Best Weapons for Jungle Combat ?

It's about training and experience and nothing else.

The dissatisfaction with 5.56mm stems from unrealistic expectations among troops that one hit will equal one kill, which is not a very defensable premise with any practical infantry rifle round. Your typical 18 year old private absorbs the notion that if he can put 60 (or 120) or so grains of lead and copper into a target, it will drop. They carry this belief into combat, and then suddenly and bitterly complain that their bullets don't do the job. Too many people have "learned" about guns from second rate movies. The problem is that much most of what they have learned is incorrect. In past wars enemy have walked away from hits by .45 ACP, .303, 8mm Mauser. A hit to a non lethal area is a non-lethal hit no matter what gun one is using. A hit to the brain or spinal cord is a show stopper, no matter what is being used. Anywhere else an inch one way or the other makes all the difference between a quick stop and eventual recovery. Combat is imprecise. If we are going to be realistic we must learn to accept that. In the last century there has not been a service rifle caliber cartridge used by any nation so inherently inferior in performance against personnel that its use had made the difference between victory or defeat. The qualities of the weapons themselves and the soldiers who use them is of ordinately greater significance that the caliber itself.

Covering fire is the secret to winning a firefight. More bullets thrown at the enemy doesn't mean he is going to cower. However, he is more likely to. If the enemy is cowering then he isn't shooting. If the enemy is too busy cowering from your volley of fire he is not likely to notice your mates moving off to the side where they can get a better shot. Distracting the enemy with covering fire may give you more time to aim or get closer.

It's the ball game we play and it is the same no matter what caliber you use.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't you agree that a weapon that could fire x2 or more the suppressing fire at greater distances if need be (than that of the Allies and Soviet equivalent machine guns during WW2) like the German MG 42 " the Buzzsaw" would have given them a distinct advantage?

Also Doesn't the Coalition (at least Americans) presently use several long distance rifles (some automatic) specify for the distances encountered in Afghanistan?

In both these cases you would be able to provide cover fire at either a greater rate and or greater distance than that of the opposition. It goes without saying the soldier using the weapon would be experienced and or trained.
 
The best weapon is the one that kills your enemy and leaves you and your buddies alive and in one piece.
 
Easy-8 said:
The best weapon is the one that kills your enemy and leaves you and your buddies alive and in one piece.
Click to expand...

Although this vague wide ranging statement may have some truth in it. It's really a way of dodging the question rather than answering it. Example what weapon and how used are you referring to that kills your enemy and leaves you and your buddies alive and in one piece?
 
Kesse81 said:
It's about training and experience and nothing else.

The dissatisfaction with 5.56mm stems from unrealistic expectations among troops that one hit will equal one kill, which is not a very defensable premise with any practical infantry rifle round. Your typical 18 year old private absorbs the notion that if he can put 60 (or 120) or so grains of lead and copper into a target, it will drop. They carry this belief into combat, and then suddenly and bitterly complain that their bullets don't do the job. Too many people have "learned" about guns from second rate movies. The problem is that much most of what they have learned is incorrect. In past wars enemy have walked away from hits by .45 ACP, .303, 8mm Mauser. A hit to a non lethal area is a non-lethal hit no matter what gun one is using. A hit to the brain or spinal cord is a show stopper, no matter what is being used. Anywhere else an inch one way or the other makes all the difference between a quick stop and eventual recovery. Combat is imprecise. If we are going to be realistic we must learn to accept that. In the last century there has not been a service rifle caliber cartridge used by any nation so inherently inferior in performance against personnel that its use had made the difference between victory or defeat. The qualities of the weapons themselves and the soldiers who use them is of ordinately greater significance that the caliber itself.

Covering fire is the secret to winning a firefight. More bullets thrown at the enemy doesn't mean he is going to cower. However, he is more likely to. If the enemy is cowering then he isn't shooting. If the enemy is too busy cowering from your volley of fire he is not likely to notice your mates moving off to the side where they can get a better shot. Distracting the enemy with covering fire may give you more time to aim or get closer.

It's the ball game we play and it is the same no matter what caliber you use.
Click to expand...

There are more experienced and better educated military personnel and academics than yourself raising the questions about the 5.56. Training and experience is not the only factor involved according to the authors of articles emerging from the US, GB and independent researchers.
 
The thing is, most the covering fire is coming from the crew served weapons which are largely 7.62. Even the SAW has a range of about 1000 meters for area targets. Most firefights beyond 300-400 meters it is going to be a crew served fight anyways.

I've never had a problem with the 5.56. Controlled pairs don't work unless it is the heart or head...the 5.56 has allowed me to put rounds into target precisely and controlled much easier than the, say M14. I love the M14. Great rifle and can reach out and touch someone...but it is a niche weapon these days whereas the M4 is going to handle 95% of situations and the ones I am most likely to encounter (300 meters or less) it will handle very well. You shoot until the enemy goes down...I learned that the hard way.
 
brinktk said:
The thing is, most the covering fire is coming from the crew served weapons which are largely 7.62. Even the SAW has a range of about 1000 meters for area targets. Most firefights beyond 300-400 meters it is going to be a crew served fight anyways.

I've never had a problem with the 5.56. Controlled pairs don't work unless it is the heart or head...the 5.56 has allowed me to put rounds into target precisely and controlled much easier than the, say M14. I love the M14. Great rifle and can reach out and touch someone...but it is a niche weapon these days whereas the M4 is going to handle 95% of situations and the ones I am most likely to encounter (300 meters or less) it will handle very well. You shoot until the enemy goes down...I learned that the hard way.
Click to expand...

I liked the German G3, but I had it for years and got used with it. However, the 7.62 is not a nice caliber. The weapons chambered for the 7.62 are heavy, long and you cannot carry equally amount of ammo in comparison to 5.56. The reports from rather reliable sources about the issues with the 5.56 is concerning. Even if the huge majority of soldiers never face any issues, but only one occasion can have serious consequences. If there is a gap as these articles are arguing about, the issues cannot be ignored. To solve it is to use standard scientific methods. Jane's usually use a correct scientific methodology and when they are raising questions..

To change a NATO standard is not easy and if it happens in the future it will be expensive. Some countries need to get new assault rifles and SAWs, the stockpiles of 5.56...we will see what happens. Personally, I don't care much about it. I am not a soldier anymore, but if it is required to update the ammo to 6mm something if it save a soldiers life then it is worth it.
 
Last edited:
brinktk said:
The thing is, most the covering fire is coming from the crew served weapons which are largely 7.62. Even the SAW has a range of about 1000 meters for area targets. Most firefights beyond 300-400 meters it is going to be a crew served fight anyways.

I've never had a problem with the 5.56. Controlled pairs don't work unless it is the heart or head...the 5.56 has allowed me to put rounds into target precisely and controlled much easier than the, say M14. I love the M14. Great rifle and can reach out and touch someone...but it is a niche weapon these days whereas the M4 is going to handle 95% of situations and the ones I am most likely to encounter (300 meters or less) it will handle very well. You shoot until the enemy goes down...I learned that the hard way.
Click to expand...

I bow to your greater knowledge then I have, however I do have a very soft spot the old British built 7.62 FN FAL, the L1A1. It was far too long. and it was a pain in the bum getting out of a Land Rover in a hurry or bailing out of a 4 tonner. She had her faults but I loved the old girl.
 
This thread has gotten way off track. Does anyone think that jungle fighting is ever again going to be a significant military task? Jungle terrain is disappearing around the world at a very high rate, due to land clearing for agriculture or development. The world is becoming increasingly urbanized. Oddly enough, much the same considerations of a personal weapon for jungle fighting apply to urban combat as well. A rifle needs to be compact, have high penetration, long range accuracy is a secondary concern.
Jungle guerrillas on the Che Guevara model are a thing of the past. Witness the FARC in Colombia. After decades of fighting, they never succeeded in overthrowing the Colombian power structure. On the other hand, one guy, Pablo Escobar caused more trouble for the Colombian government that all the guerrillas put together because he did his bombings and killings in the cities.
If guerrillas go out in the jungle today, they will stay there and starve. And there isn't enough jungle left to conceal a large military force.
 
Many years ago I was chatting to a Vietnam Vet training with my TA unit. He mentioned that his unit requested to be issued with Tommy Guns, their request was turned down.

Its a good short range firearm that hits hard, albeit a bit on the heavy side.
 
The M-3 and M3A1 "Grease Gun" were used by U.S. and Vietnamese forces. It fires the same ammunition as the Thompson sub-machine gun. It has a slower rate of fire; somewhere around 450 rounds per minutes and while it isn't pretty, it's very simple, rugged and easy to shoot.
The Vietnamese forces were also issued large numbers of U.S. M-1 and M-2 carbines which suited them well because of their smaller stature. 12 gauge pump action shotguns were provided in large numbers to the Vietnamese government in order to arm the village militias.
When the AK-47 started showing up in large numbers in the hands of enemy forces, that was a game changer. It became clear that the other guys had small-arms equal or superior to anything used by the U.S. or VN.
I have used and fired both the Thompson and the "Grease Gun" and I may be in the minority, but I think the Thompson is big, heavy and and not as reliable as the M-3.
 
Remington 1858 said:
The M-3 and M3A1 "Grease Gun" were used by U.S. and Vietnamese forces. It fires the same ammunition as the Thompson sub-machine gun. It has a slower rate of fire; somewhere around 450 rounds per minutes and while it isn't pretty, it's very simple, rugged and easy to shoot.
The Vietnamese forces were also issued large numbers of U.S. M-1 and M-2 carbines which suited them well because of their smaller stature. 12 gauge pump action shotguns were provided in large numbers to the Vietnamese government in order to arm the village militias.
When the AK-47 started showing up in large numbers in the hands of enemy forces, that was a game changer. It became clear that the other guys had small-arms equal or superior to anything used by the U.S. or VN.
I have used and fired both the Thompson and the "Grease Gun" and I may be in the minority, but I think the Thompson is big, heavy and and not as reliable as the M-3.
Click to expand...

I'm jealous, I've always wanted to fire the Thompson.

My dad was stationed in Palestine and issued a Thomson during WW2. It was fitted with the fore end pistol grip, finned barrel, Cutts converter and drum magazine, he never fired one round out of the gun.

I was issued the Sterling SMG which I quite liked, I also fired the Mk2 STEN, which I didn't like. The difference between the two was like chalk and cheese.
 
Last edited:
In the U.S state where I reside ( Oregon), the possession and firing of automatic weapons is legal. Each year, at a local gun club, there is a machine gun shoot in which owners of these weapons bring them out and allow attendees to shoot them for the purchase of the ammunition. All of the firearms that have been previously mentioned in this thread are available, including dual and quad .50 caliber Brownings.
The event is held on the second weekend of May and draws thousands of people, many from states and countries where such activity is considered unlawful, if not insane.
At last years event I was able to shoot a Soviet PPsH, a Soviet AKSU, ( the Osama Bin Laden Signature model ). and a German MG-42 - Hitler's Buzzsaw.
Yes, Americans are crazier than hell, and proud of it.
[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFLDbasfwZ0"]2013 Saddle Butte Machine Gun Shoot - YouTube[/ame]
 
I call that common sense gun laws.

No doubt there are those who throw their hands up in the air screaming and shouting demanding such guns are banned yada yada yada. I wonder how many of those selective/automatic firearms are used in crime? I would wager a years pension very few if any.

I loved the British built GPMG and I've fired the BREN in original 303 and 7.62 conversion. The 7.62 versions were quite badly worn.
 

Attachments

  • Stupid.jpg
    Stupid.jpg
    44.3 KB · Views: 5
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top