The assault rifle and the infantry.

Share KSS on:

Welcome to Kurdistan sky scrapers forum. Hope you enjoy your visit.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

The assault rifle and the infantry.
Topic Started: 28th September 2014 - 09:21 PM (5,036 Views)
kurdo82	28th September 2014 - 09:21 PM Post #1
Posts: 1,170 Group: Senior Members Member #441 Joined: Jul 3, 2014 Mood None	- Edited by kurdo82, 7th November 2015 - 11:44 PM.



lashgare	28th September 2014 - 10:07 PM Post #2
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	Snipers are still too expensive to make standard issue. Assault rifles are still the superior weapon of choice for infantry versus infantry combat. In the future that might change however.



lashgare	29th September 2014 - 12:45 AM Post #3
BANNED Posts: 767 Group: Members Member #232 Joined: Sep 6, 2013 Mood None	kurdo82 28th September 2014 - 11:57 PM i just want to say there s too much focus in the assault rifle, i mean they hand them over assault rifles no matter what the mission is, but really it is the task that matters and we have to regard the assault as one of the tools in the inventory of a soldier and not as the primary armament but adopting a mission specific armament. Assault rifles are neraly useless in the current combat enviroment, its really the machine gun and the sniper rifle that dominates the battlefield, especially in non urban terrain, the only place where it has its role, are built up areas but then again more firepower is always better, troop fatigue is no more a huge concern as the operations are no more that time cionsuming with the soldiers either fighting short high intensity battles or they just wait at the frontlines enabling them to use heavier weapons, the terrain too is not that difficult, we do mot have to fight in the mountains but in the plains with, fighting and facing the enemy directly and logistic support provided. I would recomend to buy these or build them by our own, making it even more easy for the soldiers to be provided with ammunition at the frontline http://www.howeandhowe.com/rs1-robotic-solution-base-system.html small remote-controlled vehicles on the squad level, transporting ammunition etc, we just have to get rid of the idea of the assault rifle as the prime weapon of choice and adapt a more flexible and task specified approach. That is because assault rifles can be used in most combat situations and they're modular, unlike machine-guns and snipers. A decent marksman can use modfied assault rifle in the same role as a sniper, or it can be modified to be feed by large magazines. If anything assault rifles and small arms + airforce are more important in COINS wars like the one in kurds versus ISIS. Most tanks and APCSs have limited role. They're usually limited to controlling open strategic areas, moving through IEDs and ambush areas and long-distance fire support. You'll rarely see them used to engage in what they were designed for. Israeli tanks were raped in lebanon, as are bashar al assads tanks that are used in cities.



Partizan	29th September 2014 - 03:29 AM Post #4
Posts: 411 Group: Senior Members Member #407 Joined: Apr 25, 2014	Another way to manage this problem of concentrated IS armour out-ranging us in addition to what kurdo82 has suggested, is the use of a reverse slope defence, which simply put is limiting the range of fire of the enemy by facing them on, and in direction of, the slope of a hill(see the wiki page for more details). This way they cannot engage you from a far distance, whilst your forces can immediately start engaging them with short-range weapons when they come into view. A reverse slope defense is not always an option since natural hills may not be present or sufficient in number/height, and creating artificial mounds to supplement existing hills is not a short-term option, but use of the tactic whenever possible can be effective. If the terrain is entirely flat, a reverse slope defence is unavailable since the enemy will simply go around an artificial mound and attack your flank. Edited by Partizan, 29th September 2014 - 03:51 AM.



0 users reading this topic

Free Forums with no limits on posts or members. Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Kurdish Military · Next Topic »