GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: Infantry transformed by new tools, training

• 17622
  

  This article was well written, so well, that even I, a 44-year old mother could follow it and understand it. My 18-year old son is at Ft. Benning and arrived today (6/30) to reception, so it was comforting to read that the infantry has come so far in gearing up their soldiers. It brings me peace to read that the training is so intense. I want my son prepared as well as possible. Yes, it is harder than the Army infantry my brother was in 20-plus years ago, but the fight is hard and requires stronger warriors. I wish I could serve as well. I tried when I was younger to join, medically was not qualified, but raised an honorable son. He is my contribution. God bless you all in your work.

  Barbara Richardson Posted July 1, 2006 1:45 AM
• 16486
  

  Infantry is always going to win war regardless of the war! You cannot occupy and defeat without infantry. The soldier is a weapons system and should be treated as such. The weapon has to change with the situation but the Army historically has though in terms of a standard infantry person and not a designed weapons system. The M-14 and M16 evolved based on the Korean experience when the infantry totally was overrun by the red horde. The M1 could not fire fast enough to kill the numbers required. Now we need a single marksman to kill a terrorist hiding in a city.

  Taxpayer Posted May 2, 2006 8:08 AM
• 16389
  

  I retired from 21 years in the Army and Army National Guard in the summer of 2003. I can relate a great deal to this story.

  Thank you for the mastery of telling the story of our Army in transition. It is not an easy thing to do, and this story does it wonderfully. Thank you so much.

  Jim Posted April 27, 2006 9:21 AM
• 16378
  

  Very interesting article! Straight-leg infantrymen are always underappreciated. Discussions about rifles leave out one very important aspect -- the ammunition. The Czech ammo during the Cold War and supplied to Vietnam era AKs and SKSs made for a bad day for many infantrymen. The 9mm European girly men ammo still pales in comparison to .45 caliber American made ammo. Infantrymen like Audie Murphy carried both an M-1 rifle and a Thompson sub-machinegun. Straight-leg infantry have always carried a lot of ammo and equipment. They are prepared, unlike the Hollywood types.

  Iraq should have been flooded with RPGs that went a foot and exploded. Every insurgent should be thinking in the back of his mind, "When I pull the trigger, could this be my last seconds on Earth?" We should have even purchased them from the original manufacturers. All Allied rifles should be issued consistently, the sound and look is important to sizing up an enemy, but, hey, what do I know?

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 26, 2006 6:36 PM
• 16345
  

  Terrific story. I'm going to print and share it with my Father, a WWII veteran. He always said that 'wars are won on the ground by the foot soldier. I think he will be interested in how the foot soldiers' training and tools have changed in the past 60 years.

  David Albrektson Posted April 25, 2006 8:07 AM
• 16340
  

  So, we now have our old friend, retired Russian General Kalashnikov, claiming that U.S. troops prefer to throw away their M-16 rifles and pick-up captured AK-47 rifles! Absurd, of course. But no one would certainly blame them if they did so as regards Iraq, for the U.S. Army is no longer going to war with a real assault rifle. The basic principle behind the assault rifle is that it greatly increases the firepower and effectiveness of the average infantryman by providing a controllable automatic weapon. This also greatly empowers the average infantryman in any combat situation.

  The Germans, in WW II, first demonstrated the effectiveness of the original automatic Assault Rifle, with their StG 44. The Russians took notice! The Allies, including the U.S. Army, did not. That is why we fought the Korean War with World War II type M-1 rifles, against automatic weapons. In 1957, ten years after the Russians adopted the AK-47, the chair warming bozos in the Pentagon officially adopted the M-14. This was not an assault rifle, it was nothing more than an M-1 rifle with a BAR magazine. Totally unacceptable, and adopted against the advice of their own experts!

  Finally, exactly 20 years after the Russians adopted an Assault Rifle, the Pentagon officially adopted the M-16 Assault Rifle in 1967! It had some initial problems, but it was a pretty good weapon in comparison with what was available throughout the world. Then, in 1983, having made some basic improvements in the M-16, the Army did a very, very stupid thing. They converted the fully automatic M-16 assault rifle into a 3 shot, burst mode rifle. Suddenly, the Army no longer had a real assault rifle! It did, of course, resolve various minor logistical problems about which the brass was concerned. Unfortunately, the brass was not concerned about empowering the troops! So, the Army no longer has a fully automatic Assault Rifle such as the Germans had in the 1940s and the Russians had, starting in 1947. The Marines do not agree with the Army's non-automatic M-16. No electronic aiming device can compensate for the lack of an automatic assault rifle. The Army command is not looking out for the troops!

  Pat West Posted April 25, 2006 3:53 AM
• 16334
  

  Great article! Yet another documented reason to keep women out of combat zones. Most men can be conditioned to carry 65-90 pounds of gear, weapons, ammo, etc. But most women simply don't have the upper body strength necessary (ask the firemen about that mess). What to do? Give them smaller guns, less ammo? Women certainly belong in all branches of the military, and, in most jobs do as well as men, even better. But it's sheer folly (thanks to Bill Clinton) to let them serve on combat ships and in the infantry, period! Oh yes, let's not forget pregnancy, which would mean immediate air evacuation from a combat zone upon discovery.

  GovExec.com reader Posted April 24, 2006 4:45 PM
• 16330
  

  No breaking news here, matter of fact, sounds like soldiers in the Middle East have much less of a load than we had in Vietnam and no uphill terrains of 5K feet like we had in the Central Highlands. As for who has to think twice about pulling the trigger on a bullet that can go through and on to other things? Go home. You've got no business been over there!

  Michael Nicastro Posted April 24, 2006 3:15 PM