Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Jihadin wrote:

Army Adds 84mm Recoil-less Rifle to Platoon Arsenal

U.S. Army infantry platoons will soon have the 84mm Carl Gustaf recoil-less rifle, a devastating anti-armor system, as a permanently assigned weapon.

Service officials completed a so-called conditional materiel release authorization late last year, making the M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System an organic weapon system within each infantry platoon, IHS Jane’s 360 recently reported. The service is also working on an effort to achieve Full Material Release of the M3 later this year.

Army light infantry units began using the M3 in Afghanistan in 2011, but only when commanders submitted operational needs statements for the weapon

Groovy

75th has had those forever.

Bunker busting

 Jihadin wrote:
Bunker busting

Actually I believe that is a Hot Pocket launcher firing at an unsuspecting gamer.

Our infantry units use Carl G since 1988, I believe. I've seen a lot of them in the Army Reserve. Our Reg Force uses TOW for the same role.

 CptJake wrote:

SemperMortis wrote:


Another way to save money is to do away with a number of government contracts. Spending 25k on a laptop is well....stupid. Not to mention you have to order all gear and items from a specific shop which over prices those items significantly.

You don't know much about DoD contracting. No laptop is costing the DoD 25k, though there may be some software packages that do. And in no way is any service forced to buy gear from a specific shop which over prices, in fact single source bids are very much discouraged and you need very tight explanations as to why you are trying to let a single source contract and that generally comes down to a service contract (which is also discouraged) when the single source is the only one capable of providing the contracted service. If you have a contracting office/officer allowing 'all gear and items' to come form a single shop that is not the cheapest/best value, you have a contracting officer looking at jail time.

100% right on single source - On the research side of things, if a government group wants to buy a specific product from a specific manufacturer, they have to demonstrate that they cannot get such capabilities literally anywhere else, otherwise the acquisition has to be competed. It's easier said than done, and there's a ton of oversight.

Jake knows more about this than I do, but working with government and seeing how things work gives me a bit of insight. My main problem with budget is the state that funding has to be dedicated to certain uses - x dollars have to be spent for purpose x. On the research side of things, this results in government service labs trying to figure out how to spend a surplus of cash on x widgets when they don't have enough to spend on y widgets. The dollars are allocated in a hierarchy that is far too 'command push' and not nearly enough 'recon pull' by the people who are actually doing the work.

Carl Gustav 84mm was widely used by UK forces in the 1980s. In the Falklands War it was used to attack an Argentinian ship and also against emplacements.

It's unpopular with troops due to the heavy weight and awkwardness of carrying it, and the blast, but they like the effects of a hit.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I'm wondering what armored forces the US encountered in Afghanistan that would require this weapon to defeat

(yes I know it has more utility than just killing tanks...)

That said, it looks pretty neat, and seems like a solid addition to infantry forces.

But can it kill a Space Marine?

 Jihadin wrote:
Bunker busting

But who builds bunkers in this day and age?

"Bunker" includes any temporary field fortification having significant resistance to small arms fire.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bunker" includes any temporary field fortification having significant resistance to small arms fire.

And chucking a thermobaric round into a cave works wonders too.

 CptJake wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
"Bunker" includes any temporary field fortification having significant resistance to small arms fire.

And chucking a thermobaric round into a cave works wonders too.

Nuke Em Rico!!

AT4's are one shot weapons. Once fired one still has to carry the empty tube back

Future prediction if there are any cuts to the US military. (last two panels)

 Ouze wrote:

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Would it help if Congress stopped telling the military how to spend its money and also got out of the way when it comes to defense contracts and development?

If we don't sustain our military spending, how can we maintain our nearly unbroken record of not functionally winning a war since 1945?

Whoa, whoa, whoa. You kicked the crap out of Grenada!

Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Little killing spree in Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
1st Gulf War
....
..
wait..we talking Conscription military to the volunteer force today?

 Jihadin wrote:
Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Little killing spree in Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
1st Gulf War
....
..
wait..we talking Conscription military to the volunteer force today?

What is this list?

 trexmeyer wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Korea
Vietnam
Panama
Little killing spree in Somalia
Bosnia
Kosovo
1st Gulf War
....
..
wait..we talking Conscription military to the volunteer force today?

What is this list?

The list of countries that that US has kicked the crap out of since 1945.

Why is Vietnam on that list then?

 trexmeyer wrote:
Why is Vietnam on that list then?

because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.

I'm not sure what the suits could have done to count as a win in that instance, or the military really. The North Vietnamese and Viet Cong were getting their ass handed to them by our guys but that never really mattered much. I'm not sure there was honestly a military victory to be had. What I mean is that it is far more complicated then just blaming politicians, though they deserve their fair share for it to be sure.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Why is Vietnam on that list then?

because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.

Who was it that said essentially that "the belief that Vietnam was a military victory is the greatest lie the US Armed Forces have told themselves?." I can't find the quote anymore.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.

If we measured military victory by kill counts then Germany beat Russia in WWII... given the Soviet flag that flew on the Reichstag that's probably not the best method.

So instead we probably have to look at military success as being able to achieve whatever aims were set for the military. In Vietnam, like many conflicts, the military goals were to end the will or ability of the North Vietnamese to continue fighting, and prepare the South to be able to fight for itself. The military was given more than a decade to achieve this, and never got it done.

Now, it is fair to point out it was near impossible to defeat the North's will and ability to fight as long as the North was willing to accept crazy casualty figures, and the US military was not able to cross the border and capture population and industrial areas in the North. And it's fair to point out that probably no-one could have got the South in to a proper fighting army, because their government was so gakky.

But it still remains as it is. The US military was given goals, and it failed to meet them.

If those are the assumed goals of Vietnam. I've seen expressed the notion of the US having merely lost the battle but won the war so to speak.

The purpose of the US intervention in Vietnam was to ensure it wasn't "communist" and thus open to trade with the core or more specifically with Japan as it needed Vietnam's market at the time. Now we have the TTP and the return to arms sales with the Vietnamese despite the results of the war. The US has essentially achieved its objectives even if it took far more time then expected.

It was never going to defeat the North Vietnamese because it was too busy bombing the South Vietnamese and Cambodians into submission. Yet after all that happened they have returned to the fold....well Vietnam has....

It's amazing how eerily similar the American Revolution and the Vietnam war are too each other.

1) Both America and Britain won 90% + of the military engagements

2) Both America and Britain had to fight off foreign support for the other side

3) Both America and Britain failed to prop up or change unpopular local governments (South Vietnamese Government /American Loyalists)

4) Both America and Britain abandoned native allies at war's end ( mountain people in Vietnam/Native American tribes)

5) Both America and Britain still had massive troop presence when they decided to pull the plug.

6) Both America and Britain were undone by popular opinion and political weariness in Washington and London respectively.

 trexmeyer wrote:
Why is Vietnam on that list then?

More bombs than WWII. They won but we kicked the crap out of NV.

Actual "I surrender" or "Forced them back":

Korean War
Grenada
Somalia I (with the US marines)
Iraq I-Iraq leaves Kuwait (or more properly anyone near Kuwait is not alive after three days)
Kosova: Serbia cries uncle
Iraq II-Hussein plays hide in a hole. Baathist regime toppled.
Libya-Can we do an email recall on that one?
Austin- Texas successfully builds the Marble Falls-Leander-Round Rock Great Shield Wall, to hold back the California zombie breakout in Austin. "Cedar Park, keeping Texas safe from the Bay Area since 1995"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
Why is Vietnam on that list then?

because while they gave us a pretty good fight, we kicked the crap out of them militarily. The only reason why we "lost" that war, was because the suits 3000 miles away gave up the fight.

Earth, Hitler, 1938