Re: Modern Close Assault

In a message dated 11/19/00 8:41:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
peter_mancini@msn.com writes:

<< 
 Agreed.  Also note that during the Vietnam police action troops didn't
go 
 into the field with fixed bayonnets - what was the point?  At under 25 
 meters units are in CQB with little hope of making actual contact. 
That is 
 just a reality of automatic weapons fire.>>

Actually this is not completely true. I can show you many, many photos
from 
the Viet Nam war where soldiers are using bayonets. Problem was the
quality 
of the M8. It would hold a edge worth a damn.

You also see then (and more so now) the U.S. "light infantry" carrying 
enormous loads of ammo. Five hundred to eight hundreds rounds of 5.56,
one 
hundred plus rounds of belted MG ammo, laws and mines. An 80 pound ruck
in 
normal.

Most firefights in Nam took place at under 50 meters. Failure to close
wasn't 
a question of  firepower - it was a question of terrain (usually to
dense to 
move through quickly) and the enemy's tactics (light em up and run). All

infantry combat requires close assault in the final stage of the attack 
(unless the objective had been obliterated by supporting fires while the

grunts stand off about 500 meters).

Urban combat is an important aspect of modern warfare. You don't want to
get 
into HTH if possible but you'd best expect it. The U.S. army began 
reintroducing HTH combat about 15 years ago (along with the M9 bayonet
and 
how to use it).

Faron