My random asking for advice thread

[Bushbaby]

Hi everyone,

I just bought a few fire teams and analysed their equipment composition.

A US army fire team have one grenadier with a m203 underslung. What is the reason for not putting one on every rifle in the team?

Does a m203 have any drawbacks? Not sure if anyone knows this, but I thought this would be the place to get an answer  

Best,

Johannes

[commissarmoody]

Well every one in a fire team has a job. Saw gunner suppress and direct support fire, grenader indirect support, team leader directs the team..etc
Also its  kind of heavy, ammo is heavy, and you want some on with some experience on the thing. There is nothing stopping a unit from issuing more if they have them on hand..but that would be at the commanders descrection

[CptJake]

They cost money.   Arming everyone with one (as mentioned) adds to the ammo burden each guy carries, and adds weight from the weapon itself as well as the extra bits of harness you need to carry the rounds for it.

The M203 (or newer M320) has a purpose, but not every trooper in a squad or fire team needs one.  As mentioned, each has a job.     

Units can't really 'issue more if they have them on hand' because they are equipped to a certain Table of Organization (TOE) and only authorized a certain number.  I guess in theory they could reallocate the company's allocation and give them all to a couple of squads.  You would have a lot of ticked off platoon leaders/sergeants and squad/team leaders who lose theirs though.   

[tomcat51]

I agree with commisarmoody, I think its due to roles within the team. You don't want people falling over each other trying to do the same thing, a saw gunner suppresses, a grenadier provides indirect fire. I also think that they are tricky to fire. There is mention of it in Generation Kill (great book and TV show about the farce and fog of war amongst other things) of an incompetant CO grabbing an M203 to fire at a building and his shot falling about 20 feet too short. I would imagine it requires a bit of specialist training. I'm sure a current or former service member will come along and give you the real answer, but this is my guess for now.

[commissarmoody]

No problem Capt Jack. I just remembered that some guys in the HQ platoon had a few extra that the company armory had siting around unasigned.

[Bushbaby]

Ok, your answers makes sense and have shed light on the matter.

Thanks guys.

[arget8]

In addition to the fantastic explanation provided by commissarmoody, tomcat51, and CptJake, I have a feeling that it was also intended to prevent wastage. Military Brass has a tendency to believe that the infantryman has no self restraint with ammo expenditure. Back in Vietnam they believed that giving soldiers automatic weapons would mean that they would burn through their ammo too fast. Rather than trust in their soldiers and those training them, they removed the automatic feature from weapons in the future. I have a feeling that this is partially the case with the m203. If everyone has 40mm grenades and the m203, people may be more likely to fire them willy nilly (According to the brass).

Lately, I think that the weight is the biggest issue. Afghanistan is not the kind of place you want to have even more weight than you will need. Most of the time, a single m203 is more than enough per fire team. You have to remember, fire teams never act alone with regular units and most of the time it is an entire platoon on a mission. This means that a US Army platoon has six m203's at their disposal. That is essentially six light mortars more powerful than the old British 2" mortar. I think that is pretty good fire power. Weight is a big part of why the Marines are phasing out the SAW in favor of the M27.

Just a thought.

[CptJake]

@Tomcat51:

They are not too hard to fire.   Heck, if I could qualify on the weapon and consistently put a round through a window, anyone can.   

As to weight, the old (pre-MOLE) 203 vests carried 40 some rounds I think.  I know I went from about 150 pounds in boots and uniform to about 210 depending on mission load when I had to put on all my crap.   And that was before the ruck...  I carried a 203 as a recon platoon leader (was not mine by TOE but my platoon was 6 guys short, so I carried the 203 and my driver lugged the SAW).   

[CptJake]

@ commissarmoo:   Yeah, those are usually supposed to go to the CO's driver, the driver of the supply truck, and a couple other guys.  The TOE shows who gets them by position, but you are right, within the unit they sometimes do move those around, but generally just within the section that owns them (some poor guy is signed for his section's gear).

[Bushbaby]

When we are on the subject. If you want to lob a grenade over lets say a 2 meter high obstacle, what would be the minimum safe range for the operator to do this?

[commissarmoody]

@ commissarmoo:   Yeah, those are usually supposed to go to the CO's driver, the driver of the supply truck, and a couple other guys.  The TOE shows who gets them by position, but you are right, within the unit they sometimes do move those around, but generally just within the section that owns them (some poor guy is signed for his section's gear).

Makes sense, are HQ plt and Mortars were always short on guys so some times Joe had to double up.
And I feel you on the weight, I remember one time I was the AB, 240 gunner and RTO with two man packs and a tripod. Luckily I didn't have to carry any mortars. Light infantry in name. Oh and yes my rifle was strapped to my Alice pack also.

[CptJake]

Yeah, I lugged my own radios around (first generation SINCGARS).  And their batteries.  Before we got issued our M249s (and M240s) we had M60s, so I lugged between 5-800 belted rounds of 7.62 while my driver lugged the pig (except the time he started going down from dehydration and I had to also lug the pig, that was a sad three day patrol).  When we got the SAWs I carried 3-4 box mags of 5.56 for it.  And some horrendously large and inefficient night time optic.  And it's batteries.  

And we were 'light' recon guys...  

As for lobbing the grenade over the 2 meter high wall, assuming you mean M203/M320 style (and not hand thrown) you have to be at least the arming distance of the round away (15-30 meters if I recall correctly), but the rounds are not gonna land right at the far side base of the wall, they fly in a nice arc.  I guess you could try to fire almost straight up and hope the round fall where you want it, but  neither the sights nor the weapon configuration are designed to do that.  

A new round for a new system that allows the user to laze the wall, fire above it, and when the round passes the wall it blows and sends shrapnel down is in the works.  It got mixed reviews on a combat test deployment in Afghanistan.  

[Bushbaby]

Again, thank you for valuable insights.

I'm gonna stay in this thread with my next question. I'm thinking of using a technical with a multiple rocket launcher attached in my next 28mm scenario. But I guess the minimum range for a rocket far exceeds the gaming table.

So my question is, is it at all possible to use this kind of artillery at point blanc? Even if chances to hit are very slim?

[Arlequín]

It depends on the weapon, most modern types have a built in 'arming distance' to prevent accidents and 'blue on blue' errors. Folding-fin types 'jink' until their fins deploy and the rocket stabilises, making them quite innacurate when fired singly, so they tend to be fired in ripples to blanket an area.

Most rockets also have quite a large fragmentation area, which depending on your ground scale might preclude their use. For example four 68mm SNEB rockets (HE) will blanket an area some 500m squared... and that's the smaller of the rockets out there.

[Bushbaby]

I see. The weapon I am thinking of in particular is a helicopter launch tube like on the picture.

If the rocket is AP (I suppose those are available air to surface ordinance), could it be used in a direct fire role you think?