It’s 1982, you have a deep penetration observation post to set up and sit on. You will be inserted without immediate supply or close support for 72 hours.
Your OpFor is the Argentinian military guarding the air strip that you and your SAS boys are there to render useless. Weather isn’t your friendly friend. Your mission isn’t to get into a firefight, but if you do before mission kick-off the plan is to dig in and wait for the SAS or scrambled Royal Marines to reinforce you and then take the airfield the hard way.
Ideal goal is to take the field when all the installations aircraft are grounded so that all of them can be taken out of commission, they are a far more valuable target for destruction or capture than any ground units. They are the major threat to the Royal Marines and your supporting naval vessels.
So, 9-Hole wants to know do you pack in a heavier FAL variant with 4x optics that is well proven and logistically backed for years, or the newer, lighter, and well proven by the American’s M16A1?
Part of your upcoming mission will be overwatch of the assault force after confirming that all the aircraft, or failing that the majority, are on the ground to be destroyed. You are also space/weight limited because of the hike in and the longer multi-day harsh weather duration.
https://www.youtube.com/c/9HoleReviews/community – Vote and comment at the link. I, as usual, will do so below.
L1A1 with Trilux 4x and 160rd’s
While the M16A1 has merit, including bringing more ammunition, I believe that the assault element of the SAS would better benefit from the mobility it provides than the overwatch/observation element. That fairly flat terrain and objective key, observing the aircraft, would be aided by the optics. Using the additional range that 7.62 NATO provides to the troopers, as well as that provided by the optics, increases my stand-off distance and the distance the team can provide effective overwatch during the actual attack.
Enemy situation includes the fact that the Argentinian military also uses the 7.62 NATO FAL, metric pattern, but the rifle has a greater effective range than the M16A1 regardless. With an already drastic ground force ratio disparity if the team takes contact, until reinforced, and the terrain able to favor shots at longer distances I will take the rifles that will give me parity or a slight edge in effective range (thanks to optics). I’m not concerned with scavenging ammunition or using enemy rifles, although that is a possible advantage in an extreme circumstance, it has little relevance to this plan. The ability to stand off enemy infantry on the terrain and provide direct fire support at a moderate distance when the assault element hits the airfield, that I am concerned with.
