How Would You Arm A Squad

Over at Kim du Toit's forum a couple of questions came up that form the basis for a friendly discussion (i.e. no blood drawn - from vital organs at least) over the basis of arming a squad of soldiers. The first is here & the second is here.

Now there's one thing you should understand if you don't already - any questions asked amongst gun nuts about the best way to arm a squad or platoon is really a thinly veiled invitation to open the argument of battle rifles v. assault rifles as the idea general issue weapon.

To touch briefly on the underlying question - a battle rifle is a semi-automatic or select fire (capable of fully automatic fire) long gun firing a high powered cartridge. The FN-FAL is a battle rifle. An assault rifle is a select fire (not a semi-automatic) long gun that's slightly shorter & lighter than a battle rifle & fires an intermediate powered cartridge. The M16 is an assault rifle. (Note: the site linked above has various battle rifles grouped in with the assault rifles. This is an error on their part but an understandable one as the only criteria lacking in some examples is the chambering).

The arguments usually run thus: an assault rifle is better because the ammo for it weighs less; is more controllable in full auto fire & allows the firearm to be smaller & lighter than a full sized rifle thus making the soldier's burden lighter. A battle rifle is better because it allows for greater range of effective fire & is generally a more stable platform for aimed shots at medium to long ranges. The counter arguments are that the cartridges usually chambered in assault rifles are inadequate for putting an enemy down quickly (the counter to that is that A: it's better to wound the enemy thus tie up multiple troops in his care & B: multiple hits do the job & are easier than with a high powered weapon) & they lack range (which is countered by statistics from one source or another that alleges distances in combat seldom exceed 300 yards & thus the assault weapons are more than adequate 95% of the time).

I fall into the pro-battle rifle group. Assault weapons do have their place (such as in very close combat) but as a general issue weapon I'd prefer an honest to J.M. Browning battle rifle.

Without further explanation here are my choices for arming the fictional squad*:

Five different weapons will be issued:

FN-MAG
M1 Garand
BM-59 (in several variants)
Sterling
Tangfolio T95 (known to the U.S, as the EAA Witness

The CO & Exec carrying Sterlings or BM-59 PARA's or Garands (their choice) & EAA Witnesses
The Team Leaders carrying either a BM-59 or a Garand - their choice - & EAA Witnesses
Two machine gunners w/ FN MAG's in & EAA Witnesses
Two assistants to each MG each carrying BM-59 PARA's
Two designated marksmen carrying tuned Garands
Two soldiers carrying Garands
Two soldiers carrying BM-59 Mark IV's (as a Squad Automatic Weapon)

The BM-59's & Garand will be chambered for the .30-06 Springfield cartridge (not the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge). The Sterlings & the EAA Witnesses will be chambered for the 10mm cartridge. Basically I’d have 2 six man fire teams based around the MAG's (not counting the CO & Exec of course).

However before y'all start degrading the idea of the '06 as a combat round lemme explain something else - varied ammo.

Ya tune the Garands & BM-59's so there's a selector on the gas cylinder lock screw valve to adjust the gas flow. Two settings; one for the 165 grain bullets clocking 2650 fps or so (Muzzle Velocity from the Garand) another for the 125 grain bullets clocking 2800 fps or so (again MV from the Garand). Ideally in close quarters you'd use the 125's & when the range opens up you flick the selector & use the 165 grainers.

Logistical problems? Not really. We're not talking two non-interchangeable rounds for the rifles. As long as ammo gets to them then they'd be able to use it - worst case is it's less than ideal for conditions. Two cartridges to deal with & two power levels of one cartridge to choose from.

& if possible I'll throw in another variable - each squad will have some alternate choices of armaments. Let's say each squad has in reserve enough 10mm Sterlings to go around plus two scoped Garands & a half dozen Remington 870's modified to handle the Aguilla mini-shell (Come to think of it a mini-shell firing underbarrel shotgun might be neat underneath a BM-59 PARA). It's not always possible to re-equip due to conditions (for an assload of reasons) but say you're coming out of the desert into a city it'd be nice to switch things up a bit - though not totally necessary. For less mobile or mechanized use I'd include some Browning 1919's. Not really necessary to replace the MAG, but hell; a 1919 is a 1919. If you can have both then by all means have both.

That's how I'd ideally do it. But let's say one stipulation was using a currently manufactured military round (the '06 is only available as commercial or military surplus). Then I'd switch things up just a bit:

Replace one of the MAG's with two BM-59 Mark IV's in 7.62x51. Ditto for all the Garands except the Designated Marksmen - replace them with BM-59's in 7.62x51 & have the Designated Marksmen's Garands chambered for 7.62x51. But same as above - use two loadings - one with a 125 grainer for close in work & one with a 165 grainer for the more distant problems.

That makes:

The CO & Exec w/ either a BM-59 PARA or a Garand or a Sterling
The team leaders with either a BM-59 or a Garand
1 MAG
3 BM-59 Mark IV's
2 BM-59 Para's
2 Garands
2 BM-59's

Same sidearms & sidearm & submachinegun chambering as above. That makes one fire team centered on the MAG & the other centered on the two BM-59 Mark IV's. Two cartridges to deal with & two power levels of one cartridge to choose from.

It seems to me that it'd be much easier to have one cartridge w/ two different power levels than two different cartridges for different purposes as most people here have suggested. Modifying the gas cylinder lock screw valve to switch between the two wouldn't be a big deal & using either power level in every long gun beats the hell out of having your mates run out of ammo or vice versa.

The Garand design (which would include the BM-59 as it's just a modified Garand) & the '06 or 7.62x51 are still adequate for the needs of a military. Any complaints about being over powered can be answered by using reduced loads while still having the flexibility of going to the full power stuff. What it comes down to is with a battle rifle you can (if you plan ahead a bit) use a lighter load to fill an assault rifle role. You can't upgrade an assault rifle by throwing more powder behind a heavier bullet.

Chris Byrne asked why I chose the BM-59 & since I chose the BM-59 why I had a "plain" Garand in the mix.

The BM-59 is based on the Garand. IMHO the Garand is still a (if not the most) reliable & accurate platform from which to build a battle rifle. I opted for this particular variant because A: it has a detachable magazine to keep those box minded folks happy B: it's a little shorter & lighter than a standard Garand & C: it's select fire. Besides, life's too short to shoot an ugly gun.

As to why I "bother" with the Garand at all (such blasphemy!) it has a longer barrel (hence longer sight radius) & is a semi. I'd prefer to have a squad concentrate on aimed shots & having a few guys with semi-auto only rifles is a good way to stress this. The BM-59's in the mix should give all the full auto options a squad would need, while the Garands would give a slightly more accurate (mainly due to the sight radius) platform for aimed fire.

As always after you post something you inevitably realize there were things you left out. The FN-BAR Type D & the Colt Monitor come to mind. They're both variants of the 1918 BAR & the Type D is considered by some to be the BAR's finest incarnation. The Bren L4 is another good machine gun that I didn't consider.

As for the cartridge used in the pistols & submachineguns I really think that the full power 10mm is probably the best choice for a military sidearm that we have. Certainly better than the 9x19mm & I'd wager good Confederate dollars that it'd at least edge out the venerable .45 ACP. Yes it'd be a handful for some soldiers, but when you pull out a handgun the wounding theory bullshit ceases to be persuasive & you just want to put the enemy down. I belive the 10mm will do that better than any other autoloading cartridge that I know of.

So those are my choices. I didn't delve into the second question, which was the same one I attempted to answer above except your squad's armaments are provided with your funds. I thought about answering but realized it'd come down to a ballistic justification of which rocks I found lying around.

Head on over to Mr. du Toit's place & jump in; or if you like you're more than welcome to leave your thoughts here.

* It should be noted that the ideal squad is thought to consist of 12 soldiers, including the commanding officer (sergeant in this case), his executive & two team leaders. I opted for a 14 man squad.

Posted by Publicola at February 1, 2005 05:53 AM