Machine Guns and Cannons (Ground, Vehicle, and Aircraft Mounted Weapons)

[Maverick]

I think 'Guerilla' is a more apt term in this circumstance, given that not all of those who fight in Afghanistan are of Afghan stock.

Whilst I concur that the leadership of the current lot is rather less altruistic in their motives than they would have their followers believe, they use that aspect of their culture/faith in a way that wasn't the case with the 19th Century Afghan rebels.  Whether their motivations are similar is debatable.  I'd suggest that the modern insurgent leadership has a rather more strategic view of the conflict than did the tribes of the 19th century.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

The Afghans may be naive but they aren't dumb.  They've always used their faith as a rallying point.  While Flashman might be a novel, its a damned well researched one and you can see how cunning the Afghan leadership was then.  I see no reason to see that has substantially changed.  They still do things for their own benefit and of course tell their subordinates what they need to believe.

You got to take your hat off to the Afghans.  They've seen, each century the superpowers off, smarting.  First the British in the 19th century, then the Soviets and now the Americans.  If I was the leader of a nasty regime, I'd take notes.

[Maverick]

I agree on all points.  My only difference of opinion is that the Muslim faith of the 19th century Afghan was a more 'purer' form than the bastardised variation that the current crop of loonies use.

Certainly true that they have outwitted many who should have walked all over them.  Just a pity people didn't think of that when they began these various campaigns, but rarely are the lessons of history taken notice of, let alone learnt from.

Regards,

Mav

[Old Wombat]

While I refuse to get into a religious debate I will state that religion has been, & probably always will be, a political weapon, used to control & focus the minds of the masses against the "heathen" enemy.

The Afghan leaders of the 19th, 20th & 21st Centuries all knew/know this & use(d) it extremely effectively.

It is, however, a weapon that relies on a base of the ignorance & indoctrination of the masses, thus, in the West it is no longer an effective weapon as too many of us take our religion with a grain (or a bucket) of salt, whilst in the Middle East, South America & Africa it can be & is used as a weapon by an educated elite who generally have as little faith as most Westerners but who are smart enough to appear to be devout in their faith & to use that faith to aim their people at their enemies.

It's something of a Weapon of Mass Deception that brainwashes people into conducting suicide bombings & into using the other WMD's without remorse.

[rickshaw]

Mav, religion has always been used for propaganda purposes.  Indeed, the Catholic Church coined the term "propaganda" in 1622!  

As to which interpretation of any religion is the correct one or more "pure one", you'd get just as many arguments as there are schisms in any religious belief.  The Islamist Takfiri version which presently drives many of the Terrorists and their followers, as well as the insurgents in places like Afghanistan is merely a modern manifestation of the fundamentalist viewpoint.  It unfortunately directs the ire of its followers more against their co-religionists than even foreign interlopers of different religions.  It is remarkably similar to that of the original Protestant and Jesuits IMHO.   Europe suffered the 30 years war as a consequence.

Time and tide will eventually moderate it, as it did theirs'.  We just have to make sure they can't kill too many along the way.

[edit - Wombat has summed it up extremely well and there, I believe endeth the lesson!]

[jcf]

I agree on all points.  My only difference of opinion is that the Muslim faith of the 19th century Afghan was a more 'purer' form than the bastardised variation that the current crop of loonies use.

Certainly true that they have outwitted many who should have walked all over them.  Just a pity people didn't think of that when they began these various campaigns, but rarely are the lessons of history taken notice of, let alone learnt from.

Regards,

Mav

Their Islam is truly tribal, their leaders are of the tribe, their goals are of the tribe and the ultimate goal was to be left in their own peace:
not the peace of the British, not the peace of the American, not the peace of the Russians, not the peace of the Taliban or whoever else ruled
in Kandahar. Just the peace to sow their crops, herd their beasts and raise their children as they see fit.

[Weaver]

Just the peace to sow their crops, herd their beasts and raise their children as they see fit....

... and kill each other for their own reasons at a time and place oftheir own choosing....

[jcf]

Just the peace to sow their crops, herd their beasts and raise their children as they see fit....

... and kill each other for their own reasons at a time and place oftheir own choosing....

Yep, and free of all outside interference...some folks definition of paradise. 

[dy031101]

Curiosity: how does Ordnance QF 3 Pounder compare to other 47mm guns during Interwar and early WWII era?

Which one on this table is it?  47 x 186R or 47 x 351R?  Is it the same gun as the one used by the Medium Mark.III?

[Mr.Creak]

At a wild guess the 47 x 186R would be the L/32 (export) version and the 47 x 351R is the L/40 variant.
At only 560 m/ sec (L/40) it doesn't appear to be as powerful as most other 47mm guns of the period.

[dadlamassu]

Do you know what scale they're issuing the L129A1s at?

Off topic a little, but what's the opinion of the UGLs? Are they better or worse than M203s?

I've heard that the L129A1 will be issued at the rate of 1 to each marksman.  Probably 1 per section maybe 1 per fire team eventually.

We did not have any M203 to compare the UGL with but the Americans working with us were impressed by range and accuracy as well as the lethality of the round.  Hardly surprising as the technology behind our UGL (2000?) is much newer than the M203 (1969).

Someone said we forgot about snipers in the British Army - our snipers are deployed in 2-man teams and train as a "sniper platoon" to coordinate training and ensure high standards of marksmanship and fieldcraft.  They did this when I joined up in 1971 and according to "Sniper One" written about when we were in Iraq we still do.

[Weaver]

Do you know what scale they're issuing the L129A1s at?

Off topic a little, but what's the opinion of the UGLs? Are they better or worse than M203s?

I've heard that the L129A1 will be issued at the rate of 1 to each marksman.  Probably 1 per section maybe 1 per fire team eventually.

We did not have any M203 to compare the UGL with but the Americans working with us were impressed by range and accuracy as well as the lethality of the round.  Hardly surprising as the technology behind our UGL (2000?) is much newer than the M203 (1969).

Someone said we forgot about snipers in the British Army - our snipers are deployed in 2-man teams and train as a "sniper platoon" to coordinate training and ensure high standards of marksmanship and fieldcraft.  They did this when I joined up in 1971 and according to "Sniper One" written about when we were in Iraq we still do.

Cheers - interesting.

I never said that the British army forgot Sniping, in the sense of the highly specialised full-time activity persued by the two-man teams in the battalion recce platoon. What I said was that a number of armies, including the British, had either forgot or never recognised the value of the the Designated Marksman, i.e. the best shot in each regular section or platoon, who fights like a normal infantryman but who has the ability to provide accurate long-range fire when required.

[dadlamassu]

I never said that the British army forgot Sniping, in the sense of the highly specialised full-time activity persued by the two-man teams in the battalion recce platoon. What I said was that a number of armies, including the British, had either forgot or never recognised the value of the the Designated Marksman, i.e. the best shot in each regular section or platoon, who fights like a normal infantryman but who has the ability to provide accurate long-range fire when required.

Sorry, I misunderstood.  What is interesting is that the British Army has always concentrated (certainly in my 40 years) on raising the standard of individual marksmanship.  Way back in 70s-80s we had the "Shoot to Kill" training.  Then when SA80 was introduced we had to raise the standards of qualification because too many soldiers were qualifying as "marksmen"!

Our policy is to engage the enemy with single aimed shots and full auto only at very short ranges in desperate times with the rifle.  The LSW we used more as a marksman's weapon with its greater reach.  It also outranged the para-minimi by a factor of at least x2.  The minimi was fine in towns and short range stuff in Iraq but of very limited value in Afghanistan where the Taliban site their LMG, MMG and HMG as the killing weapons and the AK-47s are used to protect them when we get close.  Once the MG gunner is shot by the sniper the Taliban melt away.

We never lost the concept of the "marksnman" in my unit we concentrated on the marksmanship of every soldier.  Now we are recognising at last that the minimi is not fit for purpose in counteracting Taliban LMGs so we get a long range rifle emphasising the "marksman".  What we actually need is the marksman AND a long reach LMG/GPMG.

It is not a case of old soldiers hankering after the last weapon - hardly anyone in the fighting units has fired an SLR and only some have fired the GPMG.

[Weaver]

Oh yeah, the British army's obsession with accuracy goes WAY back...

Re-reading what I wrote, it strikes me that I might not have made my meaning clear: this is the first time (to my amateur knowledge) that the British Army has given a special weapon to Designated Marksmen. Of course, usage of the LSW has tended towards that as you've confirmed, but that wasn't the original intention. Perhaps they felt that the the generally high standard of accuracy made it unneccessary before, but with the difference in range performance between a 5.56mm assault rifle and a still-carryable scoped 7.62mm, there's more of a case for it. The Russians and the French have always recognised this, continuing to dish out Dragunovs and FR-F2s liberally at squad level despite the introduction of smaller calibre assault rifles.



[/quote]It is not a case of old soldiers hankering after the last weapon - hardly anyone in the fighting units has fired an SLR and only some have fired the GPMG.[/quote]

On another forum, there was an Iraq "lessons learned" article posted up, in which some US Marines reported that they were "shocked" by the stopping power and terminal effects of their M240, which is only a US version of the GPMG.....

I read an piece written by an SAS soldier who'd been in Oman in the late '60s/early '70s. The local tribal soldiers were loathe to swap their AKs for SLRs due to the weight and recoil of the latter, so they organised a shooting match between the two: it RAPIDLY changed minds, and then they had a problem getting enough SLRs....

[dy031101]

I am rather interested in the 16"/L50 gun that the Lexington class battlecruiser would have used...... the Wikipedia entry for the Iowa class battleship claimed that a Bureau of Ordnance actually came up with a preliminary design for a turret that could carry the 50 caliber guns in a barbette that could have fitted into the new battleship.  Does anyone know anything more about that preliminary design?  Such as how it looks like?