Optimising Individual Weapons for Close Range Combat

Here's my suggestion, even though it is perhaps impractical or downright stupid:
Take the level and depth of training used for Special Operators and apply it to the rest of the military so that every soldier is not a rookie retard who pisses himself at the slightest sight of combat. Sure this was be expensive, slow and your army would be much, much smaller. But you would have thousands of god-tier killing machines who would achieve K:D ratios 10 times higher than the Waffen SS on the Eastern Front.

Attached: and so we went to war.jpg (207x236, 6.92K)

Such theory is pointless.

Infantrymen hardly ever see any opposing infantry in battle. So anyone who sees an enemy will shoot at him with whatever can be used tos hoot. Morevoer, the sectors covered by the infantrymen (not all are supposed to look at the same direction) are in practice vastly more relevant than categorizations.

It's very hard to ID the category of infantry threats in battle before that fleeting target is gone anyway.

Last but not least; the squad or fire team leader is controlling the fires - and needs to have the freedom to control as he deems it best - damn such peacetime doctrine lists.

So what you listed was a list of mostly worthless theory.

Pff, just make a merc corp and hire Zig Forums.

You fell for the SF glorification propaganda.
SF personnel isn't that good.

Moreover, any such expensive training would inevitably lead to small infantry numbers.
The vast majority of infantry losses are losses to indirect fires - not small arms. Your extreme infantry training would not have much other effect than to deprive the combined arms forces of infantry real quick.

That's actually already happening on a smaller scale in the US military–special forces keep getting more funding and their numbers expanded because SF is the kind of meme that gets Senator's willies hard and tends to get more funding and more optics. All that ended up happening is that SF actually became slightly worse in quality because they had to lower their standards to get numbers up. And overall quality of regular infantry got a lot worse–before, soldiers that were almost but not quite good enough for SF acted as force multipliers for general infantry, because they became sergeants and passed on their superior experience to the grunts. However, now that these types are being sucked into various SF training, there's almost no one halfway competent left in infantry to whip the crayon-eaters into shape.

Also, like the germ said SF die just as quickly to indirect fire as regular guys, or just a lucky shot from the other side, so whatever marginal benefit you gain from up-training your entire army is quickly lost from attrition rates. Oh yeah, and at least in the US most SF training is done commando-style, where their efficacy is proportional to the level of intel and prep time available. So in most infantry roles, where that level of prep isn't available, they're barely better than regular grunts.

Attached: ISIS_speshul_forces.webm (358x640, 2.38M)

What do you think I am trying to say? Did you even read my post? Or do you unironically think that LMGs are useless because they fire 5.56?

You're right, flexibility is key. That does not disregard the fact that differing elements are better at differing things, and that the ideal organizational template is based around the advantages and disadvantages of said differing elements.

… that proves my fucking point.

What the hell is your IQ?

pic related.
how many people does it take to fly a jet or shoot an a gun?

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (640x301, 161.18K)

You don't have a point, assblasted canuck. You're legitimately too mad to even formulate an argument. Even if all LMGs shot ravioli at the enemy, there's still HMGs which don't shoot 5.56 nearby because the entire platoon engages.

I think that both the 5.56 and 5.45 are perfectly adequate and perform their jobs perfectly in their respective rifles. Though the M4 should really have an 18" barrel, an extra 3.5" won't harm it. I remember reading somewhere that whoever can throw down the most dakka during a firefight wins. What infantry squads really need are things like knee mortars, rifle grenades, or that french 68mm rocket launcher that could be reloaded about 20 times. Or that neat 76mm shoulder mounted mortar. Relying mainly on rifles is idiotic as explosives are far more effective. You can tear down cover, hit targets hiding in cover through blast & shrapnel, and even threaten light vehicles. Use rifles and machine guns to pin the enemy in position then destroy using explosives the squad has. And if more is needed you move up the ladder.