View Full Version : Why not more suppressors for US combat troops?
I've been watching some recent combat footage in the Middle East, mostly just short clips and stuff around the web. Why is it that more suppressors are not used by the troops? Seems like with all the money spend on gear/vehicles/munitions and ect what's a few 100-1000$ more per active combat soldier. I understand a lot of speciality units use them, but what about the normal combat troops? Just interested in what people know on the topic, thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
09-13-16, 20:37
They get hot. They're heavy. They're unnecessary.
Critical heat levels come to mind for possible issue.
What Euro said too.
MOLON AABE
09-13-16, 21:28
A semi permanent mini suppressor on every issued weapon would be awesome. However there's got to be good reasoning why no major World Military Power has issued suppressors to their troops. The above posters listed 3 of the negatives of suppressor usage, although arguably the pros outweigh the cons.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
ColtSeavers
09-13-16, 21:35
You clearly never served. Pvt Snuffy fvcks up the simplest of things. Could you imagine the absolute disaster when, in combat, Snuffy's fvcked with suppressor decides not to play nice with live ammo, thanks to another day killed 'cleaning' his weapon in the barracks?
Now multiply that by thousands.
Why suppress rifles if the 240's and M2's are going along? Also take a lesson from Hal Moore, sometimes you need to listen to the battlefield to tell how things are going.
Why suppress rifles if the 240's and M2's are going along? Also take a lesson from Hal Moore, sometimes you need to listen to the battlefield to tell how things are going.
or vehicles. modern military units of any size are not quiet by any stretch
wildcard600
09-13-16, 22:27
Why suppress rifles if the 240's and M2's are going along? Also take a lesson from Hal Moore, sometimes you need to listen to the battlefield to tell how things are going.
or vehicles. modern military units of any size are not quiet by any stretch
Add in calling on armored, artillery and air support it is basically impossible for a modern conventional military unit to melt away into the woods/desert/jungle once contact is made with an enemy force.
Cheaper to issue ear pro.
I was issued ear pro, and I have serious hearing loss.
It would be a good thing. I hope it happens.
tvfreakarms
09-14-16, 03:14
I was issued ear pro, and I have serious hearing loss.
It would be a good thing. I hope it happens.
So the ear pro wasn't enough. That sucks u have major hearing loss
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
MOLON AABE
09-14-16, 07:00
You clearly never served. Pvt Snuffy fvcks up the simplest of things. Could you imagine the absolute disaster when, in combat, Snuffy's fvcked with suppressor decides not to play nice with live ammo, thanks to another day killed 'cleaning' his weapon in the barracks?
Now multiply that by thousands.
Pvt. Stuffy is issued NVG'S, DBAL's/PEQ's, Optics of every type imaginable, Grenade Launchers, and a Bayonet. Pvt. Snuffy Joe Dogface and Gomer Pyle are going to break stuff. That shouldn't be an excuse for NOT issuing suppressors. With a Suppressor attached in such a way making it Armorer serviceable for removal or repair I think you would have less issues than more issues.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Eurodriver
09-14-16, 07:07
Pvt. Stuffy is issued NVG'S, DBAL's/PEQ's, Optics of every type imaginable, Grenade Launchers, and a Bayonet. Pvt. Snuffy Joe Dogface and Gomer Pyle are going to break stuff. That shouldn't be an excuse for NOT issuing suppressors. With a Suppressor attached in such a way making it Armorer serviceable for removal or repair I think you would have less issues than more issues.
NVGs and PEQs provide an insanely increased level of force. Suppressors don't do anything except burn shit and get fused on to muzzle devices. Aside from some douchebag LCpls without any deployments under their belt I would put money that 90% of line infantrymen would say they do not even want them. It would be 100%, but you're always gonna have that 10% that don't even understand the question.
I was issued ear pro, and I have serious hearing loss.
It would be a good thing. I hope it happens.
You have serious hearing loss from rifle fire? Or from...EOD experiences?
HelloLarry
09-14-16, 07:39
That's something I've always wondered about. I never served, so pardon my ignorance, but what does GI Joe do to protect his hearing and hear battlefield ... uh.. "conversation"?
My dad came from the days when GIs stuffed cigarette butts in their ears. He had severe hearing loss.
How many hearing safe rifle suppressors are out there? Not a suppressor expert by any means, but I thought truly hearing safe when running supersonic ammo were unicorns. Unless my facts are screwy what advantage would a suppressor bring to the table for the average GI? They would only promote more hearing loss since folks would assume that hearing pro wasn't needed and all they will hear is a small hiss like James Bond. Combine that with the agility of the average 18 yo PFC to **** up a wet dream I'm not sure the extra thing brings enough to the table to warrant the investment.
You clearly never served. Pvt Snuffy fvcks up the simplest of things. Could you imagine the absolute disaster when, in combat, Snuffy's fvcked with suppressor decides not to play nice with live ammo, thanks to another day killed 'cleaning' his weapon in the barracks?
Now multiply that by thousands.
You are right I thinking that I have never served, cardiac issues kept me out. I give thanks to those that have served every chance I get, they are certainly deserving.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The military needs to spend more time getting leaders to teach and mentor FM's than SHARP non-sense, more money on quality equipment instead of PEO and the like developed rip-offs, more time executing "functional" physical training towards increasing combat effectiveness than hubris fed naïve realism, more time on preparing for war fighting than social constructs and experiments. Not equipping suppressors to line soldiers where they would be essentially a mute point (no pun intended) when in an actual force on force battle and the chaos it involves.
Would they be cool? Yes. Would they have a mission role? Yes, but it would be a rarity.
Mike Miller
09-14-16, 10:36
There was an article in the May 2007 Marine Corps Gazette that argued the same thing. I only know because I remembered reading my physical copy.
Not sure if libraries carry this magazine.
https://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/2007/05/need-suppressors
edit: link requires a subscription, just given to help find it in a library.
MOLON AABE
09-14-16, 11:28
Polling line troops about what they need or want would be a bad standard to implement equipment issue. We've all met the guy (s) that would rather not wear body armor, leave their NVG' on the PB/FOB, or feel that 7 mags is too much ammo, or "feel" that their M4 isn't reliable.
Suppressors do get hot. So do muzzle devices, FSB's, barrels, and mufflers on MRAP's and 7-Tons.
Yes, an exsplosive going off in your immediate vicinity will still be loud and damage your hearing, so will any number of battlefield occurrences. None of these reasons are a real justification IMHO to not general issue cans to Line units forward deployed.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
HelloLarry
09-14-16, 11:48
Sometimes it helps to take a proposition to the illogical or impossible extreme and see if it still makes sense. For instance, "would it be a good thing if we could somehow silence/muffle (for our troops) all the explosions of war?" If that makes sense, then it may be profitable to work on muffling the things we actually can muffle.
You may not see silencers on every rifle any time soon, but I think it is a trend.
Polling line troops about what they need or want would be a bad standard to implement equipment issue. We've all met the guy (s) that would rather not wear body armor, leave their NVG' on the PB/FOB, or feel that 7 mags is too much ammo, or "feel" that their M4 isn't reliable.
Suppressors do get hot. So do muzzle devices, FSB's, barrels, and mufflers on MRAP's and 7-Tons.
Yes, an exsplosive going off in your immediate vicinity will still be loud and damage your hearing, so will any number of battlefield occurrences. None of these reasons are a real justification IMHO to not general issue cans to Line units forward deployed.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Resources are better spent elsewhere than on suppressors.
MOLON AABE
09-14-16, 12:43
Resources are better spent elsewhere than on suppressors.
What equipment would you rather see purchased with the funds it would take to hypothetically take to equip combat troops with suppressors?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
What equipment would you rather see purchased with the funds it would take to hypothetically take to equip combat troops with suppressors?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I am not trying to debate, but resources are more than just funds. Would suppressors be beneficial? Yes, but there are far more prudent things that should be priority over them that would elicit higher levels of combat effectiveness. I have already listed some.
It seems that the Marines are working with Colt Canada on an integrally suppressed M4. Check this out: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016/07/15/us-marine-corps-working-with-colt-canada/
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
It's been a couple of months since I watched that loooooong video, but it's interesting if you have the time.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I thought the ISR was nixed?
We already have a problem with our frontline troops actually hitting the bad guys. I don't see adding a pound of metal to the end of their barrel helping to decrease that issue.
Eurodriver
09-14-16, 13:34
This thread has absolutely nothing of value. The question was: "Why not more suppressors for US combat troops?" This reminds me of Counter-Strike message boards circa 2003 - all bullshit, no experience.
FYI - I am "that guy" who would rather not wear body armor in certain situations. Try humping 11km in moon dust carrying all your shit. If anyone rolled up on us we would have been so ****ed because we were totally and utterly exhausted. Why was it on? SOP. No legitimate reason whatsoever.
In cities? In vehicles? Sure. But why the **** are you wearing 20lbs of armor when its 117* and the closet city is Hit, which is so ****ing far away you can barely see it at night with all its lights on. Even Napolean knew that was a bad idea. Now you wanna add another pound of uselessness to the loadout yet no one can justify the logistics, cost, and weight penalty...
Now that I write it out, it makes perfect military sense. Useless, expensive, and cumbersome. I think we'll have them in a few years at most.
What equipment would you rather see purchased with the funds it would take to hypothetically take to equip combat troops with suppressors?
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I would much rather see the $$ spent on better lighter armor that folks won't leave @ the FOB or kill them on a long march. Maybe better LBE that doesn't kill your back. Maybe more training on fighting a war.
You need to look at what return the investment will bring. What improvement to every day operations will a suppressor bring?
That's something I've always wondered about. I never served, so pardon my ignorance, but what does GI Joe do to protect his hearing and hear battlefield ... uh.. "conversation"?
My dad came from the days when GIs stuffed cigarette butts in their ears. He had severe hearing loss.
Heres a few links to some of the solutions while I was in service
https://www.amazon.com/Military-Earplugs-Plastic-Case-Chain/dp/B001ARPNW2/ref=pd_sim_469_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=9HSQWA2RVRX2B75A2S35
https://www.amazon.com/3M-Peltor-Combat-Arms-Earplugs/dp/B000W2CPCC
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Gentex-DH-132-Medium-CVC-Helmet-Combat-Vehicle-Crewman-/152221808424
This thread has absolutely nothing of value. The question was: "Why not more suppressors for US combat troops?" This reminds me of Counter-Strike message boards circa 2003 - all bullshit, no experience.
FYI - I am "that guy" who would rather not wear body armor in certain situations. Try humping 11km in moon dust carrying all your shit. If anyone rolled up on us we would have been so ****ed because we were totally and utterly exhausted. Why was it on? SOP. No legitimate reason whatsoever.
In cities? In vehicles? Sure. But why the **** are you wearing 20lbs of armor when its 117* and the closet city is Hit, which is so ****ing far away you can barely see it at night with all its lights on. Even Napolean knew that was a bad idea. Now you wanna add another pound of uselessness to the loadout yet no one can justify the logistics, cost, and weight penalty...
Now that I write it out, it makes perfect military sense. Useless, expensive, and cumbersome. I think we'll have them in a few years at most.
This is part of what I was getting at. Much like leaders being oblivious to FM 21-18 in regards to load management.
"The ability of a soldier to march and fight is directly related to his load. The maximum individual load limit cannot be exceeded as an infantry soldier will not accomplish his mission. Soldiers fight light with only the equipment required for the immediate mission. They receive additional weapon systems and materiel when required. Effective individual fighting load's and minimum approach march loads can only be achieved through safeguarding and transporting portions of the load--commanders must decide to tailor loads that result from risk analysis. Transportation resources must be used to avoid excessive loads on soldiers such as CLOHE at company level and SLOHE at battalion level."
"Hey I have a great idea, let's throw every god damn thing on our OCIE list into our rucks just because."
it cost roughly $17k to outfit just 1 infantry man, that is taking in account the gun, optic, uniform, boots, helmet, NVG, plate carrier, chest rig, radio, etc. etc. The way our military is set up, if they passed around silencers to all infantry, they would have to have a 1 week school to teach them about it, publish 2 informational books on the silencer and yes, the military can get a silencer had for around $400 but what is the point. The infantry arrives with tanks, bradleys, strikers, and 5000 other men so there is no real need to be quiet.
it cost roughly $17k to outfit just 1 infantry man, that is taking in account the gun, optic, uniform, boots, helmet, NVG, plate carrier, chest rig, radio, etc. etc. The way our military is set up, if they passed around silencers to all infantry, they would have to have a 1 week school to teach them about it, publish 2 informational books on the silencer and yes, the military can get a silencer had for around $400 but what is the point. The infantry arrives with tanks, bradleys, strikers, and 5000 other men so there is no real need to be quiet.
It would have its niche within small unit tactics here at there, but like already mentioned, the return on investment. It would be minute at the line level. Leave them to the tier one guys.
I'd give it 30 sends before started going missing to boot.
Personally, I'd rather see the funds put into phased plasma rifles. DOOM. BFG anyone?
MOLON AABE
09-14-16, 15:33
I am not trying to debate, but resources are more than just funds. Would suppressors be beneficial? Yes, but there are far more prudent things that should be priority over them that would elicit higher levels of combat effectiveness. I have already listed some.
Gotcha, I skipped over your previous post accidentally.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
ChoppinFatTony
09-14-16, 15:49
The biggest issue we had with the few cans that we had(pre socom surefire cans) was that after the amount of rounds for trainup(baffle strikes included) we could never get enough unit funds to aqquire new ones to replace them. While some still used them, there effects were not worth the extra length/weight on already front heavy M4A1's with then PEQ2, M203, 9volt old surefire lights for us to push for more.
MOLON AABE
09-14-16, 15:55
"In fiscal year 2009, the VA paid approximately $1.1 billion to compensate 1.2 million veterans who filed claims for service-connected hearing impairments"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6028a4.htm
In other reports that increased to $1.4 Billion in 2010, and as of now it is estimated to cost $2 billion a year. Granted much of that cost is due to those that are now out of service, but still in the long wrote funding for suppressing all Military small arms has got to pale in comparison.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Averageman
09-14-16, 16:07
I believe the current direction FORSCOM is going is to get back to the "Cold War" era of vehicle maintenance with a very high degree of that emphasis being placed on Company level Officers getting down to where the maintenance is taking place and doing their jobs as they were circa late 1980's Europe.
Suppressors would just at this point be one more piece of equipment that's not going to be used or maintained to that standard.
When I start seeing O-3's pulling dip sticks and carrying a notebook and a dash ten in their hands I'll reconsider it.
I honestly believe with some weapons systems you can ear pro all day, the concussive force is going to cause the damage anyway.
"In fiscal year 2009, the VA paid approximately $1.1 billion to compensate 1.2 million veterans who filed claims for service-connected hearing impairments"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6028a4.htm
In other reports that increased to $1.4 Billion in 2010, and as of now it is estimated to cost $2 billion a year. Granted much of that cost is due to those that are now out of service, but still in the long wrote funding for suppressing all Military small arms has got to pale in comparison.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
It is an issue as I have tinnitus from an IED, but I bet those costs pale in comparison to the costs of injuries due to improper load management, lackluster equipment, misguided physical training, etc.
ColtSeavers
09-14-16, 16:09
"In fiscal year 2009, the VA paid approximately $1.1 billion to compensate 1.2 million veterans who filed claims for service-connected hearing impairments"
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6028a4.htm
In other reports that increased to $1.4 Billion in 2010, and as of now it is estimated to cost $2 billion a year. Granted much of that cost is due to those that are now out of service, but still in the long wrote funding for suppressing all Military small arms has got to pale in comparison.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
How many of those are combat related? How many of those are from being dumb and not wearing your ear plugs on range quals? How many other things in the military make hearing loss noise levels and are all of those things going to be sound suppressed now as well?
"They are too heavy!"
Many modern suppressors are quite light, from the Brevis II Ultra at 7.5oz to the Crux Nemsis at 9oz to the Sig SRD TI at 12.7oz, and the Omega at ~14oz depending on options, and there are many others both direct thread and QD. These are not the hulking behemoths of old. The overall weight is still far bellow some older weapon systems, and could easily be made up if necessary from lightening other components
"They cost too much!"
With the budget being what it is, there is more than enough room for large scale suppressor acquisitions. Even with how massively inefficient the system can be and often is. Why are we making the assumption that the money most come off of something else going into R&D for infantry? There are many other places it could be pulled from.
A suppressed weapon system could be designed from the ground up like the Canadians are attempting, or retrofitted to our current systems, either would work well.
"They don't have any benefits!"
This seems like the least well thought out objection of all. They have many benefits. Beyond helping to save your hearing and the hearing of those around you, they can increase situational awareness, make enemy and allied fire easier to distinguish, and make communication easier (though obviously this is all situational, not enough for it to not be valuable though). Suppressors also reduce flash signature, dust up, and can increase accuracy both mechanical and by decreasing shooter error. Again, not useful in every situation but almost nothing is.
"Morons will break them!"
Morons will break anything, doesn't mean that most folks cannot handle them properly.
Now I am not saying that everyone should deploy with a suppressor, or that they should be a top priority. But the arguments above needed some refutation.
This thread has absolutely nothing of value. The question was: "Why not more suppressors for US combat troops?" This reminds me of Counter-Strike message boards circa 2003 - all bullshit, no experience.
FYI - I am "that guy" who would rather not wear body armor in certain situations. Try humping 11km in moon dust carrying all your shit. If anyone rolled up on us we would have been so ****ed because we were totally and utterly exhausted. Why was it on? SOP. No legitimate reason whatsoever.
In cities? In vehicles? Sure. But why the **** are you wearing 20lbs of armor when its 117* and the closet city is Hit, which is so ****ing far away you can barely see it at night with all its lights on. Even Napolean knew that was a bad idea. Now you wanna add another pound of uselessness to the loadout yet no one can justify the logistics, cost, and weight penalty...
Now that I write it out, it makes perfect military sense. Useless, expensive, and cumbersome. I think we'll have them in a few years at most.
I rarely wore body armor on my last two deployments. But you know what I always had? A suppressor on my rifle.
I honestly don't see a reason to ever take it off of my rifle unless for some reason my MK18 couldn't fit somewhere with it on. Why would I not want a rifle that is quieter, more accurate, has less recoil, and is more stable? My job is to shoot, move and communicate. The suppressor helps me accomplish 2 of those better. I think in the future you will see almost universal usage of suppressors on 556 guns in SOF, which we are well on our way to already.
Rick
What equipment would you rather see purchased with the funds it would take to hypothetically take to equip combat troops with suppressors?
What I hear from my (admitedly young) Army Infantry officer son: Ammo, travel funding, and staff for field training
Not that there are not benefits, just that when your budget is very tight in line units and schools are hard to get, they would pick other things most likely.
Cost, complexity and mission.
I wish the boys all had cans. But for the love of God, you see those men running around with no optics. That drives me nuts. If they all had ACOGS and Suppressors.
PB
ExplorinInTheWoods
09-15-16, 14:21
I like suppressors but you won't see them in regular army. You need to have a muzzle device that accepts a blank firing adapter, because the army shoots blanks probably about 20 times more often than they do live rounds. Also for a unit armorer they aren't even allowed to tighten up the "A2 compensator", the army is not run by gun guys and most dudes in infantry land and even SOF are not gun junkies. I've met more dudes who would drop $2k on a gaming lap top than guys who would drop $500 on a glock. Suppressors also dry your AR up quick because of the extra pressure, and dudes aren't always on top of cleaning and lubing their rifles. But if you have belt guns like 240's and 249's then what would be the point? The scout sections don't even have them unless it's their m110's.
Integrally suppressing the carbine like what Colt Canada is working on could solve that problem though, by optimizing the gas system for suppression and by having some kind of way built in to attach a blank fitting adapter.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
MOLON AABE
09-15-16, 15:22
1. Keep BFA equipped uppers on hand for the shit show that is MILES training.
2. The level of armorer that currently is granted authority to tighten A-2 Flash Hiders would tighten the issued suppressors if it somehow loosened. (Could also just weld the damn things on)
3. Whether individual Soldiers are "Gun Guys" is irrelevant to the topic.
4. Inspect, PM, and lube your weapon once daily (at least) suppressed or not, it might only save you or your buddy's life.
5. Suppress the belt feds too.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
ChoppinFatTony
09-15-16, 15:27
Molon the only issue I see is the 2 upper idea, while it sounds good on paper, in reality in a 'combat arms' unit, 2 uppers would quickly become a S.I. nightmare. We all know 2 sets of optics/lasers wouldn't happen and that kit is a needed one in the standard dry fire/blank fire/live fire training cycle on live fire ranges.
Sent from my SM-G550T using Tapatalk
MOLON AABE
09-15-16, 15:56
Better yet stop using blanks all together
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
ChoppinFatTony
09-15-16, 16:47
Oh I agree, sim rounds would be more beneficial
Sent from my SM-G550T using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
09-15-16, 20:20
I rarely wore body armor on my last two deployments. But you know what I always had? A suppressor on my rifle.
I honestly don't see a reason to ever take it off of my rifle unless for some reason my MK18 couldn't fit somewhere with it on. Why would I not want a rifle that is quieter, more accurate, has less recoil, and is more stable? My job is to shoot, move and communicate. The suppressor helps me accomplish 2 of those better. I think in the future you will see almost universal usage of suppressors on 556 guns in SOF, which we are well on our way to already.
Rick
We are talking about infantry line units and not SOF or really any tier above big line infantry battalions.
Marines are in Afghanistan right now with M16A4s. You want them to throw a suppressor on the end of that? The LCpl standing post at this very second got a total of 12 hours of Table 2 firing in pre-deployment training, one ride in a HEAT trainer, and a "Don't go searching for no purple heart" talk from a salty ass SNCO. Ask me how I know.
What does he need a suppressor for? He doesn't. What he needs is more time behind his weapon. He needs more combat experienced instructors to train him how to deploy his rifle effectively and do shit like shoot it when all he's been up all night and his optic is covered in moisture. He needs to know how to effectively counter an ambush when he's been up all night and right as he's about to get off the enemy starts pounding him beyond the effective range of his rifle because they snuck up on the edge of a valley overlooking his piss poorly planned location for an OP. These things take time and money and don't offer very good metrics for proving to congressmen that the funding was well spent - so no one does it.
It makes sense this forum would support the idea for a suppressor - everyone likes to have the neatest gear and kit so they can take fancy pictures. But the training element is almost nill everywhere - check out the activity level in the training forum vs AR general. In that regard, it's not very different from combat arms battalions in the military.
I don't think anyone thinks a suppressor is an inherently bad thing to have (Unless you've got that M16A4...) Instead the issue is that for real life procurement and purchasing situations all of those tens of millions of dollars could be better spent making a more effective warfighter rather than giving him a suppressor to quiet his rifle down while an unsuppressed M240B fires over his head anyway...
Everyone wants to discuss hardware, but no one ever talks about software. You know this better than anyone.
An A4 with a suppressor would be miserable. That is all the training you received. Holy sh*t Batman. I thought my unit sucked with all its a** f*ckery.
MOLON AABE
09-15-16, 21:34
We are talking about infantry line units and not SOF or really any tier above big line infantry battalions.
Marines are in Afghanistan right now with M16A4s. You want them to throw a suppressor on the end of that? The LCpl standing post at this very second got a total of 12 hours of Table 2 firing in pre-deployment training, one ride in a HEAT trainer, and a "Don't go searching for no purple heart" talk from a salty ass SNCO. Ask me how I know.
What does he need a suppressor for? He doesn't. What he needs is more time behind his weapon. He needs more combat experienced instructors to train him how to deploy his rifle effectively and do shit like shoot it when all he's been up all night and his optic is covered in moisture. He needs to know how to effectively counter an ambush when he's been up all night and right as he's about to get off the enemy starts pounding him beyond the effective range of his rifle because they snuck up on the edge of a valley overlooking his piss poorly planned location for an OP. These things take time and money and don't offer very good metrics for proving to congressmen that the funding was well spent - so no one does it.
It makes sense this forum would support the idea for a suppressor - everyone likes to have the neatest gear and kit so they can take fancy pictures. But the training element is almost nill everywhere - check out the activity level in the training forum vs AR general. In that regard, it's not very different from combat arms battalions in the military.
I don't think anyone thinks a suppressor is an inherently bad thing to have (Unless you've got that M16A4...) Instead the issue is that for real life procurement and purchasing situations all of those tens of millions of dollars could be better spent making a more effective warfighter rather than giving him a suppressor to quiet his rifle down while an unsuppressed M240B fires over his head anyway...
Everyone wants to discuss hardware, but no one ever talks about software. You know this better than anyone.
1. All Infantry Marines are slated to receive M4's in the near future. Plus even if some M16A4s do stay in Frontline service it takes but the swapping of an upper to turn the musket-rifle into a handier package.
2. This isn't about robbing Peter to pay Paul. No one would argue that PEQ 15/16's were a waste of resources that could have been better spent on training.
3. The state of training in the Marine Corps Infantry Battalions are a sorry state. Stand by to stand by for word that will change in 15 mikes. All the time spent standing by to see who is getting sent to what working party for Supply, or the endless shuffling of Gunnys office and supplies, or the hours of time spent scrubbing allready clean weapons are what are killing time that could be spent in the back 40, or Bn training area doing patrolling, IED lanes, force on force, 9 Lines, CLS, Land Nav, Dry Fire, KIMS games, detainee handling, defense, buddy rushes, comms, or setting up an ambush. It takes no funds to do this, the leadership is lazy and or incompetent. Granted we (Grunts on Camp Pendleton) did these things and more but it was second fiddle to how well the Bn area looked, or how much time could be spent filling out pointless rosters, or standing in formation waiting on Gunny or 1st Sgt to come out and blame the entire unit for a DUI.
TLDR?
New mission enabling equipment is not to blame for piss poor standards, lazy incompetent, cock sucking, knuckle dragging SNCO's, and Officers are, and the budget for training usually isn't underfunded due to new equipment being procured and issued.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
MOLON AABE
09-15-16, 21:37
One word for the nay-sayers Mk12.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
I think the point about breaking them is moot. We break everything we touch, and a can is going to be significantly tougher than my PEQ-15(Which I broke the housing of, no idea how, found it in my tent in Mahmudiyah).
Yes 240's are loud, but I never once dismounted with one in Iraq. They stayed in the turret. I want suppressors for all for two reasons:
1. Communication. Anyone who has fired any round above a 22 inside of a building or in between two buildings without earpro on can attest to the nearly complete destruction of hearing that takes place. I need to communicate with my team, and cans would make that immensely easier. For the record, we didn't have Peltors, or any electronic earpro. We had MBITRs and the green and yellow plugs... in a case attached to a belt loop most of the time. I never once took the time to use them and often ended up looking like the guy from Blackhawk Down who had the saw shot by his face.
2. Identifying who is shooting and where from. How much easier it would be if I knew everytime I heard an unsupressed round it wasn't from my side? Priceless.
Also, for what it's worth, my prospective is from a member of a Scout/Sniper platoon who had all M4's and M110's. Only the 110's had suppressors. We didn't unpack the 107's from the CONEX.
1. All Infantry Marines are slated to receive M4's in the near future. Plus even if some M16A4s do stay in Frontline service it takes but the swapping of an upper to turn the musket-rifle into a handier package.
2. This isn't about robbing Peter to pay Paul. No one would argue that PEQ 15/16's were a waste of resources that could have been better spent on training.
3. The state of training in the Marine Corps Infantry Battalions are a sorry state. Stand by to stand by for word that will change in 15 mikes. All the time spent standing by to see who is getting sent to what working party for Supply, or the endless shuffling of Gunnys office and supplies, or the hours of time spent scrubbing allready clean weapons are what are killing time that could be spent in the back 40, or Bn training area doing patrolling, IED lanes, force on force, 9 Lines, CLS, Land Nav, Dry Fire, KIMS games, detainee handling, defense, buddy rushes, comms, or setting up an ambush. It takes no funds to do this, the leadership is lazy and or incompetent. Granted we (Grunts on Camp Pendleton) did these things and more but it was second fiddle to how well the Bn area looked, or how much time could be spent filling out pointless rosters, or standing in formation waiting on Gunny or 1st Sgt to come out and blame the entire unit for a DUI.
TLDR?
New mission enabling equipment is not to blame for piss poor standards, lazy incompetent, cock sucking, knuckle dragging SNCO's, and Officers are, and the budget for training usually isn't underfunded due to new equipment being procured and issued.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Based on the last two paragraphs of this post the only difference between the Army and Marine infantry is the uniform and swimming. Holy shit. So much truth here.
skimbleshanks
09-16-16, 00:07
I would guess that the vast majority of soldiers and marines don't need them and really don't want ANOTHER pound of gear added on their backpack or weapon. Let's face it lots of guys spend lots of time manning check points, that's a really high visibility job and a suppressor really doesn't add to their effectiveness.
Leonidas24
09-16-16, 02:54
Even when I was assigned to a mech unit I still had more shit I had to carry around than was completely necessary. I'm with Eurodriver on this one, especially coming from a mech company that deployed in 2008 there was absolutely no reason for us to have suppressors. Granted, we had a couple we used to shoot dogs with, and the PLT leaders thought it made them look badass like their M9's, that shit got old quick and stowed in a connex and never saw the light of day except for armsroom inventories. Between the Bradleys that could be seen tracking up from four miles away, and the thump thump thump of 25mm cannons, suppressors would have done dick for us.
As far as where they'd fit I think a unit that was issued 11.5-12.5 inch barrels on general purpose carbines that worked in small teams for long periods of time behind enemy lines with the possibility of evading enemy capture and ID, then they would see the most benefit. Then again we already have that it's called SOF and they already have suppressors. So there. Big Army needs carbine suppressors like it needs another broke-dick PFC working in S1.
If they designed a new upper that had an integral suppressor Im all for it. Slapping one on a M4 or god forbid an A4, not so much.
Im with Leonidas24... screw being quiet, bring a Bradley and 25mm all the things!
Worked in 2003
Tank... 25mm
APC... 25mm
Toyota Hilux... 25mm
Single dude in a field... 25mm
locked door... 25mm
Holy shit you just gave me a flashback to the Corps ! Spot on !
1. All Infantry Marines are slated to receive M4's in the near future. Plus even if some M16A4s do stay in Frontline service it takes but the swapping of an upper to turn the musket-rifle into a handier package.
2. This isn't about robbing Peter to pay Paul. No one would argue that PEQ 15/16's were a waste of resources that could have been better spent on training.
3. The state of training in the Marine Corps Infantry Battalions are a sorry state. Stand by to stand by for word that will change in 15 mikes. All the time spent standing by to see who is getting sent to what working party for Supply, or the endless shuffling of Gunnys office and supplies, or the hours of time spent scrubbing allready clean weapons are what are killing time that could be spent in the back 40, or Bn training area doing patrolling, IED lanes, force on force, 9 Lines, CLS, Land Nav, Dry Fire, KIMS games, detainee handling, defense, buddy rushes, comms, or setting up an ambush. It takes no funds to do this, the leadership is lazy and or incompetent. Granted we (Grunts on Camp Pendleton) did these things and more but it was second fiddle to how well the Bn area looked, or how much time could be spent filling out pointless rosters, or standing in formation waiting on Gunny or 1st Sgt to come out and blame the entire unit for a DUI.
TLDR?
New mission enabling equipment is not to blame for piss poor standards, lazy incompetent, cock sucking, knuckle dragging SNCO's, and Officers are, and the budget for training usually isn't underfunded due to new equipment being procured and issued.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Eurodriver
09-16-16, 10:06
TLDR?
New mission enabling equipment is not to blame for piss poor standards, lazy incompetent, cock sucking, knuckle dragging SNCO's, and Officers are, and the budget for training usually isn't underfunded due to new equipment being procured and issued.
You still haven't said how adding suppressors to the standard USGI loadout "enables" anything except reducing VA benefit costs (which we know is BS, because everyone runs straight to the VA for tinnitus as soon as they get out whether or not they deployed or even have real hearing damage...)
Adding a suppressor to the end of an M4 would make for quite a less effective infantryman. He's going to get gas in his eyes since his ACOG only has 1.5" of eye relief and it's going to be quite a heavy SOB to maneuver when you're shooting at someone.
MOLON AABE
09-16-16, 10:56
You still haven't said how adding suppressors to the standard USGI loadout "enables" anything except reducing VA benefit costs (which we know is BS, because everyone runs straight to the VA for tinnitus as soon as they get out whether or not they deployed or even have real hearing damage...)
Adding a suppressor to the end of an M4 would make for quite a less effective infantryman. He's going to get gas in his eyes since his ACOG only has 1.5" of eye relief and it's going to be quite a heavy SOB to maneuver when you're shooting at someone.
1. Less noise = Better comms
2. Reduced signature: flash, smoke, and dust.
3. Reduced muzzle climb.
4. Easier to I.D. who is shooting (us or them)
Gas in the face: There are ways to mitigate gas but honestly the KAC can I was issued for my M4A1 had such low amounts of gas that it was a non issue.
Weight: The extra weight and length was of little consequence and was not a deal breaker, your max adding another pound. If a pound will kill a Grunt then that guy shouldn't be one. There are easier ways to lose a pound of gear weight.
Length: If you take a 14.5" barrel and add a 4-7" direct thread permanently attached can to the end your not giving up much in the way of portability.
Heat: Yep, don't touch it. You did? Betcha you won't do it again!
Unsuppressible Weapons( Javelin, SMAW, LAW, AT4, Carl Gustav,
Mk19, M-2HB/M2A1, TOW, Bradley/LAV-25 25MM Chain Gun etc):
Yep they're loud. Yes you will lose some hearing if you use them or are in the vicinity when they are being used if you don't plug up. Oh well. All but the first 5 are usually mounted on trucks/vics. The crewmen should be hooked up into comms which offer a bit of ear protection.
(P.S. if you have to shoot a SMAW and don't have time to plug up you have bigger problems)
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Eurodriver
09-16-16, 12:00
All valid points.
Too bad it will never happen.
Semper Fidelis,
E Plurubus Unum,
Novus Ordo Seclorum
MOLON AABE
09-16-16, 13:13
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160916/d38144441a4f094bc3bc6646479c57d5.jpg
http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160916/f8f53f590cdd2b4643bc834f7cbfb47f.jpg
Quick! Someone tell these Infantrymen that they missed out on quality training due to budget cuts over being issued a suppressor with those Mk12's!
Better watch out for burns!
Better post a Marine to follow these DM's around, they might break or lose their suppressors!
Someone take those cans away! They look too heavy, that extra pound is going to slow them down!
How in the hell will that 4' long rifle fit in the back of the 7-ton?
;)
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
The short added length and very low blow back is why I love my ops Inc can.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I used to bounce back and forth between being a crunchy in a dismount squad and a Brad driver in a mounted squad. Fun to drive, miserable to maintenance. Nothing like hearing that 25 rip. I would like to see suppressors eventually, but only after they get their heads out of their asses first. Unless there is a fundemental change, I do not see that happening.
I've been watching some recent combat footage in the Middle East, mostly just short clips and stuff around the web. Why is it that more suppressors are not used by the troops? Seems like with all the money spend on gear/vehicles/munitions and ect what's a few 100-1000$ more per active combat soldier. I understand a lot of speciality units use them, but what about the normal combat troops? Just interested in what people know on the topic, thanks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I starting watching this recently: on Discovery on Tuesday nights there is a new show, 'Taking Fire'. It is following a platoon from the 101st and I noticed their Platoon Sgt, SFC, I do believe, has/had a suppressor on his M4. I was a little curious, myself, so hopefully we will get some good info from those that are 'in the know' on this subject.
Eurodriver
09-16-16, 17:57
I used to bounce back and forth between being a crunchy in a dismount squad and a Brad driver in a mounted squad. Fun to drive, miserable to maintenance. Nothing like hearing that 25 rip. I would like to see suppressors eventually, but only after they get their heads out of their asses first. Unless there is a fundemental change, I do not see that happening.
I think we should just disband the entire infantry as it is and use drones and airpower.
I'm only slightly kidding. Why do we need boots on the ground anymore? We can still have "infantry" - but in the same sense that LAR functions. No need to have all these dudes walking around laying exposed. Keep them armored up in vehicles with a big Mk19 on the roof and 4" of armor between them and Haji
No need to have all these dudes walking around laying exposed. Keep them armored up in vehicles with a big Mk19 on the roof and 4" of armor between them and Haji
What is this anti-COINista heresy you speak of, Mr Galula???
Infantry will never be obsolete. I do not think it should either. There is a time & place for vics, and a time & place for beating feet. Just as there is for body armor, rucks, and so on. If only the fools understood this. It is not like there are not countless FM's, books, AAR's, first hand accounts, etc. from lessons learned from generations of war fighters. But...since when do we learn from the past anymore. #wisdomisnotathinganymore
Who said they did not dismount patrol with 240's? Must have been nice. I was an auto-rifleman my first, and a team-leader/rifleman my second, and every damn time I was on patrol I got stuck as an AG, carrying the 240, or was LT's radioman. I do not think I was ever able to be just a rifleman. Even in OSUT I had one of those big a** radios that weighed like 20lbs.
Who said they did not dismount patrol with 240's? Must have been nice. I was an auto-rifleman my first, and a team-leader/rifleman my second, and every damn time I was on patrol I got stuck as an AG, carrying the 240, or was LT's radioman. I do not think I was ever able to be just a rifleman. Even in OSUT I had one of those big a** radios that weighed like 20lbs.
That's me, brother! 240's stayed in the pintle. We had SAW's on the ground. I was the token damned radioman in OSUT as well. I was issued a 203 when I arrived at my unit, but ditched that as fast as I could. Straight leg rifleman until I ETS'd.
That's me, brother! 240's stayed in the pintle. We had SAW's on the ground. I was the token damned radioman in OSUT as well. I was issued a 203 when I arrived at my unit, but ditched that as fast as I could. Straight leg rifleman until I ETS'd.
Weapons squad? Or just supplementary 240's on vehicle? This must vary by AO and the nature of the op. And probably varied between A'stand vs Iraq vs Baltics etc.
What I'm hearing now is IN types want the 240 with them for all but urban door knocking due to the extended reach. And with current standard Army loadouts, the SAW gunner loadout is heavier than any of the 240 position loadouts. So it's not like you are making things lighter except maybe for the 240 gunner & AG.
Given current loadouts (and jump weights) for ABN units, not a big desire or tolerance for more weight. Ounces being pounds and all that.
Spec ops and unique positions (Scout platoons, etc) in line units are a different situation in my view. But not for line IN types.
I could see over time moving to shorter barrel with std suppressor. But not as an add on to current M4's, much less M16's.
Weapons squad? Or just supplementary 240's on vehicle? This must vary by AO and the nature of the op. And probably varied between A'stand vs Iraq vs Baltics etc.
What I'm hearing now is IN types want the 240 with them for all but urban door knocking due to the extended reach. And with current standard Army loadouts, the SAW gunner loadout is heavier than any of the 240 position loadouts. So it's not like you are making things lighter except maybe for the 240 gunner & AG.
Given current loadouts (and jump weights) for ABN units, not a big desire or tolerance for more weight. Ounces being pounds and all that.
Spec ops and unique positions (Scout platoons, etc) in line units are a different situation in my view. But not for line IN types.
I could see over time moving to shorter barrel with std suppressor. But not as an add on to current M4's, much less M16's.
Our problem being a mech unit we did not have weapon squads and true three man gun teams with the 240. We had a two man team with the 240. The AG who carried 800-1000 rounds, heavy tri-pod, PAS-13, MBITR, spare barrel, plus their full combat load. The gunner carried the 240 and 300 rounds. Excessive even considering we were isolated with only three squads from our platoon living at a combined check point with IA's and Pesh Merga running daily KLE's and such.
I am in the middle, our FO was to my right and our medic to my left. Staging to step off for a dismount patrol. I was AG.
41540
I can't possibly fathom how a SAW loadout is heavier than a 240... And I carried both. The saw is ten pounds lighter without ammo.
I can't possibly fathom how a SAW loadout is heavier than a 240... And I carried both. The saw is ten pounds lighter without ammo.
He was referring to one plus combat load.
FWIW I asked a friend of mine this a couple years ago, he's retired Army SGM and at the time OIF was ramping up was an infantry company 1SG in Germany. His unit was one that was first into Iraq. His reply was, "We didn't need them."
He did say that they did take a few with them in case they were needed for special occasions but never got used. Said they tried to get them through normal government procurement but when they realized they wouldn't get them before they went downrange their battalion commander sent a couple senior NCO's to France where their gun shops sold silencers over the counter and had them pick a few up on their government credit cards. Seems wherever gun ownership in Europe is allowed they don't have the same hangups about silencers as we do here in the states, where suppressors are encouraged to prevent noise pollution.
I can't possibly fathom how a SAW loadout is heavier than a 240... And I carried both. The saw is ten pounds lighter without ammo.
I bet their SAW gunners carried more ammo since they didn't have an AG. In 03 my platoon ran a weapons squad which I was in. We had 3 240s, 2 SAWs, a Javelin, a M24, and a few guys with 203s. I carried a SAW and had a 100 round nutsack on the gun and 4 200 round drums on my vest. The 240 guys only carried a few hundred rounds with them. My gun was a good bit lighter weight but I was carrying a lot more ammo.
Granted I served in a different time, but for roughly the same footprint I'd rather have another mag, or any one of a dozen things that could make me more effective. Every grunt does his own cost benefit analysis on the shit he humps. I remember feild stripping mre's to reduce size and weight, carrying only enough to get by. When grunts are leaving chow and water in the dirt you know they are humping too much shit.
There are thousands of things that might be nice to have for the odd occasion, but until they issue load bearing drone hovercraft to follow men around you gotta prioritize. Were there times a suppressor would have been useful, absolutely. Does every swinging dick in an infantry company need one as standard equipment, absolutely not.
ETA: And yes, I now wear hearing aids and have tinnitus so bad it sometimes makes me crazy. Cost of doing business I suppose.
I can't possibly fathom how a SAW loadout is heavier than a 240... And I carried both. The saw is ten pounds lighter without ammo.
Maybe your real world loadout were different.. Army light Infantry "official" loudouts mandated in training/schools:
SAW gunner: SAW + 4 belts (800 rounds) + spare barrel + bipod & tools
Weapons squad MG: 240b + 1 belt (100 rounds)
The SAW Tupperware and the 240 belts both weigh about 7 lbs each.
Yes, the 240b itself is 10 lbs heavier unloaded than a saw, but the SAW gunner carries 21lbs more ammo plus barrel plus bipod & tools.
The WS AG & Ammo bearer carry the rest of the 240 stuff. Putting the crew back into crew served
If the 240 gunner adds an M9 & mags or rambo up with an extra belt it starts to level out.
Both end up with a fighting load around 80 lbs +- a couple of lbs depending on which FM or army weight comparison table
Maybe Marines or mounted or the real world is different. But if official loudouts mandated in typical IN training and schools, saw guy is heavier.
Our problem being a mech unit we did not have weapon squads and true three man gun teams with the 240. We had a two man team with the 240. The AG who carried 800-1000 rounds, heavy tri-pod, PAS-13, MBITR, spare barrel, plus their full combat load. The gunner carried the 240 and 300 rounds.
Wow, that explains the difference. This was Bradleys? Wondering as I understand they use a different squad structure
AG would suck... That's what, 35 lbs in ammo alone? Plus tripod and support gear and a radio to boot?
I am in the middle, our FO was to my right and our medic to my left. Staging to step off for a dismount patrol. I was AG.
Neat to see the pic, and given what you describe, leaving the Bravo's makes sense!
68whiskeyncoke
09-18-16, 10:33
Not that my humble opinion will add anything of value to this conversation, but in the current (past?) AO that the big Army operates in I saw a very limited need for a suppressor. There were a few times that the scout platoon went off on their own for hide sites where I could see it being a benefit, and alas, they had them. But the regular platoon that actually patrolled into the village a few days later? Not needed. Especially in today's "war" and ROE, shit, units deploy and never fire a round in anger the whole deployment. They can spend 9 months mounted/dismounted going up and down the same road. Different times fellas.
Obviously, things are different for those special dudes who are still kicking in doors.
I bet their SAW gunners carried more ammo since they didn't have an AG. In 03 my platoon ran a weapons squad which I was in. We had 3 240s, 2 SAWs, a Javelin, a M24, and a few guys with 203s. I carried a SAW and had a 100 round nutsack on the gun and 4 200 round drums on my vest. The 240 guys only carried a few hundred rounds with them. My gun was a good bit lighter weight but I was carrying a lot more ammo.
Yeah being a SAW gunner sucked. I got lucky and was aloud to carry 600 rounds vs the standard of 800. I hated those 200 round drums so I became resourceful and gathered up a bunch of a 100rnd nutsacks and carried all my ammo in those. I later found a site that sold them which would have been 100x easier. It took me forever to get a short barrel for it. I badgered the crap out of out armorer to get one. I was one of two people in the company who did not have one.
Pinz, yep Brads.
It's not really fun to bump the extra length into everything that a shorter platform wouldn't. That and melt too much you didn't want melted come to mind. Burning yourself included is not fun. It was hard enough to flip a 20" platform sideways over your shoulder to clear a space. Imagine that with a 2-6" can on top of that in length.
Not my idea of a perfect day at all.
I would take one if I could get one. A lot of GPF guys don't realize the benefits. Most soldiers shoot in the general direction of where they assume they were shot at from which is (POO=Point of Origin). Most of the time this location is just a landmark that is a likely spot for a shooter and is not actually the spot that the shooter is at, this is especially true of a knowledgeable bad guy. The best way to find a POO is to look for dust kicked up by firing or muzzle flashes, or follow their tracers if they are stupid. Rarely you'll actually see the guy. Using a can reduces several of these variables making your position harder to find in a gunfight. Other benefits are reduction in overpressure when shooting in an enclosed space, which is a major factor when you have several shooters in the same room. The weight is worth the squeeze to me. The thought that everyone knows you are there anyway strikes me as odd, you still wear camo gear instead of blaze orange. Strykers are known to pull up pretty close to shithead houses without anyone inside the wiser as well.
Just skimming all the post here. For those who said suppressors heavy and not needed have never been in a real fire fight. Running suppressed does one major thing for you. It reduces your flash/noise signature making it super hard for people shooting at you to pin point your position if you have a semi-decent cover/concealment (even in day time). Plus the benefit reduced muzzle blast /flash during CQB and inside vehicles.
Suppressors heavy yes but I think they greatly enhance your combat capability. Reason not all soldiers have them. The military is cheap.
Just skimming all the post here. For those who said suppressors heavy and not needed have never been in a real fire fight. Running suppressed does one major thing for you. It reduces your flash/noise signature making it super hard for people shooting at you to pin point your position if you have a semi-decent cover/concealment (even in day time). Plus the benefit reduced muzzle blast /flash during CQB and inside vehicles.
Suppressors heavy yes but I think they greatly enhance your combat capability. Reason not all soldiers have them. The military is cheap.
Before the shitstorm, could you please let us know your resume' regarding "real firefight".
Not being disrespectful, just generally curious.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Eurodriver
09-19-16, 08:31
He's arrogant , but I think he's not completely FOS like most of the posters in this thread who's only experience is via Call of Duty.
I think we have spent far too much time doing mounted patrols and sitting in OPs waiting for the enemy to ambush us that we forgot what the point of the infantry is.
Where's the "Why were the VC such good infantry?" Thread when you need it?
He's arrogant , but I think he's not completely FOS like most of the posters in this thread who's only experience is via Call of Duty.
I think we have spent far too much time doing mounted patrols and sitting in OPs waiting for the enemy to ambush us that we forgot what the point of the infantry is.
Where's the "Why were the VC such good infantry?" Thread when you need it?
[emoji846] I gotcha. I generally stay out of these threads, because it's waaaay outta my lane, but in order to follow, sometimes context is needed.
Thanks Euro.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He's arrogant , but I think he's not completely FOS like most of the posters in this thread who's only experience is via Call of Duty.
I think we have spent far too much time doing mounted patrols and sitting in OPs waiting for the enemy to ambush us that we forgot what the point of the infantry is.
Where's the "Why were the VC such good infantry?" Thread when you need it?
Don't hate on my COD skills dog. I got that KD though!
I kid, I kid.
I have no military experience, so I'm basically talking out my ass here, but given what the gov spends on hearing disability, it seems to me that an integral suppressed rifle, and a set of peltor comtac 4's solve a lot of issues with hearing, masking firing signature, and improving coms between soldiers.
If it keeps guys hearing, plus saves a few soldiers in the process, seems like a win to me.
But that money is probably getting spent on Lawshawntee's iphone instead.....
Even just a set of $40 Howard Leights go a long way. I use them even when hunting. I can hear noises and critters better with them than without them.
Yep never been in a gunfight. Everyone knows the Iraqi Army just handed over the keys to Baghdad and set up welcoming parades.
Yep never been in a gunfight. Everyone knows the Iraqi Army just handed over the keys to Baghdad and set up welcoming parades.
Duh. I knew that when I learned that Mahmudiyah translated directly into "Happy USA!"
68whiskeyncoke
09-19-16, 18:48
It will never happen, so no point in even discussing it. Shit, even if it did, big army guys on the line wouldn't see them until 2030...
You need to understand that this isn't LF.com, so not everyone is vetted (it's a public forum) therefore people will speak out of their lane without even realizing it. Just as you should with most everything on the internet, take what you read here with a grain of salt. After all, this is just a discussion thread anyways.
68whiskeyncoke
09-19-16, 18:58
You arent wrong here, and it's why you see a lot of the special dudes doing just that. The issue is budget and actually fielding said equipment and getting it on the line. And of course, nowadays not many but a few are actually involved in DA type conflicts anymore. I had 1 guy in my platoon buy his own set of headset comms for use with the issued radio (squad leader), the remaining just used the old issued headset gear. In terms of basic ear pro, I was "that guy" and encouraged as many people as I could to wear some. Not one did. I swapped back and forth between the surefire plugs and a set of Peltors. I couldn't hear very well with the surefires and couldn't handle 10+ hour patrols in the heat with the Peltors. I ended up using them only in the winter, and when on mounted patrols. You would think issuing ear pro would solve a lot of problems, but people just don't wear it. Suppressors would mitigate some of that sound, no doubt about that. I'm 100% for it. But in reality, there are so many other factors that cause hearing loss I don't think in 5-10 years down the line the VA would notice any change in compensation rates.
I have no military experience, so I'm basically talking out my ass here, but given what the gov spends on hearing disability, it seems to me that an integral suppressed rifle, and a set of peltor comtac 4's solve a lot of issues with hearing, masking firing signature, and improving coms between soldiers.
If it keeps guys hearing, plus saves a few soldiers in the process, seems like a win to me.
But that money is probably getting spent on Lawshawntee's iphone instead.....
Even just a set of $40 Howard Leights go a long way. I use them even when hunting. I can hear noises and critters better with them than without them.
You arent wrong here, and it's why you see a lot of the special dudes doing just that. The issue is budget and actually fielding said equipment and getting it on the line. And of course, nowadays not many but a few are actually involved in DA type conflicts anymore. I had 1 guy in my platoon buy his own set of headset comms for use with the issued radio (squad leader), the remaining just used the old issued headset gear. In terms of basic ear pro, I was "that guy" and encouraged as many people as I could to wear some. Not one did. I swapped back and forth between the surefire plugs and a set of Peltors. I couldn't hear very well with the surefires and couldn't handle 10+ hour patrols in the heat with the Peltors. I ended up using them only in the winter, and when on mounted patrols. You would think issuing ear pro would solve a lot of problems, but people just don't wear it. Suppressors would mitigate some of that sound, no doubt about that. I'm 100% for it. But in reality, there are so many other factors that cause hearing loss I don't think in 5-10 years down the line the VA would notice any change in compensation rates.
That's why I suggest the comtac 4. It would at least help keep your ears from being as sweaty.
http://soldiersystems.net/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/3M-Peltor-COMTAC-IV-Hybrid.jpg
I understand about the usage though. Doesn't do any good if people don't use it.
I don't buy the price argument. They're are already suppressors in service. It wouldn't cost a bunch to field then to every infantry battalion. Hell the 82nd always seemed to have the budget for the cool toys. If command talky thought it was that beneficial they would have them.
Eh, a ten year trial program that cost millions to pick a winner that's already obsolete by the time it's fielded.
I would be in favor of my tax dollars paying for cans, but I doubt the army could do it efficiently.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Eh, a ten year trial program that cost millions to pick a winner that's already obsolete by the time it's fielded.
I would be in favor of my tax dollars paying for cans, but I doubt the army could do it efficiently.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Truth right here.
68whiskeyncoke
09-20-16, 09:27
I don't buy the price argument. They're are already suppressors in service. It wouldn't cost a bunch to field then to every infantry battalion. Hell the 82nd always seemed to have the budget for the cool toys. If command talky thought it was that beneficial they would have them.
If only it were that easy man. Even since you got out (2006?), the Army has changed a lot. Having been in both the 173rd and 82nd, it sure doesnt seem like they have a solid budget. My god the 82nd had utter shit. The 173rd was superior to the 82nd, but even then we lacked essential supplies. Let alone a surplus budget to outfit the platoons with supressors. Scout team did have a few though.
Eh, a ten year trial program that cost millions to pick a winner that's already obsolete by the time it's fielded.
I would be in favor of my tax dollars paying for cans, but I doubt the army could do it efficiently.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Bingo.
I don't buy the price argument. They're are already suppressors in service. It wouldn't cost a bunch to field then to every infantry battalion. Hell the 82nd always seemed to have the budget for the cool toys. If command talky thought it was that beneficial they would have them.
Let's see, an airborne battalion has about 700 5.56mm weapons in it, and about 26 7.62mm MGs.
9 battalions per Division,
A good Inconel suppressor, at government rates, would probably be in the $400 range each.
That's over $2.5 million for one division, and is just the 11Bs. We still haven't given suppressors to Divarty, Avn Bde, and all of the support and HQ personnel...
A Mechanized Infantry Division would be considerably cheaper if we are only going to give them out to the dismounts, but it is still $650,000 for each.
For the Marines, the cost of equipping an infantry battalion would run a tad over half a million.
Then there is the cost of the supply support for these items, spares stocking, maintenance requirements, replacements, etc, etc...
Maybe if the next DoD budget gets a healthy increase, we can start.
1_click_off
09-20-16, 19:43
I would have to agree with the heating reason second to cost. I have a very short video of mine having light rain hitting it after a mag and a half. The rain hits it and just jumps up into steam. I can only imagine after only one or two mag dumps and then having to take cover with a branding iron. Forget about not being found with IR. Just thinking about scenarios, as I have never served.
ExplorinInTheWoods
09-21-16, 11:34
Let's see, an airborne battalion has about 700 5.56mm weapons in it, and about 26 7.62mm MGs.
9 battalions per Division,
A good Inconel suppressor, at government rates, would probably be in the $400 range each.
That's over $2.5 million for one division, and is just the 11Bs. We still haven't given suppressors to Divarty, Avn Bde, and all of the support and HQ personnel...
A Mechanized Infantry Division would be considerably cheaper if we are only going to give them out to the dismounts, but it is still $650,000 for each.
For the Marines, the cost of equipping an infantry battalion would run a tad over half a million.
Then there is the cost of the supply support for these items, spares stocking, maintenance requirements, replacements, etc, etc...
Maybe if the next DoD budget gets a healthy increase, we can start.
I don't think we'll ever see it but if it were to happen just give it to the line units, aviation doesn't need it, arty doesn't need it, nor do your HHC cats. I know some Major in brigade s3 or some CSM will whine about not having it but come on sir you sit in the TOC and leave your weapon in a rack all day.
I don't think we'll ever see it but if it were to happen just give it to the line units, aviation doesn't need it, arty doesn't need it, nor do your HHC cats. I know some Major in brigade s3 or some CSM will whine about not having it but come on sir you sit in the TOC and leave your weapon in a rack all day.
I would also like to add that if it were to happen, chances are POG's would have them well before line guys. They had PEQ-15's and crap when we were still rocking PEQ-2's.
I would also like to add that if it were to happen, chances are POG's would have them well before line guys. They had PEQ-15's and crap when we were still rocking PEQ-2's.
In what unit? I'm in an IBCT and we don't have any PEQs period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
In what unit? I'm in an IBCT and we don't have any PEQs period.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. From what I understand they restructured III Corps and my unit was deactivated and reorganized with other units. It is now under 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team.
I don't think we'll ever see it but if it were to happen just give it to the line units, aviation doesn't need it, arty doesn't need it, nor do your HHC cats. I know some Major in brigade s3 or some CSM will whine about not having it but come on sir you sit in the TOC and leave your weapon in a rack all day.
Now, you have added another different expense, smaller than issuing suppressors to those that might not need it, but still an expense.
If the suppressor design is not QD, you have introduced essentially a few new weapon systems to the division, you have the M4, the suppressed M4, the M249, the suppressed M249, etc., because now the support guys weapons are not interchangeable with the infantry weapons. Now, you have to maintain spare stock of both types. And, it will complicate (albeit a small complication, but these things still cost money) weapons maintenance at the division level.
If the suppressor design is a QD type, you have to retrofit all weapons with the muzzle adapter so that the basic weapon is still interchangeable.
These are the things that keep budget estimators up at night....
I would also like to add that if it were to happen, chances are POG's would have them well before line guys. They had PEQ-15's and crap when we were still rocking PEQ-2's.
That would be a reason to issue them to all, or to none.
MOLON AABE
11-03-16, 11:14
https://youtu.be/Vg0_VnDdOXg
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
Just wanted to say my Marine Combat Engineer son who is attached to an Infantry unit was just issued a new M4A1 complete with suppressor. His first thought was "How do I clean this when it's full of sand."
Andy
call_me_ski
11-03-16, 23:09
I would also like to add that if it were to happen, chances are POG's would have them well before line guys. They had PEQ-15's and crap when we were still rocking PEQ-2's.
When I was in the Marine Corps infantry we seemed to get everything before the POGs. Except for size ten boots. Those are apparently the most difficult item to source on the planet. When we went to Afghanistan half the battalion got one type of jacket and the other half got a different one. The BNCO caught a supply guy wearing both in the chow hall and there was hell to pay.
The biggest problem with suppressors is heat in my opinion. Your rifle moves around a lot and in small spaces it might creating a hazard without a cover or some other shielding. Other than that I would have trusted all my guys to be able to handle the added complexity of a tube with washers welded in. Literally every other piece of serialized gear that we were issued was more complex.
MOLON AABE
11-04-16, 09:52
https://youtu.be/OnBa0kCELpQ
These guys don't seem to be having issues either.
Velocitas, Opprimere,
Violentia Operandi
They were banging on those Knights cans all day long. I think about the use and abuse I put my cans through then chuckle when I consider the beating our gear gets by the boys in Uniform. Good training vid.
PB
Thank you for sharing Molon! That was a fun video.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Check this out: http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/23/marine-corps-experiment-silences-entire-infantry-b/
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.