# Suggested military upgrades or ideas



## MacArther (Sep 18, 2008)

This will be a thread devoted to people who have ideas or suggestions to improve the hardware of the military (U.S. or otherwise). First thought, GET THE FREAKIN COMMANCHE INTO SERVICE ALREADY!!! Ok, now that the random thought is out, would a 6.8mm or 6.5mm round married to a 7.62mm shell make any good points? I think it would be large enough to not be destroyed by the extra power, and it would probably have more punch that the normal 5.56mmX45. Make anti-armor weapons more portable, not just for the sake of knocking out armor, but also for when the infantry NEEDS fire to blow something up and air support or tanks can't reach them for a little bit. A good example of how portable I'm thinking would be the LAW....If the US military can some how shrink a weapon to that size, or just a bit bigger, and make it functional, it would DEFINITELY help. These are just a few of my ideas, and I probably have a few more that I've forgotten and need to remember, so lets hear all of your ideas, suggestions, thoughts, etc.


----------



## Airframes (Sep 19, 2008)

Interesting thread, MacArther. I'll have a think about some things, but meanwhile, here's something related to the small-arms ammo you mention above.
When Britain was developing and testing, in the 1970's, the current British individual weapon, the L85, commonly called the SA80 (but more correctly known as the biggest heap of *$*p known to man!) the prototypes were built around a 1948 bull-pup design known as the EM2. This was a compact, lightweight weapon, capable of semi and full-auto fire, which utilised a shorter 7.62mm cartridge. At the time of the final trials, British forces were using the L1A1 S.L.R., a licence-built, semi-auto version of the Belgian FN FAL. Trials on the 'new' weapon used various calibres, from 4.85mm to 6.35mm, and the latter seemed favourite. It had the neccessary MV and stopping power over a respectable range, and was relatively light and compact compared to the 7.62mm NATO round. However, as NATO was standardising on the 5.56mm round, due mainly to the vast deployment of this round and the M16, the L85/SA80 entered service as 5.56mm calibre. However, I do know that NATO have been reviewing the calibre/ammo situation for some time, and are due to change to, I think, 6.35mm or 6.55mm, by (at last report) 2012. As far as a choice of infantry weapon for British forces, as far as I know, there are a number of contenders, but the decision is still pending.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 19, 2008)

MacArther said:


> This will be a thread devoted to people who have ideas or suggestions to improve the hardware of the military (U.S. or otherwise).




What about having some anti-crowd capability instead of only lethal?

For example, shots coming from a housing complex, the ability to fire tear gas mortar or RPG rounds instead of only using lethal force? Not uncommonly the insurgents hide in populated buildings, knowing that civilian casualties will be blamed on the USA


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 19, 2008)

freebird said:


> What about having some anti-crowd capability instead of only lethal?
> 
> For example, shots coming from a housing complex, the ability to fire tear gas mortar or RPG rounds instead of only using lethal force? Not uncommonly the insurgents hide in populated buildings, knowing that civilian casualties will be blamed on the USA



High freq sound devices and microwave radiation are showing much promise.

Robotics are changing warfare forever


----------



## Freebird (Sep 19, 2008)

comiso90 said:


> High freq sound devices




funny I was just thinking of that!


----------



## comiso90 (Sep 19, 2008)

I wonder if off-the-shelf headphones can defeat the high freq stuff?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 19, 2008)

MacArther said:


> This will be a thread devoted to people who have ideas or suggestions to improve the hardware of the military (U.S. or otherwise). First thought, GET THE FREAKIN COMMANCHE INTO SERVICE ALREADY!!! Ok, now that the random thought is out, would a 6.8mm or 6.5mm round married to a 7.62mm shell make any good points? I think it would be large enough to not be destroyed by the extra power, and it would probably have more punch that the normal 5.56mmX45. Make anti-armor weapons more portable, not just for the sake of knocking out armor, but also for when the infantry NEEDS fire to blow something up and air support or tanks can't reach them for a little bit. A good example of how portable I'm thinking would be the LAW....If the US military can some how shrink a weapon to that size, or just a bit bigger, and make it functional, it would DEFINITELY help. These are just a few of my ideas, and I probably have a few more that I've forgotten and need to remember, so lets hear all of your ideas, suggestions, thoughts, etc.


Commanche deemed not a priority - sure it looks cool, but the Army's not interested in it. The Apache is filling that role fine for them, and the Cobra on the USMC side... with the AH-1Z slowly being brought online.

Portable anti-armor weapons that can say bust bunkers and concrete... check out the SMAW. It is in the process of being upgraded now too.



freebird said:


> What about having some anti-crowd capability instead of only lethal?
> 
> For example, shots coming from a housing complex, the ability to fire tear gas mortar or RPG rounds instead of only using lethal force? Not uncommonly the insurgents hide in populated buildings, knowing that civilian casualties will be blamed on the USA


In that instance, the use of non-deadly force in such a manner is not tactically sound. There are various forms of non-lethal weapons, such as shotguns firing bean bags, rubber bullets, and more technical weapons like mentioned below.



comiso90 said:


> High freq sound devices and microwave radiation are showing much promise.
> 
> Robotics are changing warfare forever



I saw that on a show - pretty wild.


----------



## MacArther (Sep 20, 2008)

Obviously, leathal or non-leathal will be welcome in this thread, its more about what we thing the militaries should be upgrading/changing/implementing.



> Portable anti-armor weapons that can say bust bunkers and concrete... check out the SMAW. It is in the process of being upgraded now too.



I'm thinking something more along the lines of folding up or collapsing for storage so that almost every soldier could carry one, instead of being a crew served weapon.


----------



## mkloby (Sep 20, 2008)

MacArther said:


> Obviously, leathal or non-leathal will be welcome in this thread, its more about what we thing the militaries should be upgrading/changing/implementing.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm thinking something more along the lines of folding up or collapsing for storage so that almost every soldier could carry one, instead of being a crew served weapon.



Like what - a leatherman anti-armor knife?


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 20, 2008)

How about a workable transponder that would allow all allied forces to see other allied warriors. A soldiers version of an IFF or Mode A transponder to prevent blue on blue casualties. I know it has been in the works for decades, but you would have thought we would have ironed those kinks out for the average warrior. Special Ops has them. Why not everyone else? Hell you can put a chip in your dog, why not our trained warriors? The US seems to aim too high all the time with requirements creep causing a simple solution to blossom into a NextGen suit of armour, encrypted comm links, UGVs, and other technology that is not immediately fieldable.

The Future Combat System (FCS) is supposed to address alot of this stuff, but is way over budget and, while highly transformational, is also subject to HUGE risk during implementation.

A good example of a simple technology that made a huge difference to the average warrior, was the acquisition and implementation of optics for small arms. The Trijicon 4X scope, the red dot reticles, laser sighting systems and parallax free holographic sights have been touted as the most important technology leap for the average Marine since introduction of the M1 Garand.


----------



## Amsel (Sep 20, 2008)

A chemical that instantly kills anyone within 10 miles. But it has to be animal friendly and bio-degradable.


----------



## Freebird (Sep 21, 2008)

mkloby said:


> In that instance, the use of non-deadly force in such a manner is not tactically sound.



Why not? If you could blast a few TG rounds into the building it would perhaps flush out the snipers, but would at least interfere with their accuracy would it not?

What is the S.O.P. when you have a squad surrounding a large building in which there are a few snipers and suspected 12 - 40 {supposedly innocent} civilians, probably hostages? If the snipers have a dominating field of fire in all directions?


----------



## mkloby (Sep 21, 2008)

freebird said:


> Why not? If you could blast a few TG rounds into the building it would perhaps flush out the snipers, but would at least interfere with their accuracy would it not?
> 
> What is the S.O.P. when you have a squad surrounding a large building in which there are a few snipers and suspected 12 - 40 {supposedly innocent} civilians, probably hostages? If the snipers have a dominating field of fire in all directions?



I'm not going to go into any SOP or specifics - that cannot be discussed. However, responding to sniper activity in a city with teargas is a foolish notion.


----------



## Matt308 (Sep 21, 2008)

I would agree. I'm increasing concerned with the troubling notion of fighting a war where the Order of Battle is dictated by nobody getting hurt. At some point in time somebody has to stand up and say, look we can't outfit every US warrior with $1M of non-lethal "weapons", when every enemy combatant carries $200 worth of highly lethal weaponry. At some point it has to be recognized that the cost benefit equation just doesn't add up.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Sep 21, 2008)

> I would agree. I'm increasing concerned with the troubling notion of fighting a war where the Order of Battle is dictated by nobody getting hurt. At some point in time somebody has to stand up and say, look we can't outfit every US warrior with $1M of non-lethal "weapons", when every enemy combatant carries $200 worth of highly lethal weaponry. At some point it has to be recognized that the cost benefit equation just doesn't add up.



I'm thinking that if somebody is trying to kill you, a soldier should be able to kill back. I know that we are trying not to hurt people but I don't think its worth it to put American soldiers in danger.


----------



## Airframes (Sep 22, 2008)

Matt and Flyboy2, re your last. TOTALLY agree! It's about time the politicians etc., in the 'States and here in the U.K., stopped f*****g about with the military, and let them have the kit they need, and do the job!


----------



## MacArther (Sep 22, 2008)

> Like what - a leatherman anti-armor knife?


Perhaps I'm thinking of the wrong anti-armor weapon as an example. I was trying to refer to the collapsing one used by US forces in Vietnam. I think it was either 66mm or 70mm caliber.


----------



## Airframes (Sep 22, 2008)

M63/66, the telescopic tubed, pre-packed 66mm LAW. Use once-throw away!


----------



## Freefalling (Sep 23, 2008)

Reduce the load carried by the infantry. The average rifleman is carrying about 65-70 pounds of gear. An RTO, 249 gunner, 240 gunner, or mortarman will exceed that by quite a bit.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Sep 23, 2008)

Flyboy2 said:


> I'm thinking that if somebody is trying to kill you, a soldier should be able to kill back. I know that we are trying not to hurt people but I don't think its worth it to put American soldiers in danger.



It's not. If you're in a war zone, you're in a war zone; casualties, friendly and non-friendly, are going to happen. You can try and minimize them, but you're not going to be able to eradicate them. Sooner or later, a civilian/friendly is going to get killed, it's just a matter of time. It makes me mad when the international press zeroes in a friendly-fire/civilian casualty incident; it's like they think wars should be made "safe" or something. Safe for who? The insurgents would like nothing better than for US armed forces to do their utmost to avoid civilian casualties, it makes their job just that much easier.


----------



## Flyboy2 (Sep 24, 2008)

> The insurgents would like nothing better than for US armed forces to do their utmost to avoid civilian casualties, it makes their job just that much easier.



Exactly. I always think about if we worried about civilian casualties in the World War II bombing raids. How much different would that have worked out. The problem is the people want the government to get the job done but then don't want anybody to get hurt doing it. That is the problem America has in Iraq. After 9/11 they were calling for the head of every terrorist and now we get worked over casualties. I don't want anybody to die but being a soldier means you take that chance.


----------



## Freefalling (Sep 24, 2008)

I can't speak for Iraq but we try to avoid civilian casualties in Afghanistan. Sometimes you don't see a civilian though. The bad guys like to use houses/ citadels as firing points. We've used a GBU-31 on a single sniper before.

You try to avoid them but they still happen.


----------

