Article on Weight vs Firepower

Discussion in 'Infantry' started by Pluvia_Plumbum, Jul 2, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Interesting article with some good points. My counter would be the articles in BAR by Jarry & Carbuncle in the late 90's? which contrasted the British Infantry of 1944 and 1990. J

    Jarry highlightened a Platoon task he had to carry out in Holland in in which he had to keep the Germans away from a canal crossing. The nearest dyke bank was, if I remember correctly was a neat 1,000 yards. The rifles and Bren guns that formed the weapons of a rifle platoon in 1944 were capable of carrying out that task by themselves.

    The general thrust of the Jarry & Carbuncle articles were the authors felt that a Infantry unit of 1944 was better scaled and equiped to dominate ground out to a respectable range.

    The good points raised in the weight vs firepower are misdirected, to my mind. It's not the firepower available that is an issue, it's where that firepower is being carried. Too much is being carried by the rifle section.
  2. I like anyone that says I'm carrying to much stuff.

    The weapon is not really the problem though. Ammunition load may be one problem, but it realy comes down to how much other stuff you have to carry, even in fighting order.

    How the hell did they manage to procure a modern, digital radio that weighs even more than the one they got in the '70s? I have a long distance, digitally secure, two way communications device that fits in my pocket, and yet none of the good work done by the private sector in reducing size and boosting capability has gone in to Bowmen.
  3. Schaden

    Schaden LE Book Reviewer

    So where did William F Owen serve in the infantry and which war did he pick up the pearls of wisdom he's dropping before us...cause I for one think he's full of crap.
  4. Why? He might have choosen the wrong plaform to talk about. Few poeple ever complain about the weight of their personal weapon, but the idea of looking at weight reduction in line with capability increase, as opposed to the other way round, is quite novel.
  5. Interesting stuff - although he might be being a little dismissive of the utility of having IW that are effective beyone 2-300m. What would be interesting would be the views of anyone involved in recent firefights in Helmand - would they have preferred more rounds & less weight to carry but compromised on weapon range, or not?