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

[Mattias]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

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.

I second that heartily Markus. Elite in CM terms is something way beyond the norm, representing the few men and teams that are able to display almost mythical levels of proficiency and personal aptitude.

The term "Elite" as used by the media usually represents well trained and equipped regulars or veterans. The truly battle hardened variant of which might represent CM "Crack" units.

Often the media "Elite" is in fact only representing units that are slightly more motivated and equipped than the other rabble fighting on the same side.

--

M.

[CMplayer]

OTOH give green troops night vision equipment and they will wipe the table with WWII elite infantry (at night anyway).

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by 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... [snips]

Grenades still go boom.

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

Indeed -- although modern controlled-fragmentation grenades would probably show one of the biggest performance improvements in anti-personnel effectiveness over that period. The other big difference I would suspect is the difference between rifles using iron sights and modern optical sights, as fitted on the G-33, IW, AUG and so forth.

I would suggest the following equivalences between modern weapons and those rated in CM:

SMG such as Uzi, MAT-49, Sterling: Count as Sten.

Carbine such as SKS: Count as M-1 carbine.

Self-loading rifle such as L1A1 SLR, G-3, MAS-49, M-14: Count as M-1.

Assault rifle such as IW, M-16, G-33, Galil, FAMAS, AK-47, AK-M, AK-74: Count as MP-44.

Heavy-barrelled assault rifle such as M-14 modified, RPK, RPK-74, LSW: Count as BAR.

LMG such as M249, L4, DP: Count as Bren.

GPMG in light role such as MG-3, AAT-52, L7 GPMG, M-60, PK: Count as MG-42.

You can twiddle things by a point or two up or down here and there if you like, but I think that there is little value in attempting to assign minor differences between weapons in the same general class -- I don't understand why CM gives the Sten 3 firepower points more than the MP-40 at close range, for example. Between one 9mm SMG and another (or one weapon and another in any class) I would guess that there would be far more difference caused by individual marksmanship, weapons care and the quality of the ammunition lot

than there would by differences in design.

Having had my first detailed look at the CM firepower ratings, my personal opinion is that they exagerrate the differences between weapon types -- SMGs and especially the MP-44 should be effective to longer ranges, and I'm baffled by the idea that the sMG-42 is a vastly better bullet-squirter than a water-cooled gun such as the Vickers. Still, if we take the CM values, and follow CM in disregarding the fact that no.2s would not normally be using their personal weapons, we get the following historical progression of the firepower an 8-man British section can put out:

Korea, 1950s: Bren, Sten 6 rifles:

141___77___36___15

1960s-70s: GPMG, 7 SLRs:

164___96___48___24

Falklands, 1982: GPMG, LMG, 6 SLRs:

170__129___66___33

1990s: 2 LSW, 6 IWs:

272__124___42___14

Prode of place, however, must got to the section organisation used by the British Army Training Team (BATT, a cover name for the SAS) during the Dhofar campaign, as described by Colonel Tony Jeapes:

BATT, Dhofar, 1970s: 2 GPMGs, 6 AR-15s

372__214___72___36

According to these numbers, each 4-man fireteam of such a section packs more punch at most ranges than the entire Korean-era section.

All the best,

John.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by me:

Prode

...or even "pride"...

of place, however, must got to the section organisation used by the British Army Training Team (BATT, a cover name for the SAS) during the Dhofar campaign, as described by Colonel Tony Jeapes:

BATT, Dhofar, 1970s: 2 GPMGs, 6 AR-15s

372__214___72___36

That should be

304__162___72___36

All the best,

John.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

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.

Muzzle Velocity is not the only thing that determines accuracy at range. That's also an interesting firearms theory: heavier round = lower MV = shorter range. You might consider thinking about that one a little bit more.

I'm not saying that a SAW is the same identical thing as a FG 42, but I think it would be more appropriate to put it in that weapon class as opposed to the GPMG class. The SAW is almost in a class of its own though as there really aren't any WW2 weapons that are directly comparable.

Anyway, it's all opinion and speculation. Nothing to get in a debate over.