes, body armour. great against 9mm pistol or shrapnel. Wouldn't personally want to try it with anything bigger though.

[ April 19, 2002, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: flamingknives ]

[Marlow]

Bad Monkey, check your math.

Modern body armor (and Kevlar Helmets) is effective against more than just shrapnel and pistol ammunition. I know of at least one instance in Panama where a soldier survived a close range burst from an assault rifle (AK47 IIRC, but I'm not sure) without serious injury. Not that I would want to try it out myself.

[Jeff Heidman]

I would give the M16A2 a greater amount of firepower at medium-long ranges than a MP44, and maybe even greater at short ranges due to a greater ease of keeping it on target.

The SAW I would give a higher short ranged firpower to than the MG42, but it should fall off faster due to the much, much lighter round.

Jeff Heidman

[Redwolf]

The comprision needs an additional variable.

M16 and SAW are 5.56mm weapons (mainly to be able to carry much more ammo), and whatever basic firepower rating you give it, when you shoot at enemies in cover, especially vegetables, it gets worse faster than the 7.62 or 7.92mm weapons.

[Jeff Heidman]

Originally posted by redwolf:

The comprision needs an additional variable.

M16 and SAW are 5.56mm weapons (mainly to be able to carry much more ammo), and whatever basic firepower rating you give it, when you shoot at enemies in cover, especially vegetables, it gets worse faster than the 7.62 or 7.92mm weapons.

I have heard that, but also heard that that is mostly a myth arising from overall dissatisfaction with the early M16 in Vietnam. Tests have shown that the 5.56mm assualt-rifle round is no more or less susceptible to deflection from simple vegetation than the 7.62mm assault-rifle round. And that almost all small arms ammunition is surprisingly prone to deflection by vegetation.

Jeff Heidman

[Andrew H.]

I don't think that the SAW is at all comparable to the MG 42, which as modelled in CM includes an assistant gunner. It should probably be modelled as a slightly improved BAR.

As someone pointed out earlier, one real advantage that 5.56 mm weapons have is in the amount of ammo that one can carry; the basic ammo load for modern squads should probably be increased to reflect this.

The M203 should probably be fired automatically by the AI (sort of like how PzFausts work); I suppose it should have the blast effect of a grenade.

[SwedishPSK]

Here's a modern Swedish squad if anyone wanna know..

This is a mech squad consisting of 6 men..

5 x AK-5 (same calibre as M16A2.. semi and full auto.. good up to ranges of about 500m.. )

1 x Ak-5B (Scoped Ak-5.. ranges of about 600m with good accuracy)

2 x KSP-59 (One man carried MG.. same calibre as the US M60.. good up to ranges of about 1000m.. the same as MG42 I think.. each man carries about 500 rounds)

2 x AT4 (a fire and discard weapon.. penetrates about 30cm of modern armor at ranges from 30m up to 200m)

1 x Carl Gustaf GRG (Grenadelauncher.. same function,calibre and range as the AT4.. but reloadable.. with a loader that carries about 6 rounds)

If anyone can translate that to WW2 weapons..

SWE

[Agua Perdido]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I don't think that the SAW is at all comparable to the MG 42, which as modelled in CM includes an assistant gunner. It should probably be modelled as a slightly improved BAR.

200-round belt, bipod, quick-change barrels... I don't know if US doctrine calls for an ass't gunner, but (cyclic ROF aside) that sounds closer to an MG42 than to a BAR.

Agua Perdido

[Wreck]

Interesting thread.

First, on BadMonkey's estimates. I would tend to agree that M16A2 is reasonably comparable to the MP44 and SAWs are comparable MG42. But his firepower for MG42 is off; it is twice what he shows (50/45/30/18), though using two men which SAW does not. So the firepower for a modern squad would be:

9x M16A2: 216 108 18

3x M249SAW: 150 135 90 54

total: 366 243 108 54

Ammowise, a modern squad is shooting much less per bullet, but with three times the machineguns it seems likely that it is also eating ammo much faster. Just guessing, I would give a modern squad the same load as a CM rifle squad. (The CM SMG squads should be given considerably less.)

One other thing to think about is training. Modern armies are trained to do things like area fire that WWII armies were not, and modern soldiers are conditioned to fire in ways which their grandfathers were not, either. A "green" American now would be something like a "veteran" or even "elite", I would suggest.

[Kingfish]

Let's not forget to add a Claymore or two, a few Wiley Petes, some smoke grenades, maybe some night vision gear...

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Agua Perdido:

200-round belt, bipod, quick-change barrels... I don't know if US doctrine calls for an ass't gunner, but (cyclic ROF aside) that sounds closer to an MG42 than to a BAR.

Agua Perdido[/QB]

Well, it's better than a BAR, but the SAW is much smaller and lighter than an MG 42, does not have an assistant gunner, and appears to be used more as an automatic rifle than an MG 42-style LMG.

Here's a quote from this link

Automatic rifles allow rifle squads to take a light automatic weapon with them in the assault. In the defense, they add the firepower of 10 or 20 riflemen without the addition of manpower. Characteristically, automatic rifles are light, fire rapidly, and have more ammunition than the rifles in the squad that they support. Each squad has three automatic rifles. No additional equipment configuration is needed, because the automatic rifleman fires the M249 either from the bipod mode or from various hand-held positions. In either the offense or defense, automatic riflemen must restrict themselves to firing three-round bursts to maintain their effectiveness against enemy targets. The M249 in the bipod or hand-held mode moves too easily off its point of aim after three rounds and automatic riflemen must readjust their aim. In the offense, the automatic rifleman is limited to what he can carry and fire on the move. Hence, while the automatic rifle affords a high volume of fire, it also rapidly consumes ammunition. Conservation and careful logistic planning become important.

If you're going to be carrying it around and using it like a rifle, it's not going to act like an MG 42. I suppose it would be more like an MG 42 if you had an assistant gunner and used it more like an MG than an AR. But that doesn't seem to be how the doctrine calls for it to be used. I ran across one site which mentioned that while the SAWs cyclic rate is 725 rpm, it's sustained rate is only 85 rpm. Unfortunately, I don't know what the sustained rate of an MG 42 is, although I do know that the barrel of the MG 42 is much heavier than that of the SAW, which would permit a higher rate of sustained fire. Does an SAW man even carry an extra barrel.

[Gyrene]

The M203 has an official point target range (You hit what you aim at) of 150m and an effective area target range of 350m. The Max range is 400m.

There are HE (5m casualty radius), Airburst (7-8 m cas radius), CS gas, Buckshot (Shotgun!) and others, like AT rounds.

It has the explosive payload of about 1.5 to 2 hand grenades, or in CM terms probably 1/2 or 3/4 of a demo charge. and it would have been handled by the AI, but at much higher ranges than fausts and grenades are done now.

The SAW does have an assistant, the Assistant Automatic Rifleman, who carries extra ammo for the SAW and assists with loading if needed, but he's also an active rifleman within the squad.

The M203 gunner is the fire team leader, btw, and his primary weapon is the M203 and not the M16A2.

Gyrene

[Bad Monkey!]

Wreck: yep, you're right. I was looking between a squad that had one MG42 and another that had 2, and got confuzeled. And that's a metric assload of firepower, no matter how you cut it! :eek:

I think both M16A2 and the SAW are very comparable to the MP44 and MG42, both in how they work, but more importantly, in how they're used. I can't claim any level of intimate knowlege of either WW2 German or Modern US infantryman tactics, but I also can't imagine that given similar tools, the soldiers would not use them in similar ways. Without knowing how BTS assigns their firepower ratings, I'd say the comparison is close enough.

Though the 2in mortar isn't a direct in squad equivilent of the M203 (like rifle grenades or fausts), again, I think it is most comparable in terms of both range, power, and effect.

About the AT4: although it's single use design is comparable to the Faust, it's actual character is almost exactly the same as the schreck :

The recoilless rifle design permits accurate delivery of an 84mm High Explosive Anti-Armor warhead, with negligible recoil. The M136 AT4 is a lightweight, self-contained, antiarmor weapon consisting of a free-flight, fin-stabilized, rocket-type cartridge packed in an expendable, one-piece, fiberglass-wrapped tube.

Caliber ................... 84 mm

Muzzle Velocity............ 290 mps (950 fps)

Length .................... 460 mm (18 inches)

Weight..................... 1.8 kg (4 pounds)

Minimum Range Training ........... 30 meters (100 feet)

Combat ................. 10 meters (33 feet)

Arming.................. 10 meters (33 feet)

Maximum Range ............. 2,100 meters (6,890 feet)

Maximum Effective Range ... 300 meters (985 feet)

Penetration: 400 mm of rolled homogenous armor

Time of Flight (to 250 meters): less than 1 second

[ April 19, 2002, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Bad Monkey! ]

[109 Gustav]

Is modern U.S. doctrine to use the squad as a whole unit, or to split it into two or more teams?

If the M60 has similar performance to an mg42, then maybe some kind of comparison could be drawn between the SAW and M60 to get a firepower rate for the SAW?

[Gyrene]

Originally posted by 109 Gustav:

Is modern U.S. doctrine to use the squad as a whole unit, or to split it into two or more teams?

If the M60 has similar performance to an mg42, then maybe some kind of comparison could be drawn between the SAW and M60 to get a firepower rate for the SAW?

A US rifle squad is divided into 3 independent fire teams of 4 men each. (1 x M203, 1 x M249 3 x M16A2)

Gyrene

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think the M16 should have a better rating at longer ranges than the MP44.

I don't think so. The MP 44 is the Sturmgewehr not a SMG (like some may be thinking) and uses a short rifle round of 7.92 caliber so I don't think the M16 would have better long range firepower. Think of the MP 44 as an AK47.

[ASL Veteran]

I'm kinda thinking that a SAW would be closest to the German FG42 that the Fallshirmjaegers used.

[flamingknives]

Posted by: ASL Veteran

I'm kinda thinking that a SAW would be closest to the German FG42 that the Fallshirmjaegers used

Er, no. The FG 42, AFAIK, fired a full sized rifle round (7.92mm x 57mm) and therefore had serious recoil and couldn't be used very effectively on automatic fire. The M249 SAW fires smaller (5.56mm x 45mm) ammunition and therefore has less recoil, making it more controllable in automatic fire.

Also by ASL Veteran

The MP 44 is the Sturmgewehr not a SMG (like some may be thinking) and uses a short rifle round of 7.92 caliber so I don't think the M16 would have better long range firepower.

Very true, the MP44 has longer range than a SMG.

However, there is still a difference between a short rifle round and the on that the M16 uses. The MP 44 fires a heavier round (7.92 vs 5.56) and has a comparable recoil. Therefore it has to have lower MV, giving a shorter range.

[M Hofbauer]

though it may be disappointing to many people, there isn't that much difference between a late-war WW II squad and a modern squad, especially in CM terms.

The MG42 is still in use today and, though not really comparable since they have different performance envelopes, can reasonably considered superior as a MG than the SAW, though the SAW is probably much better at close distance when used as a pseudo-assault rifle.

The M1 Garands are comparable to "modern" rapid-fire rifles like the G3 or the FN-FAL, in fact the G3 mechanism stems from the late war StG 45 prototype systems. And really for most purposes a G3/FN-FAL (eg aimed single fire shooting at 100 meters) isn't that much a leap over a K98 or an Enfield.

The .223 rifles which are so en vogue these days are comparable to the MP 44; different caliber but same idea of having a delaborated lighter ammo for an automatic rifle = assault rifle. IMO these weapons as a whole are undermodeled in CM in comparison to the SMG. One could argue that most modern .223s are much more reliable than the MP 44 but personally in the case of the M16 I would even doubt that

Grenades still go boom.

In the end, there isn't that much difference.

One guy suggested

"One other thing to think about is training. Modern armies are trained to do things like area fire that WWII armies were not, and modern their grandfathers were not, either. A "green" American now would be something like a "veteran" or even "elite", I would suggest."

which is a joke. No peace-time soldier, even if he is a well-trained american soldier, who has "green" status could reasonably be considered "elite" over WW II, battle hardened experienced veterans. IMO.

[Scott B]

Originally posted by Gyrene:

A US rifle squad is divided into 3 independent fire teams of 4 men each. (1 x M203, 1 x M249 3 x M16A2)

That's the USMC squad; U.S. Army rifle squads have nine men in two fire teams, but basically the same loadout per fire team. Excluding mechanized infantry, at least.

Scott