PDA

View Full Version : Platoon Weapons



Norfolk
11-24-2007, 08:35 PM
"U.K. Platoon Weapons and the Weight Capability Myth" by William F. Owen (from RUSI Defence Systems June, 2007, Vol. 10, No. 1):

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf

Another intersting article by William F. Owen, this time concerning the weapons of the British Army Infantry Platoon. Owen is looking for ways to reduce the carried load of the British infantryman, but ends up proposing a new Infantry Section organization as well. Owen comes out rather strongly against providing infantrymen with weapons and training for employment beyond 200 m; he contends that beyond that range, infantrymen are typically unable to effectively target the enemy with carefully-aimed individual weapons. According to battle surveys taken over the past decade and a half or so from the Balkans, Afghanistan, and Iraq, 80% of all firefights occur within 200 m. Furthermore, that even determined training has failed to enable infantrymen to deal effectively with targets with individual, point-weapons beyond 200 m. He also notes that 5.56 mm ammo is more-or-less ineffective much past 200 m anyway, but interestingly, he does not consider this to be a problem at longer ranges; he points out that the man under fire doesn't care what the calibre of the bullets striking at and around him are, he's going to go to ground anyway.

Instead, he proposes that firefights at ranges of over 200 m be dealt with by machine guns, grenade launchers, rockets, and mortars. He takes the British Army to task (and I very much agree) for removing the 51 mm Light Mortar from the Infantry Platoon HQ (effective range 800 m) as it claims that the 40mm Underslung Grenade Launcher (range 350 m) can replace it in the indirect-fire role (obviously it can't). He does however, approving take notice of the M-32 40 mm Medium Grenade Launcher with its 800 m range. Eventually, Owen proposes an Infantry Section composition of 8 men split into a machine gun team and a medium grenade launcher team.

William F. Owen - Quote:

"It is section weapons and HE projectors that win firefights, not IWs.
Where the performance of IWs is critical is at short range."

-Unquote

Interesting, but I'm not sure that either team is suited for the assault itself, and sadly, discussion of the Infantry Platoon gets waylaid in the course of the article. Although the issue of weight does get fair treatment, I think, and that reducing the typical British infantryman's load from 42 kg (52 kg for Section Commanders due to radio and batteries) to 26 kg is partially faciliated by some of Owen's proposals for Platoon Weapons. He does not sound optimistic that a clear recognition that solutions to the weight problem are readily at hand will in fact occur.

davidbfpo
11-24-2007, 08:58 PM
Odd the reported removal of the 51mm mortar as the recent BBC-TV Panorama programme on Afghanistan showed soldiers using it. They may have had the underslung grenade launcher, but it is not so easy to spot.

Secondly the British Army has traditionally not issued 0.50 calibre machine guns beyond the armoured corps; now they are in wide use in Afghanistan, on Land Rovers and static posts.

From a non-military "armchair".

davidbfpo

Rifleman
11-25-2007, 02:27 PM
Owen writes some interesting articles. I'm usually not quite sure how I feel about his proposals after the first reading though.

For instance: at first I liked his idea of re-organizing the infantry platoon into a smaller platoon subdivided into big fire teams (the "fire team group" platoon); after more thought it just seemed like re-arrainging the same old company furniture in the same old company living room just to give a different look.

Owen's articles are something I tend to think about and mull over quite a bit. I'll have to do the same with this one.

jmcavin
11-26-2007, 06:12 AM
But it brings up two questions:

1) MOUT - house clearing generally requires machine guns in a support role - covering avenues of approach (streets, hallways, etc.). Mortars are limited, unless we're talking a Stalingrad or Hue situation. Rifles and riflemen will always be needed . . .

2) Why am I still qualifying from the 500? ;)

120mm
11-26-2007, 02:56 PM
Oh, I do hate "statistical firefights". Unfortunately, the 20% of the time you need to reach out and touch someone, it'd be "nice" to do so with IWs.

I've done some "cow-patty" shooting at the 600-800 meter range, and was amazed at how easy it was, under certain conditions, to "ID" the target, and then, how relatively easy it was to hit the specific area IVO the target, as well as the target itself. (Cow patties give a relatively spectacular secondary effect, whether wet or dry.)

I was shooting an Ishapore in .308 at the time, with iron sights. The terrain was rolling, with the longest possible shot right at a mile. (No joy at hitting a target at that range, though I might've scared it, should it be a vehicle).

Bottom line, I think there is a place for both 5.56 and .308 rifles in a serious military's arsenal. Machineguns are relatively inflexible, compared to a rifle.

walrus
11-26-2007, 08:46 PM
I note that the writer has not touched on the logistics of supplying the various different types of ammunition, which might be a useful addition, even if only to argue that its not an issue.

Off topic, but there was a proposal many many years ago when we were armed with SLR's (FN 7.62) to ditch the sections single 7.62 GPMG and replace it with two Brens per section, recalibered in 7.62 and using a common (prepacked/disposable) magazine that fitted both weapons and infantrymen would carry extra magazines instead of link.

Section Commanders liked the idea (as far as I could tell) because it gave them two identical fire teams and it was felt that the ease of use of the Bren made up for the slightly slower rate of fire caused by Mag changes, it also simplified resupply and "load balancing".....but the proposal was squashed.

William F. Owen
12-13-2007, 10:48 AM
I was pointed at this board by the guys at Reading University, and having read through what I could, I can see why.

I had no idea anyone actually read my stuff!

Give me some time to chew on this and I will attempt to reply to all points raised.

Norfolk
12-13-2007, 03:08 PM
I was pointed at this board by the guys at Reading University, and having read through what I could, I can see why.

I had no idea anyone actually read my stuff!

Give me some time to chew on this and I will attempt to reply to all points raised.

Welcome to Small Wars Mr. Owen, and thank-you for joining us!:D Yes, your pieces have indeed been the object of interest and discussion. Now that you're with us, and if you are able to find the time for that as well (or wait until your sabbatical to do so), we would be pleased if you would review our Rifle Squad composition thread at some point. But by all means, treat with this thread and the PBID thread first.

Once again Mr. Owen, welcome and thank-you for joining the SWC.

Best,

Norfolk

Tom Odom
12-13-2007, 03:16 PM
I had no idea anyone actually read my stuff!

It is at once thrilling and chilling :D:eek:

Welcome to SWC!

Tom

William F. Owen
12-14-2007, 01:51 AM
The points I was basically trying to make are,

1. Far too much emphasis is put on the IW. We probably do not need ones as capable as those we have. Smaller, more compact and lighter would seem to be useful. The ability of “men under stress” to hit targets is very far short of that performance they demonstrate on the range.
2. What does the killing or creates the effects, are the platoon weapons, such as GPMG/M240B, Javelin, and other HE Projectors.
3. Very little attention is given to the weight and capability of sensors and communications equipment. For example, if you had a fire team of 4 men, could you sensibly trade the weight of their 5.56mm LMG for a thermal weapons sight and an MBITR – PRC-148/JEM. – Or do we just keep loading them up like pack mules?

This brings me to Platoon Organisation and I will address this else where and in more detail on the appropriate thread.

My article had to be cognoscente of its intended audience, the British Army, the majority of whom are not that reflective and open-minded when it comes to infantry doctrine. Therefore the overall basics of the platoon were not up for grabs or how it should operate. Suffice it to say, the platoon should be configured to manoeuvre the most effective weapons and sensors (including people) into the locations where they can break the will of the enemy. If you believe that the primary weapons of the infantry are the grenade and the bayonet, then you will have different ideas than if you believe it is the 7.62mm GPMGs and HE Projectors.

William F. Owen
12-14-2007, 02:49 AM
1. I note that the writer has not touched on the logistics of supplying the various different types of ammunition, which might be a useful addition, even if only to argue that its not an issue.

2. Off topic, but there was a proposal many many years ago when we were armed with SLR's (FN 7.62) to ditch the sections single 7.62 GPMG and replace it with two Brens per section, recalibered in 7.62 and using a common (prepacked/disposable) magazine that fitted both weapons and infantrymen would carry extra magazines instead of link.


1. ... and the writer should have! This does actually concern me and I have a more than a few spread sheets and staff officers hand book tables dedicated to looking at this. Where this does become an issue is when you look at the number pallets A1 Echelon has to hold or how many ammunition natures of a particular sort you can allocate to re-supply loads. The few the types of ammunition held, the better, but remember to a logistician, 7.62mm ball and 7.62mm link are two very different things. If you want to carry an 84mm CG in the platoon, you might be adding up tp 4 different types of ammo nature (Smoke, HEDP, AT, and Illumination). A 51mm or 60mm light mortar adds three (Smoke, HE, and Illumination)

2. I was a section commander when this was done and talked about. This was post Falklands when 2 PARA had allocated two GPMG to each section. Some Royal Marine sections had a 3 man GPMG team and then gave the 5 man rifle group, a BREN LMG. This worked well by all accounts, though 30 round BREN LMG magazines are heavy and bulky, but L4A2/3/4 BRENs worked well with 20 round SLR/L1A1 Mags, and were very accurate. NOTE: You could not mount a Night Sight on a Bren!

- The thinking behind the idea was to validate the IW and LSW concept for the two balanced fire teams in a section - which I now believe to have been a great mistake.

hope this helps

William F. Owen
12-14-2007, 02:52 AM
Bottom line, I think there is a place for both 5.56 and .308 rifles in a serious military's arsenal. Machineguns are relatively inflexible, compared to a rifle.

I agree, so why not allocate 2 x 8.6mm or 7.62mm Long Range/Sniper Rifles to the platoon?

Norfolk
12-14-2007, 03:26 AM
Very interesting points Mr.Owen.:)

Your recommendations for the Platoon's Weapons layout then, are: Assault Rifles effective out to 200 m or so as well as Underslung Grenade Launchers, and magazine-fed LMGs of the same calibre in the Section, and a pair of Sniper Rifles in the Platoon HQ along with a Light Mortar and a Carl G. How would you organize GPMGs in the Platoon - or would you pool them at a higher level? I remember in The RCR, each Rifle Company HQ and each Rifle Platoon HQ had a Weapons Det with a GPMG, a 60 mm Mortar, and a Carl Gustav, to keep the PLatoon's objective under comprehensive direct-fire, indirect-fire, and AT/bunker-busting fire. I know that the Brit Army briefly used the US Army solution of a pair of GPMGs plus the 51 mm Mortar at Platoon HQ before transitioning to the present composition.

And, in short, with specific reference to the Platoon's Weapons (of course), what would you set as guidelines regarding the weight of such weapons and their attendant ammo and associated kit, etc. At what point does lightening the weight adversely affect the ability of the Platoon to perform its tasks?

And thank-you once again for responding to us.:cool:

William F. Owen
12-14-2007, 04:23 AM
Wow, this is exercising the old grey matter…

1. Please call me Wilf, not “Mr. Owen” – smacks of unnecessary and unearned deference! :eek:
2. I see there as being two things that the platoon needs to do as concerns weapons. First you need Teams (3-5 men?) to conduct reconnaissance so that weapons teams – again 3-5 men – can get weapons into places where they can do the most damage to the enemy. This is as old as the hills and has been around for years. Wigram detailed this in his 1941 “Battlecraft” pamphlet, and then added to it in his post Sicily battle notes.
3. The “Recce” Teams should be lightly loaded so as they can best do their task. The weapons teams would then be optimised to support the weapons they are equipped with.
4. As a straw man and in the absence of any other ideas, I’d have 3-5 “Recce” teams under the platoon commander, and 2-4 weapons teams under the Platoon Sergeant.

120mm
12-16-2007, 07:13 PM
I agree, so why not allocate 2 x 8.6mm or 7.62mm Long Range/Sniper Rifles to the platoon?

That sounds good to me.

I agree with you on the importance of machineguns, and the relative unimportance of the IW for recon.

However, 5.56 just stinks against even light barrier material. And I challenge you to maneuver either the GPMG OR the Sniper Rifle in CQB in order to deliver projectiles on a target behind a light to medium barrier. Or to stop an automobile racing toward you with intentions unknown.

Just trying to "stir the pot" a bit. I certainly do like someone who challenges Conventional Wisdom.

William F. Owen
12-17-2007, 01:25 AM
However, 5.56 just stinks against even light barrier material. And I challenge you to maneuver either the GPMG OR the Sniper Rifle in CQB in order to deliver projectiles on a target behind a light to medium barrier.

1. The performance of 5.56mm is always up for grabs. I judge SS109 derived rounds to be pretty good, for suppression and engaging targets in the open. If I want to punch up some cover then 7.62mm or HE is a better choice. All very obvious.

2. I wouldn't even try to maneuver a GPMG or Sniper rifle in CQB, except as part of a 3-5 man team and supported by another team doing the recce. EG - Recce team clears the building and then calls up the weapons teams so as they can use their weapons against the enemy in the next building.

120mm
12-17-2007, 05:57 AM
1. The performance of 5.56mm is always up for grabs. I judge SS109 derived rounds to be pretty good, for suppression and engaging targets in the open. If I want to punch up some cover then 7.62mm or HE is a better choice. All very obvious.

2. I wouldn't even try to maneuver a GPMG or Sniper rifle in CQB, except as part of a 3-5 man team and supported by another team doing the recce. EG - Recce team clears the building and then calls up the weapons teams so as they can use their weapons against the enemy in the next building.

I'd think the obvious problem with what you suggest would be the non-linear nature of urban combat. Sooner or later, the "whackamole" pops up where you don't expect him.

To be sure, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here, but I've heard from some folks who've used the admittedly problematic M14 to good effect in towns to punch through barriers using reflexive fire in CQB.

William F. Owen
12-17-2007, 06:44 AM
I'd think the obvious problem with what you suggest would be the non-linear nature of urban combat. Sooner or later, the "whackamole" pops up where you don't expect him.

To be sure, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here, but I've heard from some folks who've used the admittedly problematic M14 to good effect in towns to punch through barriers using reflexive fire in CQB.

But the "whackamole" is inherent to warfare. No technique will defeat him, except being generally better at what you do than he is. The "Recce finds places for weapons" is one of the few tactical concepts I see that seems to keep working time and again. It is often misrepresented as fire and manoeuvre.

As concerns the M14, I guess this begs the question, how many 7.62mm 20-inch barrelled semi-automatic rifles do you need in a platoon?

120mm
12-17-2007, 06:58 AM
Okay, I finally broke down and read the article. I'm with you, until you advocate the 5.7 x 28mm and other PCOW rounds.

Frankly, those things are worse than worthless. Want your infantry to be effective? Give your enemies plenty of 5.7 x 28mm ammo and the required weapons. I have a police officer friend whose department adopted the FN5.7 pistol, and they have had ZERO luck with actually stopping a bad guy with that particular "tickle gun". Here's a quote: "Stop shooting me with that g-d-mned gun or I'm gonna get pissed off!"

EVERYTHING I've read, seen or discussed with OIF vets indicate the need for more lethal short-ranged ammo. Not more whiz-bang NATO fast-small b.s..

Again, this is more of the same "statistical firefight" stuff. So, by your reckoning, 20% of the time you're SOL???

William F. Owen
12-17-2007, 08:00 AM
1. Okay, I finally broke down and read the article.

2. I'm with you, until you advocate the 5.7 x 28mm and other PCOW rounds.

3. Again, this is more of the same "statistical firefight" stuff. So, by your reckoning, 20% of the time you're SOL???

Where to begin?

1. OK, you read the article. Thank you. :wry:

2. I advocate making better use of the carried load. Nowhere do I say, "give everyone 5.7 or 4.6 weapons". When I was a young radio operator and Number 1 on the Carl Gustav, I had a Sterling SMG, with 3 x 30 round magazines. 4.6mm and even 5.7mm weapons are generally more effective in terms of measurable criteria (CRISAT performance and PERMANENT wound channel) than 9mm SMGs. Is it better to carry more 7.62mm link for the M-240 and 40mm HE, for the MGL, or carry a Thermal weapons sight than lug 30 round magazines for a 5.56mm weapon, that 90% of soldiers cannot use effectively under pressure.

3. Never heard of a statistical fire fight, but I am pretty up on light weapons operational analysis. If you can't measure it, it can't be improved. (Which is where scaling 6.5mm across the platoon 'seems' to fall down) What is "effective range" etc. What we know from trials is that soldiers under stress perform some 75% less accurately, than when not. No amount of training seems to correct this.

Now I am not coming down on any one side here, but we need to stop saying things like "all PDWs are crap" and start doing real trials and measurements. Some folks have done the work and their conclusions are instructive. The P-90 and MP-7 have both been used in combat. I have talked to folks who are equipped with both weapons and neither seems to have a problem with it, in the role they use it.

...other wise just give everyone M4s chambered with 6.5mm and suck up the extra weight, based on the opinions rather than data.

Distiller
12-17-2007, 10:44 AM
One should think that with current ops going on in Iraq & -stan it shouldn't be too difficult to equip a few units with non-standard calibers and simply find out!

And isn't it, that a soldier's confidence in his weapon influences the way he uses it?

Funny that "the other side" never seems to have gripes about what caliber to use, even as the composition and fire power of our side changes.

William F. Owen
12-17-2007, 11:10 AM
One should think that with current ops going on in Iraq & -stan it shouldn't be too difficult to equip a few units with non-standard calibers and simply find out!

And isn't it, that a soldier's confidence in his weapon influences the way he uses it?

Funny that "the other side" never seems to have gripes about what caliber to use, even as the composition and fire power of our side changes.

All the evidence suggests that soldiers confidence in their weapons is a product of the way they use it, and not the other way around as you suggest. EG:- They observe the effect of their weapon, and make a series of what can be flawed judgements

The key is education. Take them out on the field firing range and show them, using acoustic and sensor based targets, what can and can't be done.

120mm
12-17-2007, 01:38 PM
My initial, and lasting negative reaction is something I trust. We could deconstruct it, if you like, and approach it a different way.

A soldier's IW is a confidence-building tool, and provides emotional security, as well as being a tool for fighting. Dismissing the soldiers' concerns based upon whatever trivia that can be gathered, scientific or not, is the "anti-leader" thing to do.

We have lots of relevant data: WWII USSR and Korean War-era Chinese/North Korean forces made substantial use of very ballistically similar 7.62 x 25mm submachinegun rounds. And units equipped with light weapons like this, did pretty well combined with heavier support weapons. However, there is also lots of data which suggest the round was not an effective incapacitator.

But here's some US Army reality for you:

The rollout of the PDW will be flawed. Training will be flawed. Funds for the sensors and "acoustic targets" will not be produced, (And soldiers will not believe "sensors" anyway) and NCOs who do not believe in the PDW concept will run the training. And the soldier will rightfully decide that the PDW is a piece of crap only good for letting the bad guys know where he is, so they can come kill him. (Which will happen, just often enough to shatter whatever confidence you think can be built up around more lightly armed troops)

I question the need to save weight by making the bullets smaller. History shows that "Army Leaders" will only make the soldier carry more crap, because they "don't have to carry heavy bullets anymore." Just look at how soldier loadouts went UP when changing from the M14 to the M16.

I think your concept makes some assumptions about reality, which cannot be easily proven by arranging neat and simple "facts."

William F. Owen
12-17-2007, 01:58 PM
1. A soldier's IW is a confidence-building tool, and provides emotional security, as well as being a tool for fighting. Dismissing the soldiers' concerns based upon whatever trivia that can be gathered, scientific or not, is the "anti-leader" thing to do.

2. We have lots of relevant data: WWII USSR and Korean War-era Chinese/North Korean forces made substantial use of very ballistically similar 7.62 x 25mm submachinegun rounds. And units equipped with light weapons like this, did pretty well combined with heavier support weapons. However, there is also lots of data which suggest the round was not an effective incapacitator.

3. The rollout of the PDW will be flawed. Training will be flawed. Funds for the sensors and "acoustic targets" will not be produced, (And soldiers will not believe "sensors" anyway) and NCOs who do not believe in the PDW concept will run the training.

4. I think your concept makes some assumptions about reality, which cannot be easily proven by arranging neat and simple "facts."

Points 1 and 3. You are absolutely right. All your concerns are ones that I am both aware of and believe to be true.

However these issues cannot be allowed negate any attempt at improvement. One of my prime motivations to write about what I do and to do presentations to HQs and conferences is to try and demonstrate that there is another way and it might be better. This is why real empirical evidence is so vital.

Point 2. I am pretty familiar with that round, and am a fan of it. If you have real test data to show its terminal performance in some medium, then please let me know. What criteria are you judging incapacity against, being that it is a very relative term?

Point 4. Are you saying that facts or a body of empirical evidence cannot change soldiers minds? EG: They cannot reason, because they believe in articles of faith that do not require proof.

120mm
12-18-2007, 06:03 AM
Point 4. Are you saying that facts or a body of empirical evidence cannot change soldiers minds? EG: They cannot reason, because they believe in articles of faith that do not require proof.

Yes. Absolutely. To segue into another subforum, to the typical soldier, his/her IW is a "totem". And the IW system before the current one is a holy relic, without blemish. To hear soldiers speak of the M14 with reverance is amazing, for example, especially since the M14 had some serious drawbacks.

Now, having said that, I can see a way to make your proposed system "work". I think the way the US Army rolled out the "Stryker" family of vehicles was instructive. They were isolated from the mainstream Army, and were inculcated with a sense of "specialness". By the time they hit Iraq in mid/late '03, they were "true believers".

I am chagrined that you like the "mid-velocity, low-caliber/weight" carbine rounds. The ONLY thing they are even marginally competent at, imo, is piercing body armor, and it is hard to visualize a guerilla force making the mistake of using body armor, and even harder to imagine a "Fulda Gap" scenario in current, or mid-term future ops.

I would propose your same system, only using lower speed, heavier projectiles instead of the lightweight, medium-speed projectiles. If you restrict your terminal range to 200m, you can manage the trajectory problem, I think. And, if your military forces SHOULD face an OPFOR wearing body armor, sabot rounds, or changing to a bottlenecked version of the main round wouldn't require replacing all the weapons, just the barrels, and possibly the magazines.

Lightweight, high speed rounds do an awful job of penetrating mixed media barriers. Lightweight, medium speed rounds do a worse job. Even pistol caliber rounds, fired from a pistol are better at penetrating just about anything except body armor.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

Of course, your "permanent wound channel" stats are really key, if the US Army is ever faced by a military force composed of ballistic gelatinous creatures. Wearing body armor, of course.

I will admit to being biased in favor of heavier, slower rounds, due to digging a large variety of rounds out of once-living flesh of various sized animals.

William F. Owen
12-18-2007, 06:43 AM
1. To hear soldiers speak of the M14 with reverance is amazing, for example, especially since the M14 had some serious drawbacks.

2. Now, having said that, I can see a way to make your proposed system "work". I think the way the US Army rolled out the "Stryker" family of vehicles was instructive.

3. I am chagrined that you like the "mid-velocity, low-caliber/weight" carbine rounds. The ONLY thing they are even marginally competent at, imo, is piercing body armor....

4. Of course, your "permanent wound channel" stats are really key, if the US Army is ever faced by a military force composed of ballistic gelatinous creatures. Wearing body armor, of course.

5. I will admit to being biased in favor of heavier, slower rounds, due to digging a large variety of rounds out of once-living flesh of various sized animals.

1. Oh yes, and I grew up on the L1A1 SLR that attracted similar silliness.

2. That is an excellent point. I am Stryker sceptic, but some of the theory that underpinned the concept was very sound - but generally remains hidden.

3. Well my preference is actually for a "good-enough" round. Not an all around man-stopper that everyone seems to crave. Case telescoped 5.56mm maybe 50% lighter than the current round. Good enough, but not a mature technology right now. Being able to perforate body armour at range is characteristic which buys you more than one might suppose.

4. If you can show me a better medium for assessing terminal effect than Gelatin, then I'm VERY interested to hear. If you have a round that can perforate 1.6mm of titanium sheet, (NOT CRISAT) backed by 30cm of correlated 10% Gelatin, at 200m, I submit you have an adequate IW round.

5. I have had some long discussions with the military medicine community on this, and it has merit, except for the fact that animals do not suffer from suppression, and that incapacity in animals is comparatively easy to judge/measure, unlike humans.

120mm
12-18-2007, 06:52 AM
If I were back in the US, I'd be tempted to get a cheap carbine/pistol combo, sharing similar ammunition, and do some testing using full-bore and sabot ammunition.

There are some decent carbine actions that claim to be able to have automatically adjusting gas systems, which would cycle multiple types and loadings of ammo.

120mm
12-18-2007, 02:44 PM
Here is a link to illustrate the relative lack of effectiveness of the 5.7 x 28mm round.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1931084651/m/3621062102/p/1

I would submit that instead of saboting a necked down 9mm round, why not just saboting a regular 9mm round and retaining the original barrel diameter? There is significant hype involving effectiveness of the PDW rounds on soft targets, but I'm not convinced.

William F. Owen
12-19-2007, 01:40 AM
Here is a link to illustrate the relative lack of effectiveness of the 5.7 x 28mm round.

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1931084651/m/3621062102/p/1

I would submit that instead of saboting a necked down 9mm round, why not just saboting a regular 9mm round and retaining the original barrel diameter? There is significant hype involving effectiveness of the PDW rounds on soft targets, but I'm not convinced.

I think the amount of testing NATO has done 5.7 and 4.6 is quite conclusive. I have all the PASGT and CRISAT performance data, as well as permanent wound channel performance. The only useful data absent seems to be autopsies.

...and fire from a handgun, both rounds suck. Stay with 9mm.

Ken White
12-19-2007, 02:58 AM
Including a lot of 9mm stuff. I seem to recall reading an article not too long ago that said due to the weapon quantities and routine violence, Hospitals in the RSA treat a lot of gunshot wounds. Most patients walk in. Most were shot with 9mm rounds...

From the 'Marine Rules of Combat:'


"1. Bring a gun. Preferably, bring at least two guns. Bring all of your friends who have guns.
. . .
6. If you can choose what to bring to a gunfight, bring a long gun and a friend with a long gun.
. . .
24. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun, the caliber of which does not start with a "4."

Norfolk
12-19-2007, 03:35 AM
Including a lot of 9mm stuff. I seem to recall reading an article not too long ago that said due to the weapon quantities and routine violence, Hospitals in the RSA treat a lot of gunshot wounds. Most patients walk in. Most were shot with 9mm rounds...

From the 'Marine Rules of Combat:'

I was going to say, how many people who take a .40 cal come walking in and walking out of hospitals? Theres seem to be a noticeable difference between the nine milly and even the .40.

I must say, I retain doubts about the 5.56, and especially in LMGs - effective suppression or not, I still want something that can reliably kill someone out to 800 m, not just keep their heads down. A 5.56 won't do that. Even granting that the 5.56 is an adequate killer out to 200 m (in an M-16, not an M-4), and you can carry plenty of ammo, anything beyond that still needs a substantially more potent round. Suppressing alone is not good enough; when you pull the trigger, you should be able to kill whoever you hit, not just suppress them; otherwise, you just end up having to kill them later during the assault - knife-fighting range, and that leads to a lot of battle losses.

I'm inclined towards the 6.5 Grendel for carbines, rifles, and LMGs, but if LMGs are to retain 5.56 alongside present carbines and rifles, that can hurt your ability to kill (especially) and to suppress at longer ranges. The latter is particularly important if you have to shoot-in a Section or pair of Sections with Platoon weapons, as the 5.56 just does not have the reach of a 7.62, let alone the killing power at those ranges (200 m+).

Rex Brynen
12-19-2007, 03:41 AM
... occur to me as I follow this thread (avidly, I must say, for a non-infantryman).

First, what thoughts do people have on what support weapons should be grouped at the platoon level, what should be grouped at company, and what should be grouped at both (or at battalion)? There has been some discussion of this in passing both here and in the thread on squads/sections, but I've yet to see anyone fully articulate a logic for how one would best decide this.

Second, can we really have a discussion of platoon weapons without more fully discussing APC/IFV issues? Here, I'm less interested in the perennial tracked vs wheeled and heavy versus light issues, and more on the optimal APC/IFV armament. Are 0.50 MGs enough? Should they mount 25/30mm cannon for punching through cover and providing some capability against light AFVs? What about ATGM mounts? (Of course, this also relates to light vs heavy, but let's try to leave that aside for now.)

slapout9
12-19-2007, 03:42 AM
The Hospital in Montgomery,Al. where I am one of the security managers is part of a three Hospital system. We have quite a few that walk in or drive in:eek: with handgun wounds. Not that uncommon at all. I was shot with a .44 caliber and didn't even know it for about an hour, true it was only a flesh wound but I was knocked off my feet and then slide about 6 feet downhill.

First questions the Emergency doctors ask....How big is the bullet? and Where did it hit them? The ones that come in by ambulance are usually multiple gunshot wounds or large caliber wounds or hit in critical areas such as chest,stomach,head.

A bigger round is better, but it is more about where you hit them and how many times you hit them.

Real shooting with handguns!!http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=related&v=iJSNDofoOfg

William F. Owen
12-19-2007, 03:52 AM
.
1. First, what thoughts do people have on what support weapons should be grouped at the platoon level, what should be grouped at company, and what should be grouped at both (or at battalion)?

2. Second, can we really have a discussion of platoon weapons without more fully discussing APC/IFV issues? Here, I'm less interested in the perennial tracked vs wheeled and heavy versus light issues,

1. This thread is about Platoon weapons, but excellent question.

2. Another excellent point. Start another thread and I'll be in there like squirrel on cocaine!

William F. Owen
12-19-2007, 03:59 AM
I'm inclined towards the 6.5 Grendel for carbines, rifles, and LMGs, but if LMGs are to retain 5.56 alongside present carbines and rifles, that can hurt your ability to kill (especially) and to suppress at longer ranges. The latter is particularly important if you have to shoot-in a Section or pair of Sections with Platoon weapons, as the 5.56 just does not have the reach of a 7.62, let alone the killing power at those ranges (200 m+).

IIRC, the PLA have a a 5.8mm round at the platoon level. They use a light bullet for IWs and a heavy round for MGs and Sniper rifles. 6.5 Grendel (and Grendel was chic according to the movie) has that possibility,

BUT it will lead to an overall increase in carried weight for IWs. 300 rounds of 5.56 = 9lbs and 300 rounds of 6.5 = 10.8lbs. It may save weight across the platoon. I have still to crunch the numbers on that.

I do not know how 6.5 compares to 5.56 for a 5-8 round burst dispersion at 25m. With more felt recoil, it probably has higher dispersion.

Distiller
12-19-2007, 07:23 AM
Taking about calibers on the section/squad level: I find it interesting that the Japanese changed from their 6.5mm to 7.7mm (a .303 and .30-06 hybride) after their experiences in China, even though it was in widespread (and quite successful) use for more than 30 years.

The Grendel sure is interesting for the section/squad organisation when using it in IW and LMG. But looking at the case profile - does it feed into a LMG w/o problems?

William F. Owen
12-19-2007, 07:35 AM
The Grendel sure is interesting for the section/squad organisation when using it in IW and LMG. But looking at the case profile - does it feed into a LMG w/o problems?

Interesting point. Firstly there is no 6.5mm link being manufactured that I am aware of and I do not see FN or HK spending any NREs on developing or adapting MG designs until someone does. That leaves it in the hands of the likes of KAC.

Do you need 6.5mm link? Well would anyone want to carry a 5.56mm LMG in a 6.5mm squad, and there is no point in having a 7.62mm GPMG in a 6.5mm squad. Sort of defeats the object of the exercise. The 144 grain 6.5mm round is more potent than NATO 7.62mm M80 according to one set of figures I have seen.

IMO, a 5.56mm and 7.62mm mix is perfectly adequate.

120mm
12-19-2007, 08:33 AM
The 144 grain 6.5mm round is more potent than NATO 7.62mm M80 according to one set of figures I have seen.

And here is another interesting point: All the data I've seen on the new wunder-cartridges share the same characteristic: They uniformly compare apples to oranges: They compare a specialty cartridge, in a specialty role, against a general purpose, or specialty cartridge OUTSIDE of it's specialty role. What if, instead of buying an entirely new family of weapons, you just reworked already existing cartridges? A 7.62 round with similar bc and sectional density to the 6.5 round will be superior in every way, except weight and weapon weight. A more useful statistic would be to compare like characteristics of similar rounds and honestly accept the compromises in suboptimal solutions.

And in reference to your earlier post, I reject utterly the utility of CRISAT. A round capable of penetrating well will do minimum damage to flesh, unless you are able to suspend the laws of physics. I have no ideas why the EUROs are so fascinated with poking tiny holes in body armor. (Actually, one idea just came to mind: I would suggest that the lack of a "gun culture" results in a form of "magical thinking" about firearms effectiveness. That is, to a large group of people who view firearms as distant, imaginary objects, having ANY gun creates a perception of vast power.)

In general, rounds that create good trauma results are not good at penetrating armor, either, unless you scale them up. There is no free lunch, advertising hype notwithstanding.

One more element to throw into the mix. Small rounds may weigh 1/2 to 1/3 as much as large rounds, but I would suggest that soldiers will use more than three times as many rounds to compensate for their lack of perceived power. Resulting in reduced combat effectiveness for no gain. A "Lite Foods" unintended consequence for combat soldiers, if you will.

William F. Owen
12-19-2007, 09:24 AM
1.) And in reference to your earlier post, I reject utterly the utility of CRISAT.

2.) One more element to throw into the mix. Small rounds may weigh 1/2 to 1/3 as much as large rounds, but I would suggest that soldiers will use more than three times as many rounds to compensate for their lack of perceived power. Resulting in reduced combat effectiveness for no gain.

1.) C.R.I.S.A.T = Collaborative Research Into Small Arms Technology. CRISAT is a research analogue based on the requirement that a small arms round has to be able to do more than merely create large wounds. Very useful if it can go through car doors for example, and it has to do it for quite low cost because armies buy millions and millions of rounds. To anyone who criticises CRISAT I say come up with a better test analogue.

2.) How do soldiers perceive the power of a round, when only a very tiny proportion ever see their rounds hit a target? The highest rates of fire are used for suppression, where they can rarely, if ever, see an effect.

In terms of gun culture it is interesting to note that the perceived lack of effectiveness of 5.56mm is a mostly a unique US issue. I have asked every Israeli, UK and even South African combat experienced soldier I have interviewed in the last three years, and none of them have said its an issue.
Only one of the 14 SOG veterans I talked to ever raised it, and the IDF guys only pointed out that they liked 7.62mm for GPMGs because it went through walls better than 5.56mm SAWs - as did the US OIF guys I talked to.

kaur
12-19-2007, 02:53 PM
"On the Terminal Effectiveness of Small-Arms Ammunition"


The difficulty with achieving good terminal effectiveness with a PDW round have led some to argue that the whole concept is a waste of time: that everyone, regardless of role, should carry the standard rifle. The risk with this is that non-infantry soldiers, concerned with their primary roles, will stow the rifle somewhere out of the way, where it may not be available when required.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm

120mm
12-20-2007, 04:58 AM
1.) C.R.I.S.A.T = Collaborative Research Into Small Arms Technology. CRISAT is a research analogue based on the requirement that a small arms round has to be able to do more than merely create large wounds. Very useful if it can go through car doors for example, and it has to do it for quite low cost because armies buy millions and millions of rounds. To anyone who criticises CRISAT I say come up with a better test analogue.

2.) How do soldiers perceive the power of a round, when only a very tiny proportion ever see their rounds hit a target? The highest rates of fire are used for suppression, where they can rarely, if ever, see an effect.

In terms of gun culture it is interesting to note that the perceived lack of effectiveness of 5.56mm is a mostly a unique US issue. I have asked every Israeli, UK and even South African combat experienced soldier I have interviewed in the last three years, and none of them have said its an issue.
Only one of the 14 SOG veterans I talked to ever raised it, and the IDF guys only pointed out that they liked 7.62mm for GPMGs because it went through walls better than 5.56mm SAWs - as did the US OIF guys I talked to.

The value of big, relatively slow bullets is not just a cultural thing. And it IS a cultural thing. Fast and relatively light bullets tend to shed energy quickly on barrier materials. Large and relatively slow bullets tend to penetrate everything BUT body armor better. Most 5.56 rounds will not penetrate as well as .40 or even 9mm ball ammo, for instance, except against body armor.

What I am suggesting is that instead of optimizing bullets to poke little tiny holes in a type of armor, that we optimize bullets to do damage on human flesh and general barrier material, and supply a saboted round for specialized use on armor. With the bottle-necked pistol rounds currently the rage as PDWs, you are optimizing to penetrate body armor and suboptimizing for general barrier penetration and flesh.

The weight penalty would only be the additional projectile weight, as both rounds would be approximately the same size. The saboted rounds would be around the same weight as the current PDW rounds, with a slight tradeoff in armor penetration due to the pressure effects of using the larger bore.

120mm
12-20-2007, 05:05 AM
"On the Terminal Effectiveness of Small-Arms Ammunition"



http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/terminal.htm

A couple notes: First, an Army shouldn't equip itself based on what the capabilities of the worst soldiers are. I'm a combat arms guy, with significant experience working in a major CSS HQ, and those guys couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag. It wouldn't matter HOW "handy" you make a weapon, it's just a paperweight to them.

Second, I read, corresponded with and have learned a bunch from Tony Williams, but like the great majority of technological historians, he is a collector of trivia. An extremely talented and readable collector of trivia, but a collector of trivia, nonetheless. And the problems with trivia collectors is that they are seldom burdened by functionality.

William F. Owen
12-20-2007, 07:21 AM
1. Most 5.56 rounds will not penetrate as well as .40 or even 9mm ball ammo, for instance, except against body armor.

2. What I am suggesting is that instead of optimizing bullets to poke little tiny holes in a type of armor, that we optimize bullets to do damage on human flesh and general barrier material, and supply a saboted round for specialized use on armor.

1. I am not sure I can agree with that statement. I've seen 5.56mm round go through material at 300m, when 9mm was dropping out of the air. Give me a range, some specific rounds and a specific material. 9mm DM11-A1B2 performs very differently from 2Z. (speaking as a former body armour tester.)

2. So what criteria do you suggest, that can be usefully measured? What you are asking for is the holy grail of bullet design. The NATO working groups long ago decided the optimum round had to be able to do both. If you were planning to fight US equipped troops, wouldn't you want a round that could defeat the PASGT helmet?

...and yes, we don't want to tailor weapons potential to the base-rats and REMFs.

Uboat509
12-22-2007, 09:07 AM
What I am suggesting is that instead of optimizing bullets to poke little tiny holes in a type of armor, that we optimize bullets to do damage on human flesh and general barrier material, and supply a saboted round for specialized use on armor. With the bottle-necked pistol rounds currently the rage as PDWs, you are optimizing to penetrate body armor and suboptimizing for general barrier penetration and flesh.

The weight penalty would only be the additional projectile weight, as both rounds would be approximately the same size. The saboted rounds would be around the same weight as the current PDW rounds, with a slight tradeoff in armor penetration due to the pressure effects of using the larger bore.

Some are already doing something similar to this. Some of my buddies carried mostly mags of 5.56LR but also carried a mag or two of green tip if they needed penetration. I was not blessed with as much LR so I alternated LR and green tip in my carry mags. 5.56 is not as effective as 7.62 but it is still better than green tip in terms of wound characteristics.

SFC W

jcustis
12-25-2007, 09:11 PM
2.) How do soldiers perceive the power of a round, when only a very tiny proportion ever see their rounds hit a target? The highest rates of fire are used for suppression, where they can rarely, if ever, see an effect.

In terms of gun culture it is interesting to note that the perceived lack of effectiveness of 5.56mm is a mostly a unique US issue. I have asked every Israeli, UK and even South African combat experienced soldier I have interviewed in the last three years, and none of them have said its an issue.
Only one of the 14 SOG veterans I talked to ever raised it, and the IDF guys only pointed out that they liked 7.62mm for GPMGs because it went through walls better than 5.56mm SAWs - as did the US OIF guys I talked to.

Ding....ding.......ding. I've heard myself saying the same thing to folks who are dismal on the 5.56 and never carried the weapon before.

Uboat509
12-26-2007, 05:12 AM
My issue with the 5.56 is based on admittedly anecdotal evidence but evidence from sources I trust. The most telling is the stories from guys I knew in Afghanistan. Doing CQC in the caves they ran into numerous situations where they were putting two, three or more rounds in the boweling pin and not putting the bad guy down immediately. The guy was dead but he did not know it yet and often got several shot off before he died. As a a result of this, some of our guys were killed or wounded. I have heard similar stories from Iraq and the Philipines. Having said that, green tip was id'd as being a significant problem, which is why so many of us started loading LR which has somewhat better ballistic effect.

SFC W

kaur
12-30-2007, 08:57 PM
I found interesting topic "6,5 Grendel vs 7,62 NATO" and in the middle of next link, there are nice penetration tables (I have never met before).

http://www.65grendel.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3126&page=2&pp=25

120mm
02-10-2008, 12:45 PM
I've thought about this issue for a couple months now, as something bothered me about it, but I couldn't think what it was. This afternoon, as I wrap up yet another meaningless Reserve Drill, it suddenly came to me:

This whole issue about PDWs and teenie-tiny projectiles and the statistical gunfight strikes me as being the modern day incarnation of the pre-WWII Royal Air Force "Area Attacks".

Basically, "Area Attacks" was based on the exact statistics that "prove" that individual fighter plans can't possibly accurately target enemy bombers, so therefore the RAF went to rifle caliber guns, instead of cannon, mounted 8 per aircraft, and synchronized to provide a "suppressive spray" at extreme range. And the squadron leader would maneuver the entire formation to "saturate" a box of sky, therefore "statistically" shooting down any bomber present in that sky "box".

"Area Attacks" were popular among theorists, and scientifically supported by all sorts of "facts"..... But were a complete and utterly impractical failure, that put the RAF back a year in the fight against the Luftwaffe, which valued individual marksmanship, airmanship, and automatic cannon mounted on aircraft, synchronized to hit at a focussed range.

The more I examine the analogy, the more I like it, and see it's relevance. Sure, well-emplaced GPMGs and Mortars will do excellent work on the majority of engagements, but I don't think that is a good reason to do away with the rifleman.

Sabre
02-12-2008, 02:26 AM
Thank you, Wilf, for writing such a thought-provoking article.

Why only one GPMG or LMG per squad/section?
Assuming some flavor of FN MAG or FN Minimi, the weight of that extra gun would equate to 300 to 500 fewer rounds of ammunition. However, a squad/section that is otherwise equipped with PDW's, and, for whatever reason, loses its one and only GPMG/LMG is in dire trouble on the battlefield.


I must admit that my bias is that I spent most of my time in mechanized units, so I am used to having a vehicle handy for the carrying of stuff (heh, and almost unbelievably, once you add up body armor, weapon, ammo, radio, NVG's, spare batteries for everything, water, and some "because you never know" survival items, what one carries still pushes the 30% bodyweight limit). Of course, in Iraq, most units do have a vehicle handy, and the latest re-org in the US Army even puts a fair number of vehicles back into the light infantry brigade (and where, exactly, in the MTOE *are* we going to put all of those MRAPs?) So, I happen to fall into the category of person that would prefer a heavier round than 5.56...

William F. Owen
02-12-2008, 05:12 AM
Thank you, Wilf, for writing such a thought-provoking article.

Why only one GPMG or LMG per squad/section?
Assuming some flavor of FN MAG or FN Minimi, the weight of that extra gun would equate to 300 to 500 fewer rounds of ammunition. However, a squad/section that is otherwise equipped with PDW's, and, for whatever reason, loses its one and only GPMG/LMG is in dire trouble on the battlefield.


Very happy and even honoured that you are happy. It was to provoke thought. Unfortunately that upsets a lot of people!

The one MG per section is actually one MG in 50% of the fire teams. The others have MGL.

GPMG/LMG is not the only way of creating useful fires, and I focus on the platoon, or multiple as the minimum element, not the section. Survivors from a badly mauled section, can always be usefully employed supporting the platoon in other ways.

As an aside, I am not sure I would support the move to a PDW, without extensive testing to prove the concept and then, if proved a huge education program to bring the boys up to speed. Hope this helps.

Jones_RE
02-12-2008, 03:33 PM
What about adding some long range fire into the mix? Didn't the red army have platoons armed with nothing but submachine guns supported by a rifle and mg armed group? The ballistic characteristics of that PPsh SMG would be pretty close to the P90, so it's not a bad match.

Add in some long range rifles into the mix (not assault rifles) and you'd have a workable organization. Not one per team, but supporting the MG equipped teams. The MG teams would have a longer range, but they'd use that to stay far away. The MGL teams would work up close and do the assault/breach thing.

I'd propose doubling the LMGs in the heavy teams to two and giving the remaining members of those teams long rifles. That would answer any long range concerns. The unit as a whole is still better off because the light teams have gotten so much lighter.

William F. Owen
02-13-2008, 12:53 AM
What about adding some long range fire into the mix? Didn't the red army have platoons armed with nothing but submachine guns supported by a rifle and mg armed group?

I agree. We actually talked about this else where. Something I am proposing in another article/paper is 2 x 7.62mm / 8.6mm rifles per "Platoon Group."

Distiller
02-16-2008, 10:24 AM
I don't think that one per man per MGL can provide any meaningful fire for more than a single engagement. Might work for low-intensity with only sporadic fights, not against a conventional enemy. I think that as with a LMG you need two men per MGL.
I view a MGL-heavy section is kind of like a long-range shotgun unit, lotsa bang during the first ten seconds, then 30 sec reloading. And ballistics of the 40mm make hitting further out against moving targets not so easy.

Adding a long-range precision rifle to the squad is a good idea (the Germans had something similar). This would result in a "networked combined arms infantry squad" 1 Squadleader, 5 Riflemen Carbine, 1 Precision Automatic Rifle, 1 SAW, 1 MGL.
I say networked and combined arms because such a setup would have difficulty executing more than one engagement without resupply.

All in all I still hold up my view of a MG for the squad, and all other indirect fire and seldom-used multi-crew served weapons (MGL, RPG) should be grouped at platoon level.
That makes it easier for the

And regarding mini-caliber PDW I think that up to platoon level every single soldier should have a "full" IW. Bulk is not so much a factor when using bullpup rifles. PDWs like MP-7 are not sooo small either.

JonathanF
05-06-2008, 07:48 PM
Hi all - just a layman (museum worker) here really, but from everything I've read the small PDW calibres are woefully inadequate both anecdotally, and in ballistic gel. So I was confused to read William Owen's RUSI article suggesting adoption of 4.6 or 5.7mm weapons, and his comments here regarding the NATO data.

Can I confirm Wilf (if I may) that you saw the post by DocGKR on the Lightfighter forum link you were given earlier in this thread?

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1931084651/m/3621062102?r=4131082102#4131082102

How do you reconcile that data with what you have (and I admit that I have seen none of your data - I'm genuinely interested in how two so different assessments of the same round (5.7mm) can emerge, bearing in mind that you do support the validity of ballistic gel tests.

Look forward to your reply, but quite understand if you're too preoccupied (and also that this isn't really the thrust of your RUSI article - but it's an aspect that stuck out for me.)

William F. Owen
05-07-2008, 06:53 AM
How do you reconcile that data with what you have (and I admit that I have seen none of your data - I'm genuinely interested in how two so different assessments of the same round (5.7mm) can emerge, bearing in mind that you do support the validity of ballistic gel tests.

Look forward to your reply, but quite understand if you're too preoccupied (and also that this isn't really the thrust of your RUSI article - but it's an aspect that stuck out for me.)

Hey Jonathan F! Very happy to take time to reply.

No, I haven't been able to access the link, but its most likely immaterial.
There is a massive hoplophile inspired bug fight over PDWs and small calibre rounds, that has nothing to do with operational reality - in my view - and has not been tested in that regard.

Testing the rounds is easy. We can measure their terminal effect on targets. The problem is that no one can agree on the most desirable effects. My contention is that we are missing the point. (I also speak direct to both FN and Heckler Koch's - so I ignore most of what is on the net)

What my RUSI article was suggesting was that we trade IW weight for sensors, support weapon, and projected HE weight. EG- The things we know create greatest benefit in dismounted operations. The article was intended to be provocative, but has sparked little useful debate, except here!

JonathanF
05-07-2008, 09:41 AM
Let me firstly say thanks for your reply, and I'm sorry the article didn't raise the discussion in the professional or academic circles you were hoping for. The overarching argument seemed to me to be a good one, although I agree with the caveat above that the military will simply plug all weight gaps with other equipment as and when they come available. If you could ensure the made-up weight consisted of the sort of kit you talk about (MP7s and P90s notwithstanding for a moment) then it seems a perfectly sensible approach to current conflicts. Of course, what goes on in the future is a different matter. But if a greater degree of flexibility comes out of suggestions like yours, that can only be a good thing.

On to the terminal ballistics. Hoplophile is a new one on me, and a good one too, but unfair in this case I think. "DocGKR" is Gary Roberts, a recognised wound ballistics expert. Dr Martin Fackler (who I think you must have heard of) is also down on these rounds. Neither, as far as I can tell, qualifies as a gun nut, cultural bias aside.

Both men point to a very small permanent wound channel and little to no secondary effect, which to me (and I stress I am not an expert by any means) makes a lot of sense. The only reliable way to cause incapacitating wounds aside from shot placement is to use weapons and ammunition that create large permanent wounds that, to put it bluntly, will bleed a lot.

Ironically enough, at 4-500m, this would be less of an issue. Any 10"+ perforating gunshot wound is going to cause a fighter enough difficulty at that range to put them out of the fight. But at the <300m range you're talking about, rapid incapacitation becomes pretty crucial as I see it, and not just from anecdotes that may relate to unusually resilient individuals (such stories can be rustled up for just about any calibre).

If you acknowledge the utility of gel tests, I wonder how you square the following with what you've seen, and would ask how the test methodology and results compare (assuming you have access to the articles cited)?

(Edited quote from the lightfighter link - I'd urge you to read the whole thing in situ)

Other than being able to perforate soft body armor, the 5.7 x 28 mm used in the FN P90, as well as the 4.6 x 30 mm fired from the HK MP7 cause wounds less incapacitating than those made by 9 mm FMJ fired from a pistol...

Several papers have described the incredibly poor terminal performance of projectiles fired by the FN P90.
--Dahlstrom D, Powley K, and Gordon C: “Wound Profile of the FN Cartridge (SS 190) Fired from the FN P90 Submachine Gun". Wound Ballistic Review. 4(3):21-26; Spring 2000.
--Fackler M: "Errors & Omissions", Wound Ballistic Review. 1(1):46; Winter 1991.
--Fackler M: "More on the Bizarre Fabrique National P-90", Wound Ballistic Review. 3(1):44-45; 1997.
--FBI Academy Firearms Training Unit. FBI Handgun Ammunition Tests 1989-1995. Quantico, U.S. Department of Justice--Federal Bureau of Investigation.
--Hayes C: “Personal Defense Weapons—Answer in Search of a Question”, Wound Ballistic Review. 5(1):30-36; Spring 2001.
--Roberts G: “Preliminary Evaluation of the Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 23 Grain FMJ Bullet Fired by the New FN P-90 , Using 10% Ordnance Gelatin as a Tissue Simulant”, AFTE Journal. 30(2):326-329, Spring 1998.
--Roberts G: “Terminal Performance of the 5.7 x 28 mm 31 Grain SS-190 FMJ Bullet Fired by the FN P-90 in 10% Ordnance Gelatin.”, AFTE Journal. In Press.

It is all basic physics and physiology. Look at the surface areas in contact with tissue for 9 mm FMJ and JHP compared to 5.7 mm. When both are point forward, the 9 mm FMJ crushes more tissue than the 5.7 mm; for the short time that the 5.7 mm is at FULL yaw, it crushes a bit more tissue than the 9 mm FMJ. At no time does the 5.7 mm crush more tissue than the expanded 9 mm JHP--even when the 5.7 mm FMJ is at full yaw, an expanded 9 mm JHP crushes more tissue. The relatively small temporary cavities produced by both the 9 mm and 5.7 mm projectiles are not likely to cause significant injury to the majority of elastic structures of the body. As with any penetrating projectile, if either a 9 mm or 5.7 mm bullet is ideally placed to cause significant damage to the CNS or major cardiovascular organs, a fatal result is likely.

William F. Owen
05-07-2008, 09:58 AM
If you acknowledge the utility of gel tests, I wonder how you square the following with what you've seen, and would ask how the test methodology and results compare (assuming you have access to the articles cited)?


I am extremely familiar with Gel tests and the wounding literature to which you refer. Gel tests are excellent for comparison data, (as is CRISAT) but you can't use Police Firearms criteria for judging these rounds.

1. Military rounds are not just about what they do to humans. The ability to perforate cover is absolutely critical.

2. As I say in the article, no one ever says, "c'mon lads. They're only using 4.85mm. let's go!" Any round can suppress.

3. PDW rounds have very low dispersion and good accuracy at <200m. Very few tests take this into account.

Hoplophile = Lover of Weapons, or "gun nuts".

JonathanF
05-07-2008, 11:06 AM
Thanks Wilf.


I am extremely familiar with Gel tests and the wounding literature to which you refer. Gel tests are excellent for comparison data, (as is CRISAT) but you can't use Police Firearms criteria for judging these rounds.

1. Military rounds are not just about what they do to humans.

I realise that, but it's increasingly a factor in weapon design and procurement, at least in the US. So what are your thoughts on the gel testing that shows a smaller permanent wound channel and neglible secondary "tissue stretch" effect?


The ability to perforate cover is absolutely critical.

I appreciate there's a difference in military and law enforcement requirements. Again I would suggest that attitudes in this respect are changing and I'd also ask why not consider wound ballistics? If it's important to a policeman to quickly incapacitate his target, why not a soldier?

I also accept that historically, armies have been happy simply to suppress and to score penetrating hits at range. But to equip infantrymen with what are basically less ballistically effective sub-machineguns, seems like a case of baby+bathwater to me. I realise you're proposing that GPMGs, MLGs and sniper weapons can take up the slack, but I just don't see the PDWs cutting the mustard even at the <300m range.


2. As I say in the article, no one ever says, "c'mon lads. They're only using 4.85mm. let's go!" Any round can suppress.

Yes, but not any round can incapacitate, nor make it through cover (see below). I concede that my suggestion that insurgents might adapt to take advantage of platoons armed primarily with short-range weapons was exaggeration to try to make a point.


3. PDW rounds have very low dispersion and good accuracy at <200m. Very few tests take this into account.

True, though of course so does 5.56, which can also work to mid-long range and (with the right ammo) cause reliably incapacitating wounds). Much heavier weapons, of course, which I recognise is really your point in the article - reducing carried weight.

So are you thinking along Project Salvo lines? Lots of grouped small-calibre rounds to increase hit probability, at the sacrifice of terminal performance?


Hoplophile = Lover of Weapons, or "gun nuts".

I did gather (after a google, admittedly) which is why I said it was a good line, didn't apply to the experts I cited, and used the term "gun nuts" myself. Just because a lot of gun nuts support something, doesn't lend it either credibility, or a lack of it.

In the expanded version of what I posted, Roberts (as does 120mm above) states that the 5.7mm round is NOT good at making it through cover, I presume in terms of maintaining velocity and vector (since it can do the CRISAT and soft armour no problem). This is because of its low mass/momentum - AP 9mm is (he says) better at this. So I wonder why you feel PDW rounds do meet this military criterion.

I'm still not sure how you can say that "4.6mm and even 5.7mm weapons are generally more effective in terms of measurable criteria (CRISAT performance and PERMANENT wound channel) than 9mm SMGs." Everything I've seen, and simple physics as Roberts says, strongly suggests otherwise. So whilst I'm not saying terminal effects in bodies should be the be-all and end-all of a military round and weapon, what I am saying is that the current 5.7 and 4.6mm rounds are not the compromise that you're looking for to save weight.

Now, once again, I realise that all I've read has all been online, whereas you have access to some real data that might totally trump the Fackler/Roberts tests. But if you could just clarify why you think those cited articles show a lesser gel result than 9mm ball, where other tests (presumably) contradict that, that would address my main concern (if for the sake of argument I concede that sub-carbine weapons are appropriate IWs). If you can point me to anything online or accessible via say, JSTOR, that would be a bonus for which I'd be most grateful.

William F. Owen
05-07-2008, 12:05 PM
JonathanF

I am not sure I would advocate the issuing of small calibre PDWs until I had done all the testing I feel necessary to provide the data. UK Infantry Thinking is incredibly conservative and equipment focussed, so I merely advocate it, to create discussion.

Be very careful of using the word "incapacitate." It's meaningless unless applied to a specific time frame and capability which you seek to defeat.

A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.

slapout9
05-07-2008, 12:32 PM
JonathanF
A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.


That is very true Wif. One of the worst Officer Survival films I have seen involved a South Carolins State trooper who was killed by a .22 fired from what we used to call a mouse gun (small handgun). It entered his armpit just above his body armor and just nicked the top of his heart causing him to bleed to death. Also the trooper fired his .357 magnum at point blank range at his attacker hitting him 3 time I believe. The attacker survived.:mad: the trooper didn't.

Rifleman
05-07-2008, 02:00 PM
Yep, that was Trooper Coates IIRC.

Of course, that was a big 'ol boy he was wrestling with and ended up shooting. Over 300 easy. Hard to believe those 145 grain Winchester Silvertips - normally a bullet with very good performance - didn't make it to anything vital but they didn't.

I hate to speak ill of Trooper Coats but he did make some serious tactical errors in my opinion.

Vic Bout
05-07-2008, 03:51 PM
Bill Rogers replied it didn't matter what kind of gun or caliber you carried as long as you were capable of hitting your opponent in the dominant eye....;)

SethB
05-07-2008, 08:01 PM
The M4 Commando in 5.56 (11.5 inch lightweight barrel and a flat top) and the P90 have the same loaded weight, 3.0 Kg. The M4 has less capacity, but it is in a proven rifle caliber. The magazines (loaded) weigh the same, although the P90 carries 40% more ammunition.

JonathanF
05-07-2008, 09:32 PM
JonathanF

I am not sure I would advocate the issuing of small calibre PDWs until I had done all the testing I feel necessary to provide the data. UK Infantry Thinking is incredibly conservative and equipment focussed, so I merely advocate it, to create discussion.

Understood, thanks.


Be very careful of using the word "incapacitate." It's meaningless unless applied to a specific time frame and capability which you seek to defeat.

Incapacitate in my mind means that the enemy is unable to return aimed fire. Timeframe = the sooner the better, surely? From what I'm seeing, even 9mm is sooner and better than 5.7mm, by virtue of a larger permanent wound channel. Plus it's supposedly better at defeating cover without deflection. Bearing this in mind, for your purposes, I would argue that you'd be better off proposing a different weapon. I also note the post above about the comparative weight of the 10" barrelled Colt carbine.


A .22 long rifle round can incapacitate just as well as a .50 if it hits in the right place. I know I use it as wildly as a lot of folks, but that's the frame of the argument right now.

Yes, of course -shot placement, whether by luck, judgement, or a mixture of both, is key. That's a given - why further reduce the effectiveness of your fire by choosing rounds that are shown relatively to be less damaging to the human body and less able to deal with interfering barriers.

I see now that you were poking the hornet's nest, and agree that it's one that needed poking. But needless to say you still have to be able to back up what you say. You don't need to prove anything to me, but if you can show me the evidence that counters what I've pointed to myself, I'd love to see it. I have no horse in any race here, I've ended up studying this area as an offshoot of an offshoot of my real job (historical stuff). And as a paid-up member of the sceptic's club, I try to assess everything from that perspective. The weight of evidence seems to me to be against PDWs, which were designed for a specific role, being capable of serving effectively as a main IW.

Playing devil's advocate to myself for a moment, and being optimistic about the tumbling claimed for the 5.7mm round + the capabilities of the P90 itself, you could see it as a fairly close parallel to the 7.62x39 and the AK family. With the advantages of being lighter, higher capacity, more accurate and better able to defeat soft armour. Viewed in those terms (and in the context of your other proposed changes), it's an option. But in terms of wound ballistics, I still think you'd be sacrificing quite a lot even compared to the "clean wounding" 7.62x39 round. A case would need to be made that the pros outweigh the apparent con of the lacking wound ballistics, and I don't think, on balance, that it has been (if it has, great! I hope to read about it one day.).

Anyway, a bit of a distraction from the real point of the article - my apologies for this. I did find it interesting and thought provoking.

Kiwigrunt
05-07-2008, 10:12 PM
Some UK troops in the Falklands dumped their SMGs in favour of Argy FALs because SMGs made them feel more exposed than a streaker at a world cup match. PDWs are really meant to be last resort, emergency weapons and have therefore, IMHO no place in the hands of frontline infantry soldiers, as cute as they are.

Do like your attitude towards provoking thought Wilf, and I totally get that. It’s a good way to get people to think outside the box, provided they are willing to.

ODB
05-07-2008, 11:04 PM
Kiwigrunt,
I have to disagree on this point. I whole-heartedly think Infantry troops should have them. If their primary goes down in room then what? I think it is more of a METT-TC call. Need them in the woods probably not. Need them in an urban environment most definately.

SethB
05-07-2008, 11:29 PM
ODB, do you think the advantages of the PDW, such as they are, make a PDW better as a secondary weapon than a 9MM handgun?

ODB
05-07-2008, 11:40 PM
For the masses (Infantry) PDWs raise the cool bar a lot, but other than that no. Due to the masses of 9mm in our inventories that misused, sorry staff guys you don't need them give them up. It is a realatively simple and inexpensive way to get them a secondary weapon. Additionally a secondary is only for when your primary goes down in a fight, as soon as your immediate threat is eliminated you need to get your primary up. Afraid you use something other than a 9mm, guys will not focus on getting their primary back operational immediately. Now I think a great use for PDWs is in the turret of gun trucks. Beats trying to use your M-4, personally I used an MP5-45 for this, another useful weapon for this is a shotgun with folding stock. Many times in a crowd you cannot use your .50 or M240.

jcustis
05-08-2008, 03:53 PM
"Shot placement is king, but penetration is queen." - Anonymous

bikewrench8541
05-08-2008, 06:45 PM
Finally read the article, definitely thought provoking.
Some observations;
1 The MGL is not getting the best reviews from what I hear. Long reload times and some issues with the sights. It seems like a solution to a problem that wasn't there. I think the grunts liked having a rifle literally at their fingertips.
Now if we could get get a magazine fed MGL with an interuptor to load different ammo...
2 A lot of those SMG troops from previous wars relied on very short visiblity either from darkness or very urban terrain. Darkness no longer 'effectively' exists.
3 Louder weapons suppress better.
4 I like the platoon DMR's as well as the Brit style platoon mortar.

Being a former jarhead I also like Weapons platoons and rifles.

RJ
05-08-2008, 08:30 PM
When I was a Recon Marine our T/O weapon was the M1A1
sub-machine gun (grease gun).

Our job was to observe and report. The perfect mission was to go ashore and cover the ground thoroughly and exit with out the enemy knowing we had been there.

"Swift, Silent, Deadly" is the motto for these battalions and the knife and garrote were the perfered weapons used to maintain the low profile required for this sort of work.

The grease guns were for last resort defense only. They were made by the IDEAL Toy Co. of Newark, NJ. :rolleyes:

At a 2nd Marine Division Parade for Sec. Def. Mac Namara, my platoon was stuck on the end of the 6th Marine Regt. and was the only unit wearing the WWII Camo Pattern utilities.

The Sec. Def. was impressed enough to climb off his Jeep and question the Div. Commander and some of the troops in the platoon.

He asked me if I knew who the manufacturer of my sub machine gun was. I proudly came to attention, then port arms and opened the breech cover and showed him the Ideal Toy Logo on the inside of the cover plate.

He returned to his jeep. :D

bikewrench8541
05-09-2008, 06:55 AM
Nice post RJ.
I believe that it would have been an M3A1.
Semper Fi Sir!

RJ
05-09-2008, 10:18 AM
Right you are. M3A1 it was. Turned 69 on Tuesday! Starting to crumble! :wry:

Semper Fi, Do or Die! Right back at chew!

120mm
05-11-2008, 06:43 AM
I am extremely familiar with Gel tests and the wounding literature to which you refer. Gel tests are excellent for comparison data, (as is CRISAT) but you can't use Police Firearms criteria for judging these rounds.

1. Military rounds are not just about what they do to humans. The ability to perforate cover is absolutely critical.

I say again, the ONLY "cover" that PDW rounds can perforate reliably is CRISAT. And none of our current or foreseeable enemies is stupid enough to wear body armor to the battlefield. PDW rounds against "real" cover are worse than useless. Light, fast bullets just don't penetrate very well.

One more point on PDWs and "itty-bitty bullets" IOT save weight. I guaran-freaking-tee you, that a lightweight "bullet-hose" PDW will go through ammo fast enough, that will more than neutralize the alleged "weight-savings" versus a "real" rifle.

William F. Owen
05-11-2008, 08:33 PM
I say again, the ONLY "cover" that PDW rounds can perforate reliably is CRISAT. And none of our current or foreseeable enemies is stupid enough to wear body armor to the battlefield. PDW rounds against "real" cover are worse than useless. Light, fast bullets just don't penetrate very well.

One more point on PDWs and "itty-bitty bullets" IOT save weight. I guaran-freaking-tee you, that a lightweight "bullet-hose" PDW will go through ammo fast enough, that will more than neutralize the alleged "weight-savings" versus a "real" rifle.

...and these would be reasons not to adopt a PDW, but as no one has really done the testing versus tactical applications, I would want to see some evidence. The MP-7A1 and P-90s are both being used on operations by various folks, but hard data is very hard to come by.

120mm
05-14-2008, 05:59 AM
...and these would be reasons not to adopt a PDW, but as no one has really done the testing versus tactical applications, I would want to see some evidence. The MP-7A1 and P-90s are both being used on operations by various folks, but hard data is very hard to come by.

Don't "get" the "no one has really done the testing" thing. I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that light, fast bullets don't penetrate, and don't produce secondary effects anywhere near as well as heavier, slower projectiles.

There is at least one decent study on suppression effects out there, of various types of ammunition and weapons. (BTW - I think the study I saw post-WWII, indicated that even a bolt action rifle can "suppress" with occasional rounds, rather than "beating up" the target with fully auto fire.

Since this thread has started, I've developed one additional objection to PDWs: In combat, very few people will put themselves in a position where they can put their weapon "in play" effectively. The great majority are incapable, or unwilling to put effective fire onto the enemy. Therefore, why sell out to the lowest common denominator at all in your selection of a shoulder arm?

With the assumption that MGs and arty are truly the biggest battlefield killers, why not go to a 16" carbine that shoots the rounds common to your machineguns? (Which would be an excellent reason to change to a single, common caliber, around the 7mm x 45mm range...) If suppression is your goal, accuracy becomes unimportant, and the bigger bullets will have a great effect downrange in ricochets, barrier penetration and splinter effects. Heck, just give everyone a SAGL... (Semi-Auto Grenade Launcher...)

SethB
05-15-2008, 03:24 AM
Wilf, how would you test terminal effect? Gelatin, auto glass, intermediate barriers, what kind of testing do you think is necessary?

Jones_RE
05-15-2008, 04:02 AM
It seems to me that quite often you're only going to get one crack at a fleeting enemy. Even in more open field fighting vagaries of terrain and relative position may only give one guy in the team a shot at a given opponent. That shot had better be fast, accurate, and effective.

PDWs are fast, but they aren't as accurate as rifles and their rounds can't be as effective.

The extra heavy weapons a PDW equipped squad can carry are effective and accurate, but they aren't nearly as fast as a rifle.

RJ
05-15-2008, 09:35 PM
Gentlemen,

I might be old fashioned---but MG's are great for keeping the enemy heads down while the rifle squad manuevers to get in close enough to kill them with bullets or bayonets.

They are also a great help when the enemy is dumb enough to charge in waves like the Chinese and NK in Korea. The Polish Cav. against the Germans and the Italian Arostocracy of the City of Rome that "il Duce" sent against the Russians to help his buddy Hitler and reduce the number of noble sons in WWII. (I knew a surivor of that last Cav. Charge in NJ -he was the Pres. of Alfa Romeo, USA.)

Accurate aimed fire by riflemen, using a round that will effectively kill if it hits in the upper and/or middle body mass, has been the effective standard since WWI.

If you give a infantryman, who has been properly trained, an opportunity to kill the enemy out to 600 yards with a rifle, the killing efficency does not get any better.

Even the old Marine BAR with its 20 round mags wasn't as effective as the three rifles in that fireteam - at picking off individuals at a distance or who were running away.

Could going back to basics, in the long ranges Afganistan is affording us be the way to go?

We live and some of you fight in a time when a good Lance Corporal in the Marines can and does when necessary talk to air assets that have the ability to do a lot more damage to enemy personnel and equipment than any amount of sexy firepower we can equip a modern rifle squad with.

I hear the in some of the fighting in Iraq, stubborn houses, well defended, were dropped around the ears of the enemy by the communication between the ground grunt and hte pilot with a smart bomb.

Now we are seeing single safe houses flattened by drones that are flown by some guy in the rear with the gear.

Let not over think the need, if all things being equal, todays infantry grunt can bring the wrath of God down on fixed defensive postions just by talking to a fast mover or a geek sitting in an air conditioned van on a little strip 100 miles away..

Sabre
05-15-2008, 10:54 PM
So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?

Presumably, he makes taking out the crew-served and special weapons a fetish - it becomes his #1 tactical priority, and once that is accomplished, manuevers agressively to suppress and destroy the squad...?

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of a platoon/squad partially equipped with PDW's, just wondering out loud if it makes the enemy's job a little easier, or allows them to focus better (since they should be focused on taking out the special weapons anyway).

Norfolk
05-15-2008, 11:05 PM
So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?

Presumably, he makes taking out the crew-served and special weapons a fetish - it becomes his #1 tactical priority, and once that is accomplished, manuevers agressively to suppress and destroy the squad...?

I am not necessarily disagreeing with the idea of a platoon/squad partially equipped with PDW's, just wondering out loud if it makes the enemy's job a little easier, or allows them to focus better (since they should be focused on taking out the special weapons anyway).

I'd say you have it bang-on right there, Sabre. Even if PDW's proved adequate for their intended role, they help to set-up their own Squads and Platoons for piecemeal destruction as they can't even hope to offer a secondary (even if limited) capacity for longer-range fires in defence of the main weapons. Kind of like the time-honoured practice of using artillery to separate infantry from their tanks, and then to pick each off at comparative leisure.

William F. Owen
05-16-2008, 09:21 AM
Don't "get" the "no one has really done the testing" thing. I think there is plenty of evidence that shows that light, fast bullets don't penetrate, and don't produce secondary effects anywhere near as well as heavier, slower projectiles.

You are correct. There is lots of data on the purely mechanical terminal effects. In 5 years of research I have found no open source data (or even foot prints of proprietary data) that any testing has been done on the tactical applications, human performance, or comparative organisations of the employment of PDWs.


Wilf, how would you test terminal effect? Gelatin, auto glass, intermediate barriers, what kind of testing do you think is necessary?

Pick a well reasoned criteria and test against it. Personally, I think the mechanical testing is not that important. Bullet design and testing is far from complex, and there are legal issues to contend with as well. Penetration is still the simplest, least contentious and easiest to achieve effect.


So, how does the enemy respond differently, when confronted with squads of PDW's?


Did the Germans respond differently to squads of Soviets equipped with PPsH, or any other weapon? This question assumes tactical problem to be in isolation.

To repeat, I am no saying, every man should have a PDW or even which PDW. I think big bullets are good. Big Bullets coming from GPMGs and Long range rifles is more effective than than from IWs. The concern and the only reason to look at this, is the issue of carried weight. I am not suggesting squads equipped with PDWs. I am suggesting optimising functions within the platoon, based on carried weight. That may mean, giving some, (or even a lot of) men PDWs

120mm
05-16-2008, 11:59 AM
I think it would definitely be worth setting up some old-fashioned war games that test the concept.

I think you could even do something with micro-armor to illustrate how it would work: I mean, we know the terminal effects/range of each weapon, and we could make a range of estimations of ammo consumption.

ODB
05-17-2008, 02:13 AM
Gentlemen,

We live and some of you fight in a time when a good Lance Corporal in the Marines can and does when necessary talk to air assets that have the ability to do a lot more damage to enemy personnel and equipment than any amount of sexy firepower we can equip a modern rifle squad with.

I hear the in some of the fighting in Iraq, stubborn houses, well defended, were dropped around the ears of the enemy by the communication between the ground grunt and hte pilot with a smart bomb.

Now we are seeing single safe houses flattened by drones that are flown by some guy in the rear with the gear.

Let not over think the need, if all things being equal, todays infantry grunt can bring the wrath of God down on fixed defensive postions just by talking to a fast mover or a geek sitting in an air conditioned van on a little strip 100 miles away..

Yes if you have priority of fires. Have to think on a worst case scenerio. Can I effectively take on an enemy force with my internal weapons/weapon systems. There has been many fights where the unit in contact did not have priority on A/C gun ships, fighter A/C, or UAVs, they had to slug it out the old fashion way. Unfortunately we have yet to develop the power/fuel source that can keep an airframe in the air indefinately. Soldiers need to be able to continue the fight when aircraft have to leave station to refuel or rearm. Additionally there are cases where units maintained contact with the enemy for hours with these assets available. When thinking of how to arm todays grunt these factors need to be addressed.

Richard W
05-20-2008, 05:17 PM
A man can carry only so much. What are the limitations of the average, young man in terms of weight bearing? How far can he walk with a designated weight? Does the West still need foot platoons?

We know that prior to WWI that the Imperial German Army conducted exhaustive testing regarding the first two questions.(Certainly at that time there was no question as to the right answer to the third question.) We also know the results of the march testing. Generally speaking an average young man

1) Can carry about 1/3 of his body weight over extended distances.

2) He can march in day light on a reasonably surfaced road at a rate of about 3 MPH with a 10-minute break every hour for about 8-hours a day for a total of about 20-miles a day. Anything more than this is a "force march" and impacts on the health of the average young man.

3. Our young man can do this 6-days a week with a single day of rest.

If we assume that he weighs around 150 lbs then his marching weight his around 50lbs. As we all know if our young marcher is issued with an old 7.62 machine gun (M 60 or MAG 58) and about 400 rounds of link outside of its packaging then he will approach or exceed the 50 lbs limit without counting the other necessities of survival (The way things are going our young soldiers may soon be carrying 50 lbs in battery weight alone.)

The 1944/45 German infantry platoon solved this problem with issuing 2-4 pony carts to a platoon. The young German marcher put his machine gun, ammunition and much of his other gear in the squad cart and marched along carrying his basic webbing and pistol. Sadly I do not think that I could convince the Western Defense establishments to return to unshod ponies and wooden carts as the principal support vehicle for foot platoons).

My guess is that a foot platoon made up of average men and operating without vehicle support for a 6-day mission and relying on the carrying power of its young men would have the following limitations in terms of weapons and protection.

1. No body armor.
2. One belt fed machine gun per squad with 1,000 rounds split up among the squad.
3. Bullet trap rifle grenades that can also be hand thrown.
4. A very short range, disposable rocket launcher.
5. A small, light and handy firearm for each solider that fires a lot of little bullets and launches rifle grenades. (If memory serves the original Armalite weighed about 5.5 lbs).

But does the West still need foot platoons?

Regards

Richard

William F. Owen
05-20-2008, 06:23 PM
My guess is that a foot platoon made up of average men and operating without vehicle support for a 6-day mission and relying on the carrying power of its young men would have the following limitations in terms of weapons and protection.

1. No body armor.
2. One belt fed machine gun per squad with 1,000 rounds split up among the squad.
3. Bullet trap rifle grenades that can also be hand thrown.
4. A very short range, disposable rocket launcher.
5. A small, light and handy firearm for each solider that fires a lot of little bullets and launches rifle grenades. (If memory serves the original Armalite weighed about 5.5 lbs).


Six days on foot is very demanding dismounted operation. Not impossible, but the circumstances that would cause it would be pretty specific, and you'd be trading weapons weight for Comms, rations and water.

Rifle Grenades are good, as are 66mm LAWs, but again, these had to be set against trade-offs in other areas. Do you need Rifle grenades if you have 40mm UGL? etc.

Richard W
05-20-2008, 08:41 PM
William F. Owen:

Thank you for your kind reply.

You are indeed right in my opinion that a six day foot platoon patrol without a supply vehicle would be very demanding. However as you probably know Bigeard's elite, volunteer, 6th Colonial Parachute Battalion regularly used this as a standard in Indochina (as did his 3rd Colonial Parachute Regiment in Algeria). Bigeard copied this standard from the Viet Minh's conscript infantry. Who copied it from the Chinese Conscript Infantry. Who copied it from the Imperial Japanese conscript infantry (See Fall's, Roy's and Simpson's works on Dien Bien Phu as well as Burk's biography of Chesty Puller.) The US Army Ranger School up until around 1975 had at least one 6-day platoon size combat patrol (one C Ration per day).

My guess is that there are very few infantry platoon's in the Western Armies that could do this type of a mission today (and probably fewer Western Commanders who would risk it.)

In my opinion the two big questions are: 1) Can and will the Islamic Insurgents conduct extended and unsupported foot patrols? and 2) Do Western infantry platoons need to do so also?

If Western Infantry does not need to conduct extended and unsupported foot operations against Islamic insurgents then it may be wise to issue two sets of weapons to each platoon. One heavier set for immediate dismounted operations from vehicles and a second lighter set for short range foot patrols.

As to rifle grenade vs. tube launched grenade I think that for extended foot operations the rifle grenade may be superior. The tube launched grenade is limited in diameter. The rifle grenade is not. For instance around 1978 the French fielded a bullet trap antitank rifle grenade that was very good (and packed quite a kick). The USA used to issue a white phosphorous rifle grenade for the M14 that provided an enormous amount of smoke. Sadly it required a blank round. Most under the rifle grenade launchers weigh about 3- 3.5 lbs. A small but significant addition for extended foot operations. (I understand that the IDF uses both type of grenades within their infantry squad.)

My guess is that an infantry platoons' weapons will depend above all on what type of vehicles they are working with.

Regards

Richard

Vic Bout
05-20-2008, 08:49 PM
In 1978 we conducted a 12 day patrol in the Florida phase of Ranger school and I think, a 6 dayer, earlier, in the mountains...

mmx1
05-20-2008, 09:24 PM
I am reminded of a point that B.P. McCoy makes in his primer "The Passion of Command"



When assaulting a defensive position, bullets do the suppressing, but HE(high explosive) does the real work

He later recounted that of the casualties 3/4 inflicted in the march to Baghdad, the vast majority were due to HE, not small arms fire.

Richard W
05-20-2008, 09:50 PM
Vic Bout:

Are your feet still attached to your body? Who did your Ranger class upset?

Regards

Richard

Ken White
05-20-2008, 10:08 PM
for 15-20 days at a whack on multiple occasions was wrong? If so, I demand compensation for my pain and suffering!!! And hunger!!! And torn clothes!!! Where and who do I sue?

The 82d foot marched from mid-South Carolina back to Fort Bragg after a major exercise in 1962; 126 miles in four days. Did that, too. Does this mean I've been picked on???? :rolleyes:

Tom Odom
05-20-2008, 10:14 PM
In 1978 we conducted a 12 day patrol in the Florida phase of Ranger school and I think, a 6 dayer, earlier, in the mountains...

Yep cause I did the same things in Class 2-77. Mountains in late Nov early December froze us and we all had pneumonia, Florida killed two of us--snowed in Miami that year...

For Ken: no it just means you are part goat. :D

Some of the boys in the RPA were absolute mountain goats. Couldn't carry caca but they could sure bust a hump with an AK and 200 rounds wearing rubber boots.

Ken White
05-20-2008, 10:16 PM
Algeria)...My guess is that there are very few infantry platoon's in the Western Armies that could do this type of a mission today (and probably fewer Western Commanders who would risk it.)I think you'll find that some units in Afghanistan are routinely doing that and being resupplied by air. Some of the mounted platoons are out for more than two weeks at a whack, the foot mobile guys go for a week. Obviously their Commanders are now 'risking' it.
In my opinion the two big questions are: 1) Can and will the Islamic Insurgents conduct extended and unsupported foot patrols? and 2) Do Western infantry platoons need to do so also?The answer to the first is; depends. It's happening in Afghanistan. The answer to the second is yes (and it would be helpful if they could do it without the vests).
As to rifle grenade vs. tube launched grenade...Having used both, I'll go with the 40mm.

Tom Odom
05-20-2008, 10:22 PM
I think you'll find that some units in Afghanistan are routinely doing that and being resupplied by air. Some of the mounted platoons are out for more than two weeks at a whack, the foot mobile guys go for a week. Obviously their Commanders are now 'risking' it.

Absolutely and it was pretty much a standard for light infantry ops until we cranked up MREs here with heavy but not total emphasis on mounted ops.

Tom

Richard W
05-20-2008, 11:37 PM
Gentlemen:

Are you saying that an entire Platoon is going on a foot patrol without a supply vehicle for six or more days while carrying everything on their own backs? Are they also wearing body armor?

Thank you.

Regards

Richard W.

Ken White
05-20-2008, 11:39 PM
Er, you did note the aerial resupply, right?

Richard W
05-21-2008, 12:01 AM
Ken White:

Thank you for your kind reply.

I am confused - as usual. Are you telling me that Western Infantry Platoons are not conducting extended foot patrols without a supply vehicle but are being supported by an aircraft? If a platoon on a foot patrol is being supplied by an aircraft then that Platoon is attached to drop and landing zones. It is in a similar position to a Platoon tied to a road net.

My first question is whether Western Platoons are, like their ancestors, conducting extended foot patrols depending on their own backs to carry the required weight?

My second question is whether they need to?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

Ken White
05-21-2008, 12:47 AM
...Are you telling me that Western Infantry Platoons are not conducting extended foot patrols without a supply vehicle but are being supported by an aircraft? If a platoon on a foot patrol is being supplied by an aircraft then that Platoon is attached to drop and landing zones. It is in a similar position to a Platoon tied to a road net.They are conducting patrols in some cases without a supply vehicle; in other cases they move by vehicle to a point, dismount, the vehicles leave and return later to a different location for resupply or to pick them up. Vehicle type and locale dependent, those vehicles may or may not be tied to a road net.

Many are resupplied by air and they are not "attached to drop and landing zones," those are established on an ad hoc basis where ever the unit is, the aircraft land or make the drop where ever the unit happens to be at the time to include in terrain not normally considered for DZ/LZ use in peacetime. LINK (http://lighthousepatriotjournal.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/chopper_lz-extraction_afghanistan.jpg), LINK (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jpads-making-precision-airdrop-a-reality-0678/).
My first question is whether Western Platoons are, like their ancestors, conducting extended foot patrols depending on their own backs to carry the required weight?In some cases.
My second question is whether they need to?In some cases. That's a METT-TC decision by the local commander, some will think the risk or effort worth it, some will not.

There's plenty of open source material available on that but this is no place to go into details on TTP

Richard W
05-21-2008, 01:15 AM
Ken White:

Thank you for your kind reply.

It sounds to me from what you tell me that modern Western platoons are not foot patrolling like their ancestors. The French in Algeria believed that infantry had to cut loose of their bases, supply lines and yes, even aircraft, and foot patrol without support for extended periods. The resulting French patrols were very, very lightly armed; and of course they did not wear armor. The French were successful in pacifying the Algerian interior using this method (See Horne's A Savage War of Peace).

I imagine that if modern Western platoons patrolled as did the French in Algeria then radical changes would have to be made in both platoon weaponry and the amount of ammunition.

I wonder if that type of patrolling is necessary to fight Islamic insurgents?

Regards

Richard W

Ken White
05-21-2008, 01:40 AM
Been my observation that very few platoons, eastern or western, do things like their ancestors did. Being older than most and thus qualifying as an ancestor of sorts and having done extended foot patrolling in locations other than Algeria at about the same time, I think this is a good thing.

Appropos of your comment, other than dropping the vest, I don't think much change in Platoon weapons and equipment would be needed but more training would be required and command attitudes would have to change. I think that type of patrolling would be of no benefit is some situations but might be helpful in fighting insurgents in some locations and situations; helpful but not totally necessary, IMO.

Richard W
05-21-2008, 02:30 AM
Ken White:

Thank you very much. You have been most helpful.

Regards

Richard W

Ken White
05-21-2008, 05:05 AM
you visit, please go here LINK (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=47469#post47469) and introduce yourself; a little background helps others better address one's comments. You can scroll up and see the general tone of most introductions.

Welcome to the Board.

William F. Owen
05-21-2008, 05:18 AM
@ If Western Infantry does not need to conduct extended and unsupported foot operations against Islamic insurgents then it may be wise to issue two sets of weapons to each platoon. One heavier set for immediate dismounted operations from vehicles and a second lighter set for short range foot patrols.

@ As to rifle grenade vs. tube launched grenade I think that for extended foot operations the rifle grenade may be superior. The tube launched grenade is limited in diameter. The rifle grenade is not. For instance around 1978 the French fielded a bullet trap antitank rifle grenade that was very good (and packed quite a kick). The USA used to issue a white phosphorous rifle grenade for the M14 that provided an enormous amount of smoke. Sadly it required a blank round. Most under the rifle grenade launchers weigh about 3- 3.5 lbs. A small but significant addition for extended foot operations. (I understand that the IDF uses both type of grenades within their infantry squad.)

@ I understand that the IDF uses both type of grenades within their infantry squad. .


@ From the perspective of my own work, I'd suggest that you don't need two different types of weapons, but you do need to augment your weapons set, dependent on threat. If you have every man with a carbine or rifle, issuing 2 x Rifle Grenades and an M72 to each guy, makes a massive difference. It also makes control of weapons types easier within ROE constraints.
- What it does allow you to do is to give non-infantry units, like MPs and Artillery men working out of role, a decent punch without issuing extra weapons

@ The Mecar M200 is 430g, (0.9lbs) with 60g of HE. It goes to 325m from 16 inch barrelled 5.56mm weapon.

@ Not any more, though with the IDF you never say never. The SIMON door buster is issued, as and when, but all the RPGs and Rifle grenades have gone, last time I checked.

Kiwigrunt
05-21-2008, 10:36 AM
For what it's worth, we conducted 7 to 11 day footpatrols in East Timor, many unsupported. However no body armour. I believe the Ausies did the same.

Tom Odom
05-21-2008, 12:21 PM
For extended infantry ops look at then MAJ Scott McMichael's :

Research Survey Number 6, A Historical Perspective on Light Infantry (http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/content.asp#hist)
Foreword

The U.S. Army's commitment to light divisions is testimony to the importance of light infantry in modern war. The continuing usefulness of light forces goes beyond their ease of deployment. Light infantry exemplifies a state of mind that reveals itself in a unique tactical style, versatility, and elan that are so vital in battle. While the structure of light infantry makes it admirably equipped to fight in restricted terrain, it operates at considerable disadvantage in areas more suited to heavy forces. As with any military organization, commanders must consider both the capabilities and limitations of light infantry before committing it to battle. Major Scott R. McMichael provides a valuable historical perspective for understanding the characteristics,organization, and operations of light infantry forces. Major McMichael's Research Survey examines four light infantry forces operating in varying settings: the Chindits in the 1944 Burma campaign against the Japanese; the Chinese Communist Forces during the Korean War; British operations in Malaya and Borneo from 1948 to 1966; and the First Special Service Force in its battles in the mountains of Italy during World War II. These examples are diverse in terms of time, areas of operations, and opposing forces, yet they reveal common characteristics of light forces and their operations.
A Historical Perspective on Light Infantry is based on extensive research in primary and secondary historical sources. The author has uncovered numerous doctrinal and operational manuals and reports and has gone beyond them to explore the more personal side of light infantry operations. This study is both fascinating reading and a valuable historical analysis of the capabilities and limitations of light infantry when faced with the test of battle.

The requirements and basic tactics for infantry ops have not changed. Too many folks forget that when it comes to issues of equipment and standards.

Tom

Richard W
05-21-2008, 01:44 PM
Kiwi Grunt:

Do you remember, roughly speaking, about how much weight you had to carry on a foot patrol, not supported by a vehicle, including the weight of your weapon, web gear and backpack or rucksack? How many days did you foot patrol without resupply? Do you think that it is possible for the average Western infantryman to significantly lighten his load. If so would a lightened load aid in hunting Islamic insurgents?

My guess is that it is very difficult for a Western infantryman to get his equipment weight for an extended foot patrol below 80 Lbs. It may not matter.However I am beginning to suspect that the most important weapon in the struggle against Islamic insurgents is not a UAV or a guided munition but the foot soldier. There do not appear to be too many Western foot soldiers. It may be wise to maximize their potential.

Finally may I ask if you felt at risk when you foot patrolled without your armor?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

Richard W
05-21-2008, 01:52 PM
Tom Odom:

Thank you for the link. It appears to me that the light infantry units studied in Major McMichael's impressive work are very different from modern Western infantry platoons. Am I wrong? For instance a modern Western infantryman fighting Islamic insurgents appears to carry much more equipment. He also appears to move in vehicles a lot more. He further appears to conduct fewer, perhaps far fewer, extended foot patrols. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

Tom Odom
05-21-2008, 02:08 PM
Tom Odom:

Thank you for the link. It appears to me that the light infantry units studied in Major McMichael's impressive work are very different from modern Western infantry platoons. Am I wrong? For instance a modern Western infantryman fighting Islamic insurgents appears to carry much more equipment. He also appears to move in vehicles a lot more. He further appears to conduct fewer, perhaps far fewer, extended foot patrols. Am I wrong? Am I missing something here?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

No they are not that different. In many ways a light infantry platoon or company structure is almost the same--but a modern light formation circa 1999 was lighter than a line infantry unit of WWII.

The construct of operations drives what the infantry does and how it operates. That is what METT-T is all about. Infantry ops in Iraq are very much more vehicle centric--Iraq is vastly different than Algeria as the French dealt with it in Galula's day. But when the vehicles stop, the infantry is the same. Body armor and gear do not change that; they affect mobility and that again goes back to METT-T.

Frankly there is much confusion about what is infantry and what is not as forces operate in Iraq. There has been tremendous pressure to use non-infantry forces in infantry-like missions. The true risk to me is folks start to say well we can all do what the infantry does because we are doing it in OIF. That may be true in a limited sense, meaning that yes we can do it in Iraq because what the infantry is doing in Iraq is what everyone else is doing.

Ken and I both have mentioned Afghanistan--that is a classic mountain infantry mission and the factors are the same as when the Brits were trying to control the Khyber Pass. Take some of the non-infantry units that are doing infantry tasks in Iraq and give them the missions that the infantry has in Afghanistan and reality will settle in very quickly.

Old Eagle on here is a former Light Infantryman of the LID designs. He can offer some insights as well.


Tom

Richard W
05-21-2008, 02:16 PM
William F. Owen:

Thank you for your information I appreciate your time. I know you are very busy. However I think that I have been unclear - as I usually am. Let me give you some background to my question.

Last summer I had the opportunity to spend 7 or 8 days with some very impressive young veterans. They were mostly American Army Airborne and marines. I will focus on two Marines who served at different times in a Force Reconnaissance Company in Iraq.

They brought their issue equipment. I was very impressed with the quality. I was quite frankly bewildered at the quantity. They wore two sets of body armor. A soft set over a special T-shirt. Then hard armor over the soft. Over the hard armor went an incredible vest like garment which had a specialized pocket for every item. On their back they carried a water reservoir. Of course they had a helmet with what I will describe as a built in radio and vehicle intercom device.

Their carbines had several shooting aids attached to it as did their pistols. I was simply staggered by the electronics for communicating, seeing and even hearing that they were issued on an individual basis.

They did not appear to be able to easily prone out. The body armor and vest appeared to raise their body torso up from the ground at least 8-inches. I do not think that they could low crawl effectively.

They told me (if I listened to them correctly) that most of their movement was by vehicles. It was my impression that they did not conduct significant foot patrols.

Both sides appeared to inflict most of their casualties by high explosive. The enemy used various types of mines and rockets. Our guys used automatic canons, rockets, missiles, projected grenades and weapons deployed from aircraft.

It may be that the weapons, equipment and tactics used by these very, very impressive young guys are as near perfect as possible. But I could not shake teh feeling that if they could operate on foot for extended periods without vehicles that they would be less vulnerable to the enem's high explosive weapons.

In order to operate on foot I thought they would need different weapons, equipment and tactics at the individual, team squad and platoon level. Am I correct in my assumption?

Am I making sense (always questionable)?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

Richard W
05-21-2008, 02:21 PM
Tom Odom:

OK. I am slowly starting to grasp some things here. Doubtless it will take some more time. I will read Major McMichael's work again. Thank you very much for your time.

Regards

Richard W

Ken White
05-21-2008, 02:38 PM
I understand you talked to some Marines and Soldiers who apparently had been in Iraq and had the experience of the urban warfare -- mostly -- that is the case there (not much call for getting prone in urban combat...). Remember that terrain and degree of urbanization have a significant impact on tactics and techniques. So too does the type of unit and its mission.

It appears you're trying to come up with a 'one size fits all' model of infantry and I don't think one can do that; there are too many variations in types of units, equipment, techniques and, of course and most significantly, the opponent -- and the terrain and conditions -- to categorize things that finely. An experienced Afghan fighter on his home turf is formidable; an inexperienced one much less so -- take either to Iraq and they'd be of little value. Conversely, an inadequately trained Iraqi is no major problem at home and would literally be lost in Afghanistan. US troops in Iraq operate quite differently than do those in Afghanistan or elsewhere

You asked Kiwi Grunt if he felt at risk without a vest. Can't answer for him but again, METT-TC intrudes. We are wearing vests in Afghanistan and Iraq -- if we go to South East Asia, I doubt we will because the climate won't usually tolerate it; too many cases of heat stroke. We are over-enamored of the vest, I grant; most US troops hate it when they are operating on foot and would rather do without -- my spies tell me some units in some places do that when out in the wilds...

Edited to add: You asked:
In order to operate on foot I thought they would need different weapons, equipment and tactics at the individual, team squad and platoon level. Am I correct in my assumption?That would depend on many things, again the parameters of Mission, Enemy, Terrain and weather, Troops and support avaliable - Time and Civil considerations. These can all vary widely and MUST be considered in assessing anything one expects units to do. Generally, I'd suggest that the state of training of the unit is more critical to the mission types you seem to desire than are the weapons and equipment; that state of training has a significant bearing on the tactics. What one cannot do is look at Unit A in Place B doing Mission C and assume it applies to all like units in all locations at all time.

It might help us answer some of your questions if, as I suggested above, you'd go here LINK (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=47469#post47469) and introduce yourself; a little background helps others better address one's comments. You can scroll up and see the general tone of most introductions.

ODB
05-22-2008, 04:46 AM
I think I posted something earlier in another thread about body armor. I will be the first to admit I hated body armor. Already a big, slow man, add another 20-25 pounds and mobility gets even worse. Coming from an Infantry back my mobility was one of my greatest assets. Take a trip back in time with me, OEF 1 (Afghanistan in Feb 02-Aug 02), we were in soft skin vehicles, Toyota Hilux, Landcruisers, etc... Body armor was something we hung over the doors. The threat at that time was not IEDs but small arms fire. Six months later I remember crossing the berm with a helluva lot of weight on back, no vest on. Again it was threat based. Fast forward to the current situations in both countries and I wouldn't be caught in a vehicle without it. The threat has changed, hence dictated our countermeasures. Currently I have different setups based on the mission. In the turret on the gun I wear a vest with shoulder plates and side plates. If on a fly away I wear a smaller less protective vest. If the capability is there multiple configurations is the key. As Ken stated earlier METT-TC should drive what is worn when, not those sitting 1000s of miles away in an A/C office. Hope this helped some. Went into more detail in my first posting on this somewhere a while back.

Richard W
05-22-2008, 05:46 AM
ODB:

Thank you for the information on body armor. God protect you over there

Regards

Richard W

William F. Owen
05-22-2008, 06:01 AM
Kiwi Grunt:

@ Do you think that it is possible for the average Western infantryman to significantly lighten his load. If so would a lightened load aid in hunting Islamic insurgents?

@ My guess is that it is very difficult for a Western infantryman to get his equipment weight for an extended foot patrol below 80 Lbs.

@ It may not matter.However I am beginning to suspect that the most important weapon in the struggle against Islamic insurgents is not a UAV or a guided munition but the foot soldier.

@ Yes I do. You just have to make the choice to do it.

@ Hard, but not impossible. It's all about trade offs, leadership and good training.

@ Correct, but it's not just Islamic Insurgents. It's Irish Republicans, Palestinian Nationalists, and Colombian Narco-militias as well. In fact good infantry are the most critical component of military power in almost all conflicts. Without good infantry you have nothing. Generally speaking, all other arms are replaceable, in terms of equipment, role and application, but not the infantry

Richard W
05-22-2008, 02:00 PM
William F. Owen:

Thank you. This is very helpful.

Regards

Richard w

Richard W
05-22-2008, 02:22 PM
Ken White:

Thank you for your kind reply. About a year ago I was asked by a private security company to do some minor manure shoveling regarding pipeline and pump station security. This has evolved into a bit of a project. One of the options under consideration is the extended foot patrol. Naturally we turned to the military experts via media reports for, among other things, inspiration. (At the same time I was asked to run some minor courses wherein many of the students were young military veterans or still in the services. They are magnificent guys. But the information I obtained from them on how the military is doing, among other things, foot patrols was confusing.)

What we see in the media and what we have put together as draft concepts appear to conflict. This board is a gold mine of information. I am grateful to everyone who has been gracious to take the time and answer my awkward questions. Although I love to read about these matters I am certainly no expert. I appreciate everyone's patience.

Regards

Richard W

selil
05-22-2008, 04:41 PM
Thank you for your kind reply. About a year ago I was asked by a private security company to do some minor manure shoveling regarding pipeline and pump station security. This has evolved into a bit of a project.

In 2001 I was asked by a major pipeline gas/oil company located in Houston to ascertain if there were technology measures that could be put into place to protect their rather diverse infrastructure. At the time they were looking at SCADA systems and wireless infrastructure so that the sensor/security network would be separate from their distribution networked systems. The system and name of the customer is covered by a NDA but I can say in the end the result was not simply technology by itself.

Ken White
05-22-2008, 04:59 PM
That's helpful -- even if it did make my antennae twitch -- Your English, BTW, is quite good and the politeness of your responses is appreciated.

As to your project, as you've probably learned, the majority of media reports are effectively worthless for your purposes as they tend to be quite superficial and written by people who generally do not understand all that they see or are told. By the same token, relying on young veterans or those still serving can be equally misleading as their exposure may have been limited to a specific time and place. We used to train people more thoroughly in some respects than we have since the 1970s.

At that time, we unfortunately adopted the civilian industry standard of training people only for their next job. That works for industry but is not a good idea for the Armed Forces where it is not unknown for a PFC Radio Operator, after the death of his boss, to effectively be in de facto command a Company for a few minutes or even an hour or so. In other respects we train better today than we ever have but the glaring shortfall is that the average entry level person has to absorb a lot of 'how to' by osmosis. That is changing as we improve training on almost a daily basis. Off track a bit but should serve as a caution for you to take what the media AND the young veterans say with some caution. There's no real substitute for valid experience in preparing security solutions.

In regard to your project, I can see a validity in lightly armed foot patrols and or guard elements but would suggest that you avoid attempts to obtain a generic solution and quite specifically tailor each force to the METT-TC factors for the site or locale in question. What is required in Alaska or Canada is far different than the requirements in Nigeria or Angola and that yet again differs from the requirements in Libya or Kuwait. That applies to everything from static positions to observation efforts to equipment and mobility, foot or otherwise, of any patrols.

Again, your response helps in replies to your queries and thank you for providing it. Still, I again strongly suggest you go to the "Tell us about you #2" Thread at this LINK (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=47787#post47787) and give us some of your background; that would also be helpful in regard to future responses.

Richard W
05-22-2008, 09:33 PM
selil:

Thank you for your reply.

You may feel constrained for professional reasons from responding to this question. In which case I certainly understand.

Background: As you know last summer the English speaking media reported a series of attacks on pipelines (2-gas and 1-oil) as well as pumping substations. The attacks also impacted on industries that had been moved from the USA to Mexico (like Ford). The attacks had a serious political impact. The media identified a certain Marxist group (circa 1960) as the culprit. As a result the Mexican government moved @ 5,000 of its better soldiers from drug interdiction to pipeline security.

Observations: A number of commentators allege that the Marxist group in question had been in hibernation for years. When it was active it was more about political theater than bomb throwing. The commentators also allege that a drug group was the real motivating force behind the attacks. The objective was to pull Mexican troops from drug interdiction to pipeline security. Some commentators further speculate that the attacks were executed by a handful of folks who were born, and usually reside outside, of Mexico.

Can you comment?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

Richard W
05-22-2008, 09:47 PM
Ken White:

In regards to your advice regarding a posted profile I must chat with my young boss first. I am here on behalf of a third party (OK, I admit I am having a grand time reading just about everything). I am uncomfortable posting a profile, even a joke one, until I discuss this matter. I realize it is impolite. I ask everyone's forbearance on this matter.

Thank you

Regards

Richard W

selil
05-22-2008, 11:29 PM
Can you comment?

Thank you


My skills are more in the technical arena. However, you may have already discovered that protecting a pipeline or pump facility is a man power intensive operation. In Iraq and other places they have used a variety of technologies and man power arrangements to secure the pipelines.

In my case I was asked about how hard it would be to layer on the flow/pump sensor systems another sensor network that would direct wireless cameras at any activity along the length of the pipe. The sensors could detect whether it was a person or vehicle approaching and if it was interacting with the pipeline (like service).

My team designed a solution to the requirements and the customer seemed to be quite happy.

Protecting an asset that may have a foot print that is a 100 yards wide and hundreds of miles long has special issues.

Richard W
05-22-2008, 11:39 PM
selil:

Thank you very much.

Regards

Richard W

Kiwigrunt
05-23-2008, 09:42 AM
Kiwi Grunt:

Do you remember, roughly speaking, about how much weight you had to carry on a foot patrol, not supported by a vehicle, including the weight of your weapon, web gear and backpack or rucksack? How many days did you foot patrol without resupply?

Finally may I ask if you felt at risk when you foot patrolled without your armor?

Thank you

Regards

Richard W



It appears I’m coming back a bit late as most points have been quite adequately addressed by others. But here goes.
First of all, I have personally participated in patrols of no more than 2 days as I spent most of my time at battalion HQ. I know that patrols of up to 7 days were often not resupplied, not to sure about the longer ones. To quote from a book I have on Kiwi’s in Timor: “Some patrols cover nearly 50 km and can last for up to sixteen days. On long patrols soldiers may be required to carry loads in excess of 50 kilograms.” I clearly remember recon platoon soldiers coming back from patrols rather worn and with biiiiig packs.
I was in the third battalion there and during our tour ‘tramping size’ water purifiers were being issued, which reduced the weights quite a bit as previous to that, soldiers would sometimes carry well over 10 kg of water alone.

Weapons and belt order are the same, whether you patrol for 2 hours or 2 weeks. The issue is really with the house you carry on your back, and indeed armour. We hardly ever even wore helmets, just jungle hats. In our 3+ years of rotations we had 2 KIA, enough to bring home the fact that it was not and exercise, but of course no where near as intense as Iraqastan. I never felt exposed for lack of armour. Would I have if the threat level was the same as current in the sandbox? Who knows, I imagine I might. We too used to hang our vests over the doors of out vehicles. That was about as close as most of us wanted to be to them.

Our Mimini gunners carried a pistol for personal defence, as the gun is a group weapon.
We had an Irish platoon attached to our battalion. They still used the gimpy at section level and their gunners had to carry an IW Steyr as well. Poor bastards!

Richard W
05-23-2008, 06:33 PM
Kiwigrunt:

I very much appreciate your time and knowledge.

Regards

Richard W

JonathanF
05-29-2008, 04:34 PM
Leaving aside the PDW issue, save to say that the proponents would need to provide the evidence for their regular issue, not the sceptics...


The grease guns were for last resort defense only. They were made by the IDEAL Toy Co. of Newark, NJ. :rolleyes:

I don't wish to doubt those with service experience, but this sounds so much like the old "Mattel made the M16, that's why it's (subjectively) crud" urban myth, that I have to ask if there's any evidence of this.

Steve Blair
05-29-2008, 04:51 PM
I don't wish to doubt those with service experience, but this sounds so much like the old "Mattel made the M16, that's why it's (subjectively) crud" urban myth, that I have to ask if there's any evidence of this.

Actually, given the level of subcontracting that went on during WW 2 this wouldn't be at all surprising. Singer (of sewing machine fame) ended up making rifles, as did a number of other companies. Haven't dug up a list of manufacturers yet, but I do know that during this period if you had any sort of mass production capability, you might end up with a weapons contract.

Ken White
05-29-2008, 05:23 PM
and the Korean War contracts were made by GM. IIRC, their Guide Headlight subsidiary made the WWII run and I think Inland did the Korean...

Ideal was busy making model airplanes for recognition and aerial gunner training, not to mention that the presses for stamping steel and those for tin, Ideal's toy metal, differ a bit...

selil
05-29-2008, 06:06 PM
Singer (sewing machine) also made some of the most collectable 1911a's out there. GM, Ford, Kaiser, and International all made versions of the JEEP.

I think though, nobody will complain about "production" it is managment and combat that most will agree we need to keep contractors out of. I'm not sure a massive "green" zone with all the associated contractor staff is a good idea. The cost in manpower and cash has to enormous.

I'm not sure contracting officers (military) who retire then work for the contractor as a civillian is okey dokey.

There is to much waste and if this is a LONG WAR then we should be staffing it apropriately not with short term contract staff.

Sorry, I don't want to rant. I keep thinking back to what I think "Cav Guy" said about there not having been build a new Abrams Tank in 15 years. They just refurbish the hulks but those to damaged are never replaced.

There are other issues with the technological direction of the military. Technology is great, but the US military is on a tipping point right now of unsustainable technology. Most of this driven by contractors and sychophants more worried about profit than security of the country. Gee Whiz technology has led to rump dragging oh no moments when looking for back ordered spare parts (never to ever be back in stock).

Steve Blair
05-29-2008, 06:08 PM
and the Korean War contracts were made by GM. IIRC, their Guide Headlight subsidiary made the WWII run and I think Inland did the Korean...

Ideal was busy making model airplanes for recognition and aerial gunner training, not to mention that the presses for stamping steel and those for tin, Ideal's toy metal, differ a bit...

Ithica did the Korean ones, I think.

Vic Bout
05-29-2008, 07:01 PM
about WWII M1 .30 cal carbines made by Rock-Ola jukebox company

Tom Odom
05-29-2008, 07:07 PM
about WWII M1 .30 cal carbines made by Rock-Ola jukebox company

mine is of the Inland Division variety. still shoots quite well. I did change out the peep fcr a Williams peep last year as a drunk uncle 4 decades ago filed the old close range peep into a V.

JonathanF
05-31-2008, 12:05 PM
Actually, given the level of subcontracting that went on during WW 2 this wouldn't be at all surprising. Singer (of sewing machine fame) ended up making rifles, as did a number of other companies. Haven't dug up a list of manufacturers yet, but I do know that during this period if you had any sort of mass production capability, you might end up with a weapons contract.

I agree that it's plausible in the context of WW2, but then the best urban myths are exactly that - plausible enough to make you believe, even want to believe. From Ken's posts and what I can find in the literature, there's just no evidence of this one, and plenty for Ithaca etc.

Of course, even if it were true, that wouldn't make it a bad weapon. It being a bad weapon on the other hand, would. Aside from having a Sten-style expedient basic design and rough construction, I haven't seen much to suggest that it didn't do the job it was intended to. It's pretty hard to mess up the design of a stamped-steel open bolt blowback submachine-gun, isn't it?

120mm
05-31-2008, 12:58 PM
I have extensive experience (several thousand rounds, spread out over 3 year time period) shooting both the M3 and M3A1 "greasegun".

I never had a stoppage. No FTF, FTE or anything. I used three different guns, and they were absolutely rock solid.

The main issue I had with them, though, is that the heavy bolt, combined with the open-bolt design, made them very difficult to fire accurately. Plus the triggers were mush.

Pulling the trigger resulted in the muzzle diving to the ground, as the force of the bolt going forward acted on your body. This was followed by a combination high torque twisting combined with the muzzle's desire to rise. Very difficult to control, but if you had several hundred rounds to "get the hang of it", one could develop a certain amount of short-range proficiency.

It's the only weapon I ever fired though, that I was able to develop *zero* long range proficiency. And I used to impress people, at the time, with long range pistol shooting, which is why I tried.

Tom Odom
05-31-2008, 01:18 PM
I have extensive experience (several thousand rounds, spread out over 3 year time period) shooting both the M3 and M3A1 "greasegun".

I never had a stoppage. No FTF, FTE or anything. I used three different guns, and they were absolutely rock solid.

The main issue I had with them, though, is that the heavy bolt, combined with the open-bolt design, made them very difficult to fire accurately. Plus the triggers were mush.

Pulling the trigger resulted in the muzzle diving to the ground, as the force of the bolt going forward acted on your body. This was followed by a combination high torque twisting combined with the muzzle's desire to rise. Very difficult to control, but if you had several hundred rounds to "get the hang of it", one could develop a certain amount of short-range proficiency.

It's the only weapon I ever fired though, that I was able to develop *zero* long range proficiency. And I used to impress people, at the time, with long range pistol shooting, which is why I tried.

I got to play with one at the USMC Hisk Risk Shooters Course. While I did not fire that number of rounds in it, I found that at medium range--100 yards or less as the weapon's barrel is what 8 inches or so--I did better if I used it like a garden hose and shifted fire from the intial impact on to a target. One sight I looked at said you could squeeze off single shots with practice; I never even thought to try because as you state the weapon started moving as the heavy bolt slammed forward.

The other thing was the "safety" of closing the ejection port cover. It flopped open easily; had a friend now dead who said a friend of his shot himslef accidentally when he flopped down using the weapon to break his fall--the muzzle was under his chin and the "safety" flopped open and his finger was on the trigger.

But as you point out, it was a simple weapon built of stampings assembled around a 4 pound bolt. Loading the mag though was a thumb buster.

Tom

RJ
06-01-2008, 01:01 AM
JoanathanF posted:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RJ
The grease guns were for last resort defense only. They were made by the IDEAL Toy Co. of Newark, NJ.

"I don't wish to doubt those with service experience, but this sounds so much like the old "Mattel made the M16, that's why it's (subjectively) crud" urban myth, that I have to ask if there's any evidence of this."

Answered by 120mm in this post.

"I have extensive experience (several thousand rounds, spread out over 3 year time period) shooting both the M3 and M3A1 "greasegun".

I never had a stoppage. No FTF, FTE or anything. I used three different guns, and they were absolutely rock solid.

The main issue I had with them, though, is that the heavy bolt, combined with the open-bolt design, made them very difficult to fire accurately. Plus the triggers were mush.

Pulling the trigger resulted in the muzzle diving to the ground, as the force of the bolt going forward acted on your body. This was followed by a combination high torque twisting combined with the muzzle's desire to rise. Very difficult to control, but if you had several hundred rounds to "get the hang of it", one could develop a certain amount of short-range proficiency. "

The M3A1 was selected for Marine Recon Battalion use for its up close shock and awe reply when the recon team was discovered by the enemy. It was easily carried and stowed.

In my time in Recon, I did not fire more than 300 rounds thru this weapon during famfire exercises.

The "Swift, Silent, Deadly" motto of these units was all about getting in and out without being discovered.

We pretty much knew that if discovered, and help was under the sea or overthe horizon, we would probably be "Toast" if the enemy formation was the size of a company. Communication equiptment was heavy and not easy to use. And instant call for help or air cover just wasn't in the cards at that time.

In the best Marine tradition, if dicovered, we were instructed to kill as many of the enemy as possible and make a run for it.

When you paddle in by rubber boat, the exit options are very limited. We were very good at snoop and poop. :D

The best creepers and peekers I ever observed were Royal Marines with a lot of time in the Malay States.

Times have changed! And that is a good thing!

JonathanF
06-01-2008, 12:33 PM
Sounds a lot like it was designed around the original concept for a submachine-gun, pioneered by the old Bergmann - that was full-auto only and (I imagine, from dry handling) would have been a pain to control also. Likewise the Sten. They're bullet-hoses for clearing trenches - I can see that causing some issues when they're forced into service as mid-range weapons.

I guess it was the Thompson that showed you could have carbine-like qualities in a submachine-gun. As well as being stonkingly heavy to absorb felt recoil of course.

Sorry, I've helped steer things pretty off topic by this point!

Norfolk
06-01-2008, 05:27 PM
Sounds a lot like it was designed around the original concept for a submachine-gun, pioneered by the old Bergmann - that was full-auto only and (I imagine, from dry handling) would have been a pain to control also. Likewise the Sten. They're bullet-hoses for clearing trenches - I can see that causing some issues when they're forced into service as mid-range weapons.

I guess it was the Thompson that showed you could have carbine-like qualities in a submachine-gun. As well as being stonkingly heavy to absorb felt recoil of course.

Sorry, I've helped steer things pretty off topic by this point!

In its defence, the Sten was an ideal weapon for room-clearing: load a fresh magazine, cock it, and toss it in said room. When it ran out of ammo, go into room, retrieve it, and repeat for use on the next enemy-occupied room.;)

Rex Brynen
06-01-2008, 06:46 PM
A Sten could be manufactured in as little five hours, and in small workshops--a masterstroke of design for a country desperately short of infantry weapons mid-war (the same reason that the Germans put their MP3008 Sten copy into production late in the war).

Sabre
06-02-2008, 09:50 PM
As interesting as the discussion of WWII-era "room brooms" is (and it IS interesting, I remember the day that the units' last few M3's were coded out...) I'll make some small attempt to drive the thread back to the original topic...



Did the Germans respond differently to squads of Soviets equipped with PPsH, or any other weapon? This question assumes tactical problem to be in isolation.

To repeat, I am not saying, every man should have a PDW or even which PDW. I think big bullets are good. Big Bullets coming from GPMGs and Long range rifles is more effective than than from IWs. The concern and the only reason to look at this, is the issue of carried weight. I am not suggesting squads equipped with PDWs. I am suggesting optimising functions within the platoon, based on carried weight. That may mean, giving some, (or even a lot of) men PDWs

My guess is that no, the Germans did not respond differently to PPsH-equipped squads, if for no other reason than they didn't often encounter such a squad in isolation, but rather as some part of a horde (a gross over-simplification, I know).
In the relatively smaller "advanced" armies, however, a platoon or even squad may well find itself tactically isolated, and a few unlucky hits away from disaster.

So, if only say, two personnel in each squad will have a "real" casualty-producing weapon, how do we select who those "lucky" folks are?

Do we believe in the 95%/5% rule, that while most soldiers are quite willing to do their duty as best they can, and display immense courage, only a small percentage of soldiers are going to end up causing a disproportionately high percentage of enemy casualties? Will we saddle some very effective soldiers with a weapon that doesn't realize their full potential to deal damage to the enemy, while putting the big guns in the hands of less capable individuals?

What message are we sending to those who are armed with PDF's? Do we say "you are basically a pack mule to carry ammo, and once the shooting starts, you are expected to provide close security, and lay down some suppressive fire as necessary, but not really expected to kill the enemy?
Rather than contributing rather less to the squad/platoon "total", the demoralized squaddies will now contribute zero? (Of course, that is the central argument, after all: the premise that they already contribute next to nothing...)

It occurs to me that we already have a weapon that can lay plenty of suppressive fire with a smaller round (the SAW) and yet it isn't universally accepted as the answer to our tactical prayers. Admittedly, this last is perhaps a specious argument, but would everyone suddenly love the SAW, if it weighed only 8 pounds? (I already love it, so it is hard for me to tell.)

This probably also means that there must be VERY extensive cross-training, as a squad cannot afford for the GPMG or LRR to be out of action, if the primary operator is hit. True proficiency with either weapon takes time and much practice (I'm not saying that it isn't possible, just something to consider, and something that we haven't always been able to achieve in the past).

I do appreciate what is an intellectually daring approach to this problem. From an engineering perspective, this is an optimization problem, balancing carried load/weight vs. battlefield effectiveness. I'm just not convinced that this takes the human factors sufficiently into consideration.

William F. Owen
06-03-2008, 05:02 AM
I do appreciate what is an intellectually daring approach to this problem. From an engineering perspective, this is an optimization problem, balancing carried load/weight vs. battlefield effectiveness. I'm just not convinced that this takes the human factors sufficiently into consideration.

Thanks, but its not that intellectually daring! :D

Human factors are key, and this is why the testing needs to be done and the data gathered.

Giving someone an MP-7 or P-90 is not telling them that they are less important, if they have been on the range had demonstrated to them, the real strengths and limitations of each and every weapon on the platoon.

Now, having some considerable experience of military dissonance, I don't think it can be done. The military consistently ignores empirical data it does not like. The UK certainly does. If you see my 30-man platoon concept, which I have submitted for critiquing on another thread, I have no PDWs, and have used Carbines (5.56mm with 35cm barrels).

Centurion
06-03-2008, 12:45 PM
I'm thinking a assault rifle caliber weapon, such as a .223 in a IW that's no heavier then four pounds, and of a bullpup design with a carbine length barrel(although it could easily be made longer).
I know magpul is designing a weapon with a 12.5inch barrel, which is basically what i'm talking about here. This would do away with a large amount of weight, but it would not cause to many logistical problems, as it uses ammunition commonly available, yet would still allow for more effectiveness at longer ranges.


Note: Please bear with any mistakes, grammar or otherwise, that I make. I am only 14 :p

Ken White
06-03-2008, 04:11 PM
I'm thinking a assault rifle caliber weapon, such as a .223 in a IW that's no heavier then four pounds, and of a bullpup design with a carbine length barrel(although it could easily be made longer).
I know magpul is designing a weapon with a 12.5inch barrel, which is basically what i'm talking about here. This would do away with a large amount of weight, but it would not cause to many logistical problems, as it uses ammunition commonly available, yet would still allow for more effectiveness at longer ranges.

Note: Please bear with any mistakes, grammar or otherwise, that I make. I am only 14 :pDon't worry about the grammar and mistakes; I'm a lot older than 14 and they put up with me. :D

Welcome aboard.

I agree with you. Mixing calibers at Platoon level should be held to an absolute minimum. The key to the caliber argument is the theater or location of the fight. There is no 'best' universal caliber given current technology. For the desert, 7.62x51 at a minimum; for urban 5.56 will work; for temperate and jungle, something in between.

Yes, I know that'll give the Loggies and the Accountants heartburn. Good. That's what they're there for...

William F. Owen
06-04-2008, 05:40 AM
I'm thinking a assault rifle caliber weapon, such as a .223 in a IW that's no heavier then four pounds, and of a bullpup design with a carbine length barrel(although it could easily be made longer).
I know magpul is designing a weapon with a 12.5inch barrel, which is basically what i'm talking about here. This would do away with a large amount of weight, but it would not cause to many logistical problems, as it uses ammunition commonly available, yet would still allow for more effectiveness at longer ranges.


Note: Please bear with any mistakes, grammar or otherwise, that I make. I am only 14 :p

Well you may be 14 (I suspect you lie and that you are on th force development Staff at Benning! :D ), but you make a point a few 55 year old Colonels seem to want to ignore!

The Magpul PDW is a very interesting design. If you ever find out more about it, please let me (or us) know. I think it's only a mock-up right now.

...and it may be interesting to note that averagely there are usually about 8-15 different ammunition natures at the platoon level

- If you really can't spell, then you are an Instructor at Warminster.. Ah! I kill me!

Fuchs
06-04-2008, 10:06 AM
The Magpuul concept looks interesting and a comparison to the obviously overweight P90 shows tells me that it might even be feasible.
But the weapon isn't even half of the solution.

I've read about a new dedicated cartridge for short barrelled 5.56 weapons being introduce in USSOCOM - that's an important step that I called for for some time.
The weapon would still be compatible with standard cartridges, but could use the more appropriate cartridge as well. That's a better approach than the dedicated PDW cartridges.
The only drawback of the PDR will be that it won't use the muscle memory the soldier gained by practicing with the standard rifle/carbine.

Distiller
06-04-2008, 11:28 AM
...

Note: Please bear with any mistakes, grammar or otherwise, that I make. I am only 14 :p

Born on February 29th, heh? :D

Centurion
06-04-2008, 01:48 PM
s
The Magpuul concept looks interesting and a comparison to the obviously overweight P90 shows tells me that it might even be feasible.
But the weapon isn't even half of the solution.

I've read about a new dedicated cartridge for short barrelled 5.56 weapons being introduce in USSOCOM - that's an important step that I called for for some time.
The weapon would still be compatible with standard cartridges, but could use the more appropriate cartridge as well. That's a better approach than the dedicated PDW cartridges.
The only drawback of the PDR will be that it won't use the muscle memory the soldier gained by practicing with the standard rifle/carbine.


I was using the Magpul weapon as an example of my point,
which is that any weapon change, should be able to use existing, common cartridges in order to maintain ease of logistics, and if done right, should also be able to be converted to other cartridges somewhat easily, idealy with only replacing magazine well, receiver, and barrel. It should also be somewhat light weight, and have some sort of recoil control mechanism(Preferably something like what is on the Ultimax) or a rate of fire reducer(there an actual name for those?)

To the muscle memory point, that could be changed. In keeping with the bull pup design, it would not be too difficult to change the posistion of the controls so that it takes advantage of that muscle memory, would it?

also, this weapon should be compatible with at least most current accesories(Except for the M203, I simply don't see that working) and for ones that serve a purpose, that is invaluble to the tactical level of war, it should not be difficult to keep other weapons on board, such as the M-4/M-16 to use said Grenade launcher.

This alone, could solve some weight and size issues,
and i'm sure other gear could follow suit.
Like I said in another thread,
instead of spending money on fancy new stuff, spend it on improving existing, or creating new designs.
This could go towards turning a 15 piece of body armour into a 5 pound one, or turning a 20 pound AT launcher into a 10 pound one.


And I did a bit more research on the magpul weapon,
it is completely ambidextrous, 11.5 inch barrel (I was off by an inch :( ) and has an over all length of about 15 inches.
I hope they go through with this design :D
This company seems to have so much potential eg. Their PDW, the masada(although that was sold to bushmaster, right?), and the FMG-9 are all remarkable weapons that take existing concepts and make them work, or work better.
I think i'm in love.
:)

SethB
06-04-2008, 03:01 PM
Centurion, I've often wondered whether the medical costs of heavy gear don't outweigh the cost of lighter gear.

The Magpul PDW is not yet prototyped. It is a good idea. It does retain a lot of the controls of the M4, but I'm not sure how it does so; it would almost need to use electronics for that.

The P90 is not a marvel of engineering. To say the least.

As for cartridges, TSWG and KAC developed the 6X35 and it is good for 8-10 inch barrels. 6.8 SPC is better in the 10-12.5 inch range and if you want something with more power, that is out there too.

The military could set its goals a little higher, private industry has been very responsive; it could very well be the upside to a nation full of hoplophiles.

Ken White
06-04-2008, 04:10 PM
...To the muscle memory point, that could be changed. In keeping with the bull pup design, it would not be too difficult to change the posistion of the controls so that it takes advantage of that muscle memory, would it?Yep, it can be changed in a couple of days or less.
This alone, could solve some weight and size issues,and i'm sure other gear could follow suit. Like I said in another thread, instead of spending money on fancy new stuff, spend it on improving existing, or creating new designs. This could go towards turning a 15 piece of body armour into a 5 pound one, or turning a 20 pound AT launcher into a 10 pound one.Totally true, all that's required is the will to do so...
...This company seems to have so much potential eg. Their PDW, the asada(although that was sold to bushmaster, right?), and the FMG-9 are all remarkable weapons that take existing concepts and make them work, or work better.
I think i'm in love.:)You have good sense and good taste; apply it to the opposite sex and you'll do well... :D

selil
06-04-2008, 04:59 PM
To fully change reactive instataneous muscle memory "operant conditioning" (instinctual reaction time is about 1/3 of a second) takes on the order of 7000 reptitions. The more complex the movement the more reps required. I have seen variations from a few hundreds reps to tens of thousands but that is usually based on the differing complexities. 7K may seem like a lot but it isn't. 7K is leading toward expertise, and we are only looking for facility. Contrary to popular belief most military weapons operators go into combat with minimal skill. A few leave with great skills. Having read Marshall, Spiller, Grossman and others the mechanical device in a soldiers hand is bascially moot. The most important part of the weapons system is the grey matter attached to the nervous system and properly trained a worn out kalshinkov is just as deadly as a high tech whiz bang shoot around corners toy.

Ken White
06-04-2008, 05:19 PM
What he said.

William F. Owen
06-04-2008, 05:22 PM
Contrary to popular belief most military weapons operators go into combat with minimal skill. A few leave with great skills. Having read Marshall, Spiller, Grossman and others the mechanical device in a soldiers hand is bascially moot. The most important part of the weapons system is the grey matter attached to the nervous system and properly trained a worn out kalshinkov is just as deadly as a high tech whiz bang shoot around corners toy.

I think Grossman is mostly wrong, but I completely agree with your main point! This is exactly correct!

Any supporting data or notations about the 7k Repetitions? It's fascinating stuff!

selil
06-04-2008, 06:06 PM
I'm looking for some non-sports related resources, but there is always wikipedia (though I'm not a fan of it).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operant_conditioning (Operant, bad stuff is avoided)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscle_memory (Muscle memory, your body learns patterns) and yeppers they actually invoke OODA loops for it.

I ran across the term the first time dealing with teaching drivers education. Then later in dealing with marksmanship. Most recently an article by Kisik Lee on archery (1000 arrows in a day). I'll take a look for it.

Fuchs
06-04-2008, 07:52 PM
Martial arts trainers often say that 1,000 repetitions is necessary to learn the basic form and thousands are necessary to become good.
I doubt that dedicated papers on this and small arms exist. Such a study would require too much effort.

The controls are not the issue for muscle memory imho.
To reload under stress and to quickly go into a solid aiming stance (I don't know the better translations) is more critical than trigger, mag release and safety.

I'd prefer a shortened standard weapon with a very rugged sight, minimal maintenance requirements if possible, compatibility to standard cartridges and of course a dedicated cartridge for its short barrel.

SethB
06-04-2008, 08:38 PM
Most important, in my mind, is a functional (non-HK, non-Kalashnikov) safety and a bolt hold open.

That said, and to further what Selil mentioned, there is a theory (I apologize for forgetting the name) which holds that a person will react most quickly when they have only a single option. Each choice they gain slows decision making. This is the primary argument against training to perform a number of manipulations to a carbine.

And as for the Masada/ACR, the final version will be both more ambidextrous than an M4, and have the charging handle in a more logical location.

Ken White
06-04-2008, 08:46 PM
...I doubt that dedicated papers on this and small arms exist. Such a study would require too much effort.Perhaps, perhaps not. Gunsite and some others have pretty extensive Libraries and I never cease to be amazed by the things people have studied in depth.
The controls are not the issue for muscle memory imho.To reload under stress and to quickly go into a solid aiming stance (I don't know the better translations) is more critical than trigger, mag release and safety.Except for reloading under stress, all that's gun magazine and Super Cop SWAT foolishness for competitions; it has very little applicability to military combat.[/QUOTE]

Stan
06-04-2008, 09:10 PM
Interesting stuff, Sam !
Our 1980 Korean instructors felt that their nominal 3,000 reps would be sufficient so long as emotional distress (stress) was not introduced into the training. Then in 1994 at a Westpoint, Virginia training facility, our driving and shooting instructors concluded that 7,000 repetitions were the standard, regardless of the levels of stress included in the training. Following a year with Tom in Goma, Zaire actually prepared me for a quite enjoyable vacation (at an anti-terrorism course), while seasoned SEALS stressed themselves to the point of being ordered to play horseshoes at the end of the training day (to slow down and regroup) :D

I've often felt that bikers are more capable of quickly adapting :cool:

Regards, Stan

selil
06-04-2008, 09:44 PM
Just as an aside video of the 1000 arrow in a day challenge http://youtube.com/watch?v=RezVD0fAIsY

Centurion
06-04-2008, 10:40 PM
The controls are not the issue for muscle memory imho.
To reload under stress and to quickly go into a solid aiming stance (I don't know the better translations) is more critical than trigger, mag release and safety.

I don't know about the solid aiming stance, in a situation were those reflex's are required, the target will probably be close enough so that simply one that will allow us to swing the weapon on target will be enough. I would rather get of three shots that barely hit my target in a stress situation, then not get any off because I waited to long, trying to get into a steady firing position. That's just me though.

And reloading quickly under stress is involved with the mag release ;)

Most important, in my mind, is a functional (non-HK, non-Kalashnikov) safety and a bolt hold open.
I personally, would rather see weapons saftey and handling trained into muscle memory rather then better saftey's on weapons. A SA automatic is just as safe as a DA automatic with extra grip saftey, if handled correctly.
It can't be too hard to drill that into soldiers, i've had it screamed at me every time i've laid my hand on a weapon, loaded or not, for the past two years to not lay my finger on the trigger until ready to fire. I now don't even on cap guns :)

I agree with the bolt hold open though.


Centurion, I've often wondered whether the medical costs of heavy gear don't outweigh the cost of lighter gear.
I have also wondered that a few times :p
While I personally prefer heavy metal and wood weapons, to new plastic guns, I have never had to walk a day carrying them. The most i've done is walk a day with a 70 pound pack and my two pound SP ion(Type of paintball gun) in my hands :p

I would have to ask some real soldiers things about that.

William F. Owen
06-05-2008, 06:09 AM
Most important, in my mind, is a functional (non-HK, non-Kalashnikov) safety and a bolt hold open.

Concur. People often ask me my opinion on certain light weapons and I always start with "I like one that works and you/I can use."


That said, and to further what Selil mentioned, there is a theory (I apologize for forgetting the name) which holds that a person will react most quickly when they have only a single option. Each choice they gain slows decision making. This is the primary argument against training to perform a number of manipulations to a carbine.

In Hebrew we call this "Kipodist" - "Hedgehog like" KISS. KISS is everything. It's my guiding light. If you can't explain it to a 19-year-old Bedouin from Beersheva, or Scouser from Liverpool, then it won't work on Operations


And as for the Masada/ACR, the final version will be both more ambidextrous than an M4, and have the charging handle in a more logical location.

Just given this a quick look. Very, very impressive.

SethB
06-05-2008, 02:57 PM
Centurion, it isn't that simple.

The safety on the Kalashnikov is located on the right side of the reciever. It almost has to be manipulated with the weak hand. Some people can reach it with the tip of their index finger, but in order to be able to press it down you have to bend the sheet metal tab (also called the safety) away from the reciever. Another option that some have used is a small piece of string, so when you pull your finger down from the reciever to the trigger the string will pull the safety along. I've never used that one, but it came highly reccomended by an old Marine/NYPD cop.

The HK safety is too short for most people to reach it. I have large hands, and I can't do it.

The end result is that people leave the safety off. I've met people who think they are too cool for safeties, and besides the fact that no one is, the biggest danger remains hooking the trigger on your gear, a branch, whatever. If you dig around there is a story about a kid, maybe 11, who took a face full of 00 buck because a SWAT cop snagged the trigger of his Benelli on his kit.

As for the rest of the controls, in most cases they can be dealt with.

I don't know much about fighting, but I do shoot occasionally. Also, I've carried and shot a 1911 long enough (though I now carry a Glock 19) to know that a manual safety is no impediment at all, if it can be easily manipulated. The safety on a 1911 sits directly underneath your thumb, if you use the Modern Technique.

Centurion
06-06-2008, 12:26 AM
Centurion, it isn't that simple.

The safety on the Kalashnikov is located on the right side of the reciever. It almost has to be manipulated with the weak hand. Some people can reach it with the tip of their index finger, but in order to be able to press it down you have to bend the sheet metal tab (also called the safety) away from the reciever. Another option that some have used is a small piece of string, so when you pull your finger down from the reciever to the trigger the string will pull the safety along. I've never used that one, but it came highly reccomended by an old Marine/NYPD cop.

The HK safety is too short for most people to reach it. I have large hands, and I can't do it.

The end result is that people leave the safety off. I've met people who think they are too cool for safeties, and besides the fact that no one is, the biggest danger remains hooking the trigger on your gear, a branch, whatever. If you dig around there is a story about a kid, maybe 11, who took a face full of 00 buck because a SWAT cop snagged the trigger of his Benelli on his kit.

As for the rest of the controls, in most cases they can be dealt with.

I don't know much about fighting, but I do shoot occasionally. Also, I've carried and shot a 1911 long enough (though I now carry a Glock 19) to know that a manual safety is no impediment at all, if it can be easily manipulated. The safety on a 1911 sits directly underneath your thumb, if you use the Modern Technique.

Ah, I see what you mean. Sorry, I am not familiar with either HK or kalashnikov weapons, and thought you meant the mechanism itself.

JonathanF
06-07-2008, 04:57 PM
More on the Masada here, with lots of photos;

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=103209

Now being produced as the Bushmaster ACR.

JonathanF
06-07-2008, 05:37 PM
An interesting and recent US doc on the original topic (albeit for LMG gunners rather than riflemen) can be found here;

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf

Includes exploration of telescoped and/or caseless 5.56mm concepts.

William F. Owen
06-08-2008, 05:25 AM
An interesting and recent US doc on the original topic (albeit for LMG gunners rather than riflemen) can be found here;

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Spiegel.pdf

Includes exploration of telescoped and/or caseless 5.56mm concepts.

I talk to Kori Spiegel once in a while. It's impressive engineering, but I just can't see how saving weight on 5.56mm versus the cost, and lack of doctrine (why not how) gets us any further along. There are some cool spin offs from all this, but I bet we come back to all the same problems eventually - and those are mostly human, and not technical.

SethB
06-09-2008, 05:48 PM
Wilf, if I recall correctly the LSAT technology is supposed to be scaleable, meaning that it could easily be produced in 7.62 or even larger bore diameters in the future.

William F. Owen
06-09-2008, 06:09 PM
Wilf, if I recall correctly the LSAT technology is supposed to be scaleable, meaning that it could easily be produced in 7.62 or even larger bore diameters in the future.

...and that would be one of the cool spin offs! :D

gute
05-22-2012, 03:14 AM
Found this article at the fire arms blog about a potential new medium machine gun in .338 caliber - wow! The weight of the ammunition most likely takes away from increased lethality (?) and performance - I guess. It's cool and I want to shoot it, but I don't think I would want to hump the ammo.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/05/16/338-nm-lightweight-medium-machine-gun-lwmmg/

carl
05-22-2012, 04:37 AM
One of the comments mentioned using in aircraft, lighter than the .50 and more punch and range than the 7.62. How do you think it would work for that?

Fuchs
05-22-2012, 05:57 AM
Found this article at the fire arms blog about a potential new medium machine gun in .338 caliber - wow! The weight of the ammunition most likely takes away from increased lethality (?) and performance - I guess. It's cool and I want to shoot it, but I don't think I would want to hump the ammo.

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2012/05/16/338-nm-lightweight-medium-machine-gun-lwmmg/

I've argued for a while that an intermediate calibre between 5.56 and 7.62 makes sense for dismounted combat while an intermediate calibre between 7.62 and 12.7 makes sense for sniping and mounted combat.

There are too many armour plates in the world that were designed to withstand 7.62, while there are almost none meant to withstand only 5.56. Plus; the ballistics and effectiveness of 5.56 is too much in doubt.


It was a mystery to me why FNH thought there was a need for an intermediate Western calibre between 12.7 and 20 mm (during the 90s). A 5.56/7.62 intermediate machine gun was such an obvious market niche that it was only a question of time till one appeared.

gute
05-23-2012, 03:03 PM
Here is another possible future weapon for U.S. forces. I've been paying attention to the development of this LMG and cased ammo for several years now - wondering when the heck the Army and Marine Corps would test it out.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2012/05/marine-lighter-machine-gun-052112/

Maybe the new assault rifle mentioned in the article will fire caseless or cased 6.5 or 6.8 ammo. Cased .338 ammo and a new medium machine gun more plausable. What will most likely happen is new lighter weapons and ammo, but the troops will carry more so in the end there will be no significant weight savings.

Compost
05-23-2012, 03:49 PM
I've argued for a while that an intermediate calibre between 5.56 and 7.62 makes sense for dismounted combat while an intermediate calibre between 7.62 and 12.7 makes sense for sniping and mounted combat.
A bit of homework confirms that your views are widely supported by items on the web. Many commentators share the view that 5.56x45 and 7.62x51mm rounds should be succeeded by an intermediate round designed for use in assault rifles and platoon-level MGs. But their solutions for the elusive combination of range, barrier penetration, lethality and ready controllability of close-range automatic fire from a rifle wielded by the 95 percentile soldier span calibres from 6 to 7mm, projectile weights of 6 to 10grams, muzzle velocities of 750 to 925mps from a 450 to 500mm barrel, and ammunition that weighs in somewhere between 50 and 70 rounds per kilo.

But there has been more commonality of opinion about that notional second round intermediate between the 7.62x51 and the 12.7x99mm for use in company-level and vehicle MGs. Some commentators have supported the 8.59x70mm Nammo Lapua round currently used in long-range bolt-action sniper rifles: 16.2gm projectile and MV of about 900mps from a 660mm barrel. Others have supported that calibre but argued that sustained bursts of fire demand a lower MV in order to reduce the damage caused to rifling. Now General Dynamics has possibly satisfied the latter by developing an 8.59mm belt-fed MG and demonstrating its ability to satisfactorily fire bursts of another other long range marksman round the 8.59x63.5mm Norma Magnum round: 19.4gm projectile at an estimated MV of 825mps from a 660mm barrel.

But the intriguing aspect is GDs new 8.59mm LWMMG. See
www.generaldynamics.com/news/press-releases/detail.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1811=17733

Its logical to start with the robust and reliable 7.62x51mm MAG58/M240 MG that weighs about 12kg on its bipod. That or a similar gun could have been beefed up with a modified and reinforced receiver and a heavier 8.59mm barrel and bolt group to produce an 8.59mm GPMG weighing say 14 to 16kg. According to a press release the LWMMG weighs just 11 kg. It has a low firing rate of 500 rpm but each cartridge has much more propellant than does the 7.62x51 and the barrel of the LWMMG must lack the mass needed to function as a useful heat sink for sustained fire. The alternative of carrying and frequently juggling several spare barrels is a laborious and often impractical exercise.

A near-term upgrade of the LWMMG is certain to involve a much heavier barrel. So what is/was the intended purpose of the introductory 11kg version ? Is there a need for a sniper squad to include a team with a highly portable MG to briefly support the operation of one or more sniper pairs that are typically armed with a bolt-action rifle and a self-loading rifle ? Is there a need for a sniper pair to be sometimes armed with a bolt-action rifle plus a long-range MG ? Or is GD suggesting or responding to some other role or requirement ?

Kiwigrunt
05-23-2012, 08:55 PM
Here it be. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klr0EXZty6s)

Fuchs
05-23-2012, 09:01 PM
Here it be. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klr0EXZty6s)

Is it just me or does the tripod look a bit overwhelmed?

The gun furthermore looks quite bulky to me and the lack of a flash hider is conspicuous (no production standard yet, I guess)[/I]).

Kiwigrunt
05-23-2012, 11:50 PM
Is it just me or does the tripod look a bit overwhelmed?

The tripod looks like the M192. Sure looks a bit puny under that gun. The NZ army is starting to replace the 5.56 Minimi with the 7.62 Minimi, with a number of those tripods as part of the deal.

The use of sandbags is not uncommon with the L7A2 SFMG either. I suppose a light tripod with a few empty sandbags is easier to hump around than a sufficiently heavy tripod, but I imagine that if this gun is to see serious application in the sustained fire role, this tripod may leave a bit to be desired. For the poor No2 carrying it I hope I’m wrong. Compost’s remarks on the light barrel also seem warranted for the same reason.

It appears to me that they want to keep the weight and bulk of this new gun-tripod package down as much as possible to spark enough interest to gain some traction and get the ball rolling. But once forces are committed (if that will ever happen) than the weight may have to creep up if the gun is to be of much use for serious sustained fire. It looks like they are marketing it as a kind of lightweight-HMG (‘medium’ seems a bit optimistic) optimised for a light role. With the prohibitive weight of the ammo (in that role), that seems like a narrow scope of use, given the potential of this round.

The gun (or rather the calibre) certainly seems to fill a gap between 7.62 and 12.7 but I can’t see that gap being critical enough for forces to adopt this gun as a gap-filler. It would IMO only make sense to adopt is as a replacement for current GPMGs and HMGs. I don’t like their chances of pushing the well established MAG 58 and M2 out of the way. Same reasoning that applies to an intermediate between 5.56 and 7.62 not being forthcoming.

ganulv
05-23-2012, 11:57 PM
The gun furthermore looks quite bulky to me

GD says it comes in at 24 pounds (http://www.gdatp.com/factsheets/A139_MMG.pdf), so light for what they claim it delivers that I have to wonder about the issue of overheating.

Fuchs
05-24-2012, 07:14 AM
It appears to me that they want to keep the weight and bulk of this new gun-tripod package down as much as possible to spark enough interest to gain some traction and get the ball rolling.

As mentioned before, I rather see the niche for such a calibre in mounted applications. If I was them I would advertise the low volume of the ammo (in comparison to 12.7mm), its ability to penetrate what typical coax machineguns cannot penetrate and the suitability for coax installation (gases leaking into the vehicle or not).

Ken White
05-24-2012, 03:05 PM
I've long advocated a 6-7mm cartridge (the US Army 6mm SAW round had development potential) for man portable Platoon weapons, 10mm for a pistol or SMG and an enhanced 7-8mm cartridge for MMGs (a Co/Coy weapon IMO), some Sniper applications and vehicle weapons. A pepped up 8mm Remington Magnum (with an unbelted case), would work...

The .338 is a good cartridge but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7; it's a little too big and like FNs abortive '15.5mm' too close to the 12.7 to be a really meaningful alternative.

ganulv
05-24-2012, 05:59 PM
but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

Fuchs
05-25-2012, 12:07 AM
Everything beyond 400 metres is at best a 5% capability in my opinion. Unimportant and dispensable in almost all cases.

Such a heavy calibre is in my opinion a calibre for vehicles, though. Vehicles might have a rigid-enough mounting and the fire control system to make use of a machinegun well beyond its practical range in dismounted use.


The more important characteristic of such a large calibre machinegun is in my opinion the penetration capability. Almost all kinds of non-flexible armour is made to resist 7.62NATO and 7.62x54 mm rimmed (non-exotic AP cartridge versions each). See NIJ Level IV, SK IV and the disclosed protection ratings of just about every post-WW2 lightly armoured vehicle.

Tree stems, walls and sandbags are further obstacles that make a bigger calibre than 7.62 long cartridges interesting.

Ken White
05-25-2012, 02:39 AM
but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?It is a selling point -- big is in the eye of the beholder. If one is operating in Afghanistan where extended ranges are the norm, then it's a big selling point. If one is in Jungle somewhere it is not even a minor selling point. For most Armies most places it probably falls in the 'nice to have' but not critical area of equipage...

Consider about 50% of land surface consists of plains, 30% desert, 20% mountains and 14% tundra (all figures rough approximations and add to more than 100% due to mixed landforms, i.e. hilly deserts) and that range has some utility. I do believe it's one of those METT-TC issues... ;)
That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.That plus it's a new type of toy. :rolleyes: :D

Compost
05-25-2012, 10:19 AM
I've long advocated a 6-7mm cartridge (the US Army 6mm SAW round had development potential) for man portable Platoon weapons, 10mm for a pistol or SMG and an enhanced 7-8mm cartridge for MMGs (a Co/Coy weapon IMO), some Sniper applications and vehicle weapons. A pepped up 8mm Remington Magnum (with an unbelted case), would work...

The .338 is a good cartridge but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7; it's a little too big and like FNs abortive '15.5mm' too close to the 12.7 to be a really meaningful alternative.

It’s easy to agree with almost all of item 177. However believe its last sentence should be made explicit and commence:

The .338 is a good cartridge ' for a sniper’s bolt-action rifle ' but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7 ' for use in any MG ' ;

There is one point of contention, that 10mm for pistol and SMG. 10mm might be preferred in the USA but many in NATO and affiliates would propose ' 9mm with alternate barrels for 6.5mm '.

But none of this throws light on what the usually astute GD really intends for its LWMMG.

JMA
05-25-2012, 12:27 PM
but here goes. Is the 1700m range of the weapon really that big a selling point? There are a limited number of environments where that sort of viewshed is consistently available: deserts, mountains in the desert and above the tree line, steppes with the right vegetation mix, tundra (am I missing any?). And while a sniper taking a shot at that distance makes sense to me, am I correct in assuming that it’s not a distance you want to start the shooting from if you are attempting to close with the enemy?

That’s a convoluted way for a layman to ask whether the range of this weapon is one of or the big attractions it holds.

I suggest that the start point for a layman is a study of the theory of small arms fire (http://www.weapons.org.uk/smallarmstraining/downloads/uk/01-01-37-A1,2.pdf) - (section starting page 19)

By now countries who fight only on home ground should have selected weapons and calibre which suits their circumstances best while the adventurous countries (US, Brits, France) should have the weapons and equipment in their 'golf bags' to select for each geographic zone they may find themselves committed to.

Notice I used the word 'should' ... then factor in stupidity, bribery and corruption and see that this is not so almost anywhere.

Ken White
05-25-2012, 02:24 PM
You suggest:
The .338 is a good cartridge ' for a sniper’s bolt-action rifle ' but I think a bad compromise between 7.62 and 12.7 ' for use in any MG ' ...I disagree, it's not much if any better as a sniper round than the .300 and 7 to 8mm Magnums plus it carries a weight penalty and thus concomitant weapon weight impact. It also is 'overkill' for many tactical sniping applications. It was developed as a military cartridge by the Finns who can make good use of it; it was adopted by others simply because it was available and a moderately good solution to lessening the load of the .50 as a long range man stopper (a purpose for which said .50 is also not particularly suited...). The .338 cartridge may with further development improve to the point that it is a good -- as opposed to adequate -- sniper round but it's not quite there yet IMO -- and weapons that use it will need to be lightened which will require some sort of recoil attenuation. It's IMO a niche weapon which has achieved the success it has simply due to adequacy (as opposed to goodness or excellence), availability and being non-American (not that there's anything wrong with that...).
There is one point of contention, that 10mm for pistol and SMG. 10mm might be preferred in the USA but many in NATO and affiliates would propose ' 9mm with alternate barrels for 6.5mm '.True I suppose -- the issue is whether one wants a usually man stopping cartridge or a usually lightly wounding, rarely man stopping cartridge. What a difference a mere millimeter (and about double the amount of gunpowder / propellant and another gram of bullet weight) can wreak... ;)

The issue you raise is one of cost and habit, not of effectiveness. It's certainly valid and such a change may not be totally cost effective but this is all conjecture anyway. :D
But none of this throws light on what the usually astute GD really intends for its LWMMG.Uhh -- to sell it to anyone who thinks it might be useful for their purposes? Or who just think it's a neat weapon or toy? GD is not into tactical or operational panning and effort, just into making things that will or certainly might sell. GD has indeed generally been astute and their small arms / weapons operations particularly so -- except for the Saco M60 projects (and those were not totally Sacos or GDs fault...).

Military forces should not focus on Afghanistan in determining their future equipment buys but history indicates many surely will. GD likely is quite aware of that propensity... :wry:

carl
05-25-2012, 11:39 PM
True I suppose -- the issue is whether one wants a usually man stopping cartridge or a usually lightly wounding, rarely man stopping cartridge. What a difference a mere millimeter (and about double the amount of gunpowder / propellant and another gram of bullet weight) can wreak... ;)

You are allowed to shoot them more then once with both pistol or a submachine gun, does it really make that much of a difference?

Chris jM
05-26-2012, 01:30 AM
You suggest:I disagree, it's not much if any better as a sniper round than the .300 and 7 to 8mm Magnums plus it carries a weight penalty and thus concomitant weapon weight impact. It also is 'overkill' for many tactical sniping applications. ...The .338 cartridge may with further development improve to the point that it is a good -- as opposed to adequate -- sniper round but it's not quite there yet IMO -- and weapons that use it will need to be lightened which will require some sort of recoil attenuation. It's IMO a niche weapon which has achieved the success it has simply due to adequacy (as opposed to goodness or excellence), availability and being non-American (not that there's anything wrong with that...).True I suppose -- the issue is whether one wants a usually man stopping cartridge or a usually lightly wounding, rarely man stopping cartridge. What a difference a mere millimeter (and about double the amount of gunpowder / propellant and another gram of bullet weight) can wreak... ;)


I have disagreed with Ken White before, and every time I have done so my argument has been artfully and articulately shoot down in flames, so I stand by with pop-corn in the microwave in anticipation of pending fireworks! :)

As a general infantry officer involved in the early stages of a sniper rifle replacement project I have been researching the sniper rifle capability requirements and have arrived at a very different conclusion to you.

The .338 Lapua (and now Norma) Magnum provide greater flexibility to a sniper team - they can use it from further away and can target a wider variety of targets than a 7.62mm weapon could. Whereas the 7.62mm match-grade round is showing it's limitations at the 1,000m the .338 is capable of remaining a powerful, fast round out substantially further. Retaining velocity is important in a weapon as it allows increased lethality and increased precision (it won't drop so much at range and won't be pushed around so much by wind or atmospherics, making it all the easier to deliver a first-round hit from over 600m over compared to a smaller calibre). The wider variety of targets a sniper can effect, including personnel or crew-served weapons behind cover, light vehicles, aircraft and radio equipment, increases the utility of these larger calibres. Being able to do so from further away, retaining stand off for the sniper team and thus increasing their own security can't be overlooked, either.

The big drawback is cost, both per round and barrel life.

In my opinion the .338 machine gun is exciting, as it is the first MG we have seen designed around a modern rather than a legacy round. This exact design might not be a commercial success but I would suggest that it has huge potential in the naval and air machine gun roles where we currently see GPMG/M60 weapons used, as well as being a potentially potent GPMG replacement for light and motorised infantry formations.

Ken White
05-26-2012, 01:32 AM
You are allowed to shoot them more then once with both pistol or a submachine gun, does it really make that much of a difference?Very definitely. Contrary to fiction and the movies and even to the very valid law enforcement precept that shot placement is critical, one does not always have time for decent shot placement much less a second shot -- often not and for more than two, usually not.

Police officers, plural, most often face a suspect, singular. * Combat infantrymen -- or anyone else in military combat -- only rarely face single opponents, there are generally what seems like dozens if not hundreds and all are usually moving in varied directions. Most opponents are not particuarly brave, are at least partially trained and are very adept at seeking cover.

Consider also the opponent may have an SMG while one has only a pistol -- or one may have an SMG but the opponent has a PKM -- not to mention that one's SMG may let loose with a six round burst but only one or two will go near the initial point of aim (if that) while the rest go high and to the direction of rifling twist.. :wry:

* I am reminded of a local incident a few years ago where, IIRC, 14 cars of shift changing deputies closed in on a fleeing felon at rush hour and instituted a fire fight in front of a crowded McDonalds. The Deputies fired, by FDLE investigation count, 111 rounds. None, not one, hit the suspect (or surprisingly and quite fortunately anyone else); he committed suicide with his own pistol.

They did do a job on the suspect's pickup, though. The FDLE found no individual fault but they recommended intensive firearms training..:D

Ken White
05-26-2012, 01:58 AM
The .338 Lapua (and now Norma) Magnum provide greater flexibility to a sniper team - they can use it from further away and can target a wider variety of targets than a 7.62mm weapon could...Agreed -- which is why I suggested something in the 7-8mm Magnum range. Not likely to happen -- which is why I said '"conjecture" -- and the .338 exists and has found a military audience. I've never fired the .338 thus my opinion is based on talking to those who have -- most of whom agree totally with you (and point out to me there's no accepted 7-8mm Magnum round being offered as an alternative...). A few agree with me and point to the success of the .300 Win Mag rebarrel and new build programs here in the US, a program undertaken deliberately to let the .338 mature a bit more. :wry:
The wider variety of targets a sniper can effect, including personnel or crew-served weapons behind cover, light vehicles, aircraft and radio equipment, increases the utility of these larger calibres. Being able to do so from further away, retaining stand off for the sniper team and thus increasing their own security can't be overlooked, either.Also true. Others might be able to do much the same but the .338 is here...
The big drawback is cost, both per round and barrel life.I'd add 'and the gross system weight.' That can make a huge difference in Sniper and team effectiveness on lengthy missions in rough terrain...
In my opinion the .338 machine gun is exciting, as it is the first MG we have seen designed around a modern rather than a legacy round. This exact design might not be a commercial success but I would suggest that it has huge potential in the naval and air machine gun roles where we currently see GPMG/M60 weapons used, as well as being a potentially potent GPMG replacement for light and motorised infantry formations.I agree but believe affordability and locale-derived utility should be paramount factors in whether it is purchased or not. While it could eventually be a cost effective upgrade for 7.62 or thereabouts users, I suspect that for most nations who use the .50 in various weapons for those roles as opposed to a MAG/M240 the .338 would offer less capability than they now have and the ability to haul more Ammo is likely not critical. We'll see...

carl
05-26-2012, 02:04 AM
Ken:

If you don't have the time or skill for decent shot placement, it doesn't matter what the size the pistol round is. And, I am guessing, in the military sense the generalized everyman can't hit anything with a pistol anyway. So it doesn't make much difference, especially if the larger calibre gums up the logistics system and is different from what the alllies use. From what I've read, pistol calibres are fun to argue about but pistols don't really make any difference. If you like .45 go for it. If you like 9mm go for it. If you like 10mm go for it. If you expect to get into a fight, make sure you have a rifle or a tank or something really big.

Ken White
05-26-2012, 04:53 AM
... I am guessing, in the military sense the generalized everyman can't hit anything with a pistol anyway.True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement..:D
...especially if the larger calibre gums up the logistics system and is different from what the alllies use.That's a myth. We have so many types of ammo floating about it's actually a funny statement. The 'Allies all the same' bit is handy for us when we want to sell weapons (or have 'Allies' stock some Ammo for us...), other than that, we ignore it.
From what I've read, pistol calibres are fun to argue about but pistols don't really make any difference.Not true; gotta watch those gun mags, they're written by a few good guys and a huge number of wannabes. Also got to watch 'studies,' there's often a lot of politics involved. Like the 'study' that got us the M9...:rolleyes:

A pistol doesn't make much difference if you just carry it and don't really use it -- unless that's all you have and you really have to use it, then what it is makes a big difference. :o
If you expect to get into a fight, make sure you have a rifle or a tank or something really big.Sounds good -- unfortunately, like a lot of stuff that reads well, reality differs. There's a reason officers, machine and missile gunners as well as a lot of aircrew and others were and are issued pistols. That same reason is why the pistol needs to be a reliable man stopper. ;)

ADDED. I initially ignored this but decide it was too important to not mention:
If you don't have the time or skill for decent shot placement, it doesn't matter what the size the pistol round is.It does matter. A great deal. I guess I didn't make the point very well above. In military combat, time for decent shot placement is often just not available. Skill enters into it but being bone tired, scared, soaking wet, mud covered, hungry and a few other debilitating things is the NORM and that norm has more adverse impact than lack of skill and / or fleeting targets. Good shot placement sounds great but it takes years -- not months, year -- of constant practice and a lot of Ammo to develop that much skill. That's affordable on cost and time grounds for the Special Operators but is not for most service people so those that must be armed with a pistol as a back up weapon or for portability / weight purposes need one that will stop people. Not wound them, stop them. As has often been said one doesn't need a pistol often but when you need one, you really need it bad -- and it better be one that will do what's needed under continued stress.

JMA
05-26-2012, 06:16 AM
You are allowed to shoot them more then once with both pistol or a submachine gun, does it really make that much of a difference?

In the infantry context it is unlikely that a pistol or SMG would be a fighting man's primary weapon.

That said, it is important to an infantry man that he has confidence in the 'knock down' ability of his personal weapon.

One does does often get the opportunity for a second shot before your target can return the favor.

In addition a person on the losing side of a fire fight can still withdraw to fight another day while a wounded man who is not mobile but able to use his weapon is a dangerous critter if he decides to take a few with him.

You owe it to your troops to provide them with the best weapons and equipment for their role in war.

... what am I saying? Do I really believe that politicians, weapons salesman and non-combatant staff officers give a $hit about that? Think M16.

Carl: missed your second post on this but think we are on the same page. Correctly you speak of logistic considerations in that there should be few different weapons and calibres carried (certainly) at company level. Preferably one type of ammo which is universal. If some 'smart' guy comes along and wants something different it's simple... 'just say no'.

JMA
05-26-2012, 06:46 AM
As a general infantry officer involved in the early stages of a sniper rifle replacement project I have been researching the sniper rifle capability requirements ...

Interesting project.

Remembering back to how important the selection and maintenance of the aim is do you have such an unclassified aim you can share?

Beyond maintaining and extending the ability for a 'one shot, one kill' result at the longest possible reach what other considerations do you have?


The big drawback is cost, both per round and barrel life.

That should be the least of your concerns if you aim to improve the effectiveness of your snipers. The cost per kill delivered by snipers is probably the cheapest in any war (all things considered).


In my opinion the .338 machine gun is exciting, as it is the first MG we have seen designed around a modern rather than a legacy round. This exact design might not be a commercial success but I would suggest that it has huge potential in the naval and air machine gun roles where we currently see GPMG/M60 weapons used, as well as being a potentially potent GPMG replacement for light and motorised infantry formations.

There should be a very good reason for a mix of calibres at platoon and company level (where a GPMG is used). Not sure I have heard one yet.

Fuchs
05-26-2012, 07:41 AM
Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?

Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.

Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.

The only thing that instantly kills is a hit to the central nervous system (including brain). Additionally, cutting the bone and/or nerve bundle in a leg drops a man and cutting the same in the weapon-wielding arm keeps him from returning fire.
All else is unreliable.

ganulv
05-26-2012, 12:05 PM
Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please? […] Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.

But it can potentially induce a sudden change in blood pressure. [1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11308003)] [2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthostatic_hypotension)]

Ken White
05-26-2012, 02:44 PM
Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?

Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.True and not true. On the true, I've seen a guy with a 76mm (that's not a typo) round in his chest walk a couple of hundred meters to an aid station. I've seen a Viet Namese paratrooper with a live 40mm grenade in his abdomen get that removed at another aid station. I've also seen people take multiple .30 Cal (not 7.62, .30-06) hits and keep fighting, I've seen 7.62mm SMG rounds not even slow people down -- albeit briefly in both cases. Long story short, the human body is amazingly resilient -- and amazingly unpredictable. In the not true aspect, I've seen people die from innocuous things, minor wounds that frightened the wounded person too badly, A grenade fragment the Medics missed because it went up a nostril...

More importantly and pertinent, I' ve seen a great many knocked down or off balance or just frightened and thus taken out of action -- they were effectively 'stopped' though not dead. One memorable incident was a Chinese gentleman who was hit high in the right shoulder by one .30 round and who was partially turned but not 'knocked down' by the impact, who dropped his weapon and departed the area at a rapid run, screaming and holding his shoulder. He wasn't dead but he was stopped... :D

Combat is unpredictable and there are few 'rules' that are inviolate. That's why I wrote in the post that started thus sub thread: "...the issue is whether one wants a usually man stopping cartridge or a usually lightly wounding, rarely man stopping cartridge" (emphasis added / kw). Notice the phrasing; "man stopping" is NOT the same thing as "knock down" or even more so, fatal. Fatal was neither stated nor implied. Stopping is stopping and dissuasion or deterrence counts as much as death -- and are far easier to obtain. ;)
Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.That's law enforcement and 'study' talk. While it's mostly true if a big slug hits you in the arm, you may or may not want to or be able to use that arm -- if you can't or won't use it, you are effectively, for combat purposes, stopped --as were almost all those folks I mentioned above. One also can be knocked off balance or simply diverted from further action, however briefly thus allowing a more decisive hit or another action (the Chinese gentleman cited above was while departing struck in the back with several more .30 bullets from a nearby BAR, causing his permanent removal from the rolls of combat effectives...). Lethal is nice but not always possible or necessary, stopping (impeding, diverting or deterring) is possible far more often and can be temporarily effective -- that's often good enough.
The only thing that instantly kills is a hit to the central nervous system (including brain).[Not true (define instant... :wry:). A brain stem nick introducing blood will kill just as quickly; a kidney hit is almost as quick (2 seconds on average, they say...) and as Ganulv mentioned an arterial strike can have a very rapid effect. An arterial hit in a limb or the thorax at the precise instant of systolic pressure can rupture heart or brain feeds. Cutting off the oxygen supply to that nervous system / brain by destroying lungs or the larynx is also fairly fast and can under some circumstances be instantly fatal. To corrupt a word, too many variables in human / animal physiognomy / physiology / metabolism / mental processing / state of rest or lack thereof (all aspects in all cases) and conditions for 'rules.' For example, while your next statement is true, it is also true that shredded or badly torn muscles and ligaments do not work well...
Additionally, cutting the bone and/or nerve bundle in a leg drops a man and cutting the same in the weapon-wielding arm keeps him from returning fire. All else is unreliable.Yes, it is unreliable -- virtually everything in combat is unreliable, but do the math, Economist; the odds favor mass and energy. ;)

carl
05-26-2012, 10:22 PM
Man-stopping sounds good, especially when you add enough qualifiers, but I reject it because there is no uniformly quantifiable "man" to be stopped. What stops one guy won't slow down another. So man-stopper is meaningless.

Pistol rounds are second best. Probably, all things being equal, a pistol round that is 1 whopping mm. bigger and somewhat faster than another pistol round will be do more damage. Physics is physics, it has more energy to impart. But whether that marginal advantage is worth the trouble of complicating your logistics is another matter. I figure it ain't worth it. You figure it is. One of the reasons is I don't figure it is worth it is because I don't think we actually have so many ammo types floating around that it is funny, if you disregard the spec ops types. In my limited view I see the lousy M-9, 9mm bullet, NATO standard (I think). It may be a minor advantage, but an advantage nevertheless that when working next to a NATO ally and he runs out of pistol ammo you can give him some and it will fit his pistols, and vice versa.

If a pilot is down, he is running or hiding for his life. I suppose it is conceivable that a 10mm pistol rather than a 9mm pistol will make the critical difference but I don't think it is worth the trouble for that 1 in a (pick any big big number) occasion. Same with the officers, missile gunners (if Patriot crews have to depend on 1mm of pistol bore, things are worse than they think) and the others mentioned. These are just pistols. If some guy is set on 10mm, he can buy it and carry it. I don't see retooling the factories for a pistol round.

You were kidding when you said this about pistol rounds right?

"True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement."

P.S. If we were really serious about increasing the effectiveness of a pistol round, we would be talking about expanding rounds. But those aren't going to be fielded.

Compost
05-26-2012, 11:08 PM
You are allowed to shoot them more then once with both pistol or a submachine gun, does it really make that much of a difference?

Yes it does. Many soldiers who regularly carry a pistol will – due to lack of training and practice or skill – fail to hit almost any close range target. Such soldiers (and many others) tend to instinctively fire several times. Since the 1940s, SMGs supplemented by a few shotguns plus hand grenades and flash-bangs have been more effective than any other combination of small arms for CQ combat in and around buildings. And to better overpower and intimidate opponents those SMGs are commonly switched to auto with semi-auto provided mainly for trickshooters. The 10mm ammunition has more knock-down power but 9mm is generally regarded as adequate.

So for military purposes there are two reasons why 9mm medium power pistol ammunition is better than 10mm high power ammunition that also weighs more. One, a lightly built male (or female) can better control a 9mm pistol because it has less recoil energy than the 10mm pistol. That heavier recoil is less of a problem with a 10mm SMG but still somewhat applicable. Two, for a given system weight the lighter 9mm pistol and also SMG can deliver more of those almost inevitable or irrepressible follow-on shots. And more initial shots also.

Ken White
05-26-2012, 11:28 PM
Man-stopping sounds good, especially when you add enough qualifiers, but I reject it because there is no uniformly quantifiable "man" to be stopped. What stops one guy won't slow down another. So man-stopper is meaningless.Your rejection is noted with a smile but the phrase isn't meaningless if the opponent is halted, stopped, deterred or whatever.
...But whether that marginal advantage is worth the trouble of complicating your logistics is another matter. I figure it ain't worth it. You figure it is.Not exactly, I figure it's a consideration IF this whole thread was more than the conjecture and idle thought that it is.
One of the reasons is I don't figure it is worth it is because I don't think we actually have so many ammo types floating around that it is funny, if you disregard the spec ops types.You need to get out more. If you mean calibers, you're right but you'd be amazed at the number of types within a given caliber...
These are just pistols.True and they're going to be secondary armament for most -- but that doesn't mean accepting less than optimum is desirable.
If some guy is set on 10mm, he can buy it and carry it.Not in the modern Yankee Army, that's frowned on excpet in a few units. Very few... :rolleyes:
I don't see retooling the factories for a pistol round.Nor do I and I didn't suggest that; I merely said that a potent 10mm round is better than a moderate 9mm round. ;)
You were kidding when you said this about pistol rounds right?

"True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement."Yes -- and no. As I wrote, ideal shot placement isn't always possible, a better caliber would enhance the possibility of stopping an opponent -- that's true of the 9mm -- and of the 5.56 and, in view of the .338, of it as opposed to a 7.62. As you said, physics.
P.S. If we were really serious about increasing the effectiveness of a pistol round, we would be talking about expanding rounds. But those aren't going to be fielded.Of course not, the folks in Geneva get upset, the ICRC would have a cat fit... :D

Ideally as you mentioned, no pistols -- however, the need for portability and psychological support intrudes. Reality is so-o-o- annoying... ;)

Ken White
05-26-2012, 11:39 PM
So for military purposes there are two reasons why 9mm medium power pistol ammunition is better than 10mm high power ammunition that also weighs more. One, a lightly built male (or female) can better control a 9mm pistol because it has less recoil energy than the 10mm pistol. That heavier recoil is less of a problem with a 10mm SMG but still somewhat applicable. Two, for a given system weight the lighter 9mm pistol and also SMG can deliver more of those almost inevitable or irrepressible follow-on shots. And more initial shots also.That rationale is one reason for the continued success of the 9x19. I personally think bullet strike effectiveness trumps the recoil issue which can be remediated by better training (and firing more rounds in that training, which is expensive... :rolleyes:) and that the weight issue is valid but given the number of rounds generally carried, not a major issue.

No matter, the 9mm is here for better or worse and while I personally prefer the .45 ACP for both pistol and SMG -- and I have used both calibers in combat and training in both weapons -- I do happen to be a big guy and I'm quite sure if I were a 5'3" / 160cm female, I'd disagree with my self. :D

I think I'll go find some more windmills...

carl
05-27-2012, 12:21 AM
Such soldiers (and many others) tend to instinctively fire several times.

That is what Fairbairn and Sykes taught was generally the best thing to do when pistol fighting and wrote in Shooting to Live. It seemed sensible to me as they explained it. It is a very good book and available for free on the net.

carl
05-27-2012, 12:57 AM
Now that we've figured the ins and outs of pistol rounds, I have another question. Given that nothing fundamental has changed in the gun world in about 100 years is it really worth the trouble (I have to be precise here) to adopt a slightly bigger than .30 cal machine gun if it uses a brass cartridge to sling a metal pellet at somebody? Would it be that much more effective than what exists now to justify the re-tooling re-training etc?

JMA
05-27-2012, 09:23 AM
Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?

Why?

A torso shot with a 7.62mm NATO will certainly knock your man down. Then you finish him off where he was seen to fall. The vast majority of people who take a torso hit will be put out of play. That is what riflemen should be trained to achieve. One accepts that one may inflict only peripheral wounds and that is why you continue to fire into likely cover (Drake Shooting) to ensure that someone (perhaps someone hitherto unseen) skulking is not in a position to take you (or one of your troopies) with them when you close with to kill them.

My sergeant used to explain it using the analogy of a bar fight in that if you need to punch someone in a bar you keep on punching and kicking until his only way out of there is on his back. (Troopies understand this analogy)

The same with combat shooting... you don't just fire off some rounds and then wait to see what will happen. You go for the jugular.. you finish it.


Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.

Yes, and that's why you keep of firing (in a controlled manner) until you have cleared the area and are sure not a living thing is out there. Leave nothing to chance.

Final comment: it is difficult enough for most people to shoot accurately in combat (that is to hit someone with a clean shot once let alone twice). When you see him go down (which he will with a hit from 7.62mm NATO) work on the worst case scenario that he took a dive to try and outsmart you... then approach rapidly using sustained and controlled fire and deal with him/them. So what I am saying is that you need to provide your troops with the means to give them the ballistic advantage in combat. To do anything less would be criminal.

Fuchs
05-27-2012, 09:30 AM
Why?

A torso shot with a 7.62mm NATO will certainly knock your man down.

The "certainly" is incorrect. The U.S. 7.62 mm bullet was of poor design and barely better than 5.56 mm (not much more than piercing with a rapier if the man was skinny), so personal experiences vary a lot.

JMA
05-27-2012, 09:42 AM
The "certainly" is incorrect. The U.S. 7.62 mm bullet was of poor design and barely better than 5.56 mm (not much more than piercing with a rapier if the man was skinny), so personal experiences vary a lot.

Where on the torso could you hit a person where he would not go down?

Fuchs
05-27-2012, 11:37 AM
Doesn't matter. It has been observed many times.

JMA
05-27-2012, 03:03 PM
Doesn't matter. It has been observed many times.

You talk of exceptions. There are always exceptions. You want to provide your soldiers with the best terminal ballistic result at combat ranges. Don't get hung up on semantics.

Compost
06-03-2012, 03:07 PM
Re-reading the NDIA 2012 notes on the LWMMG for the N-th time made two things very clear. One, the brief is slanted. It exaggerates the range gap by comparing the M240 on its bipod against the M2HB on a tripod (page 5), but tabulates weights for the M240 with tripod against the LWMMG with tripod (page 15).

See www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armaments/Wednesday13662steimke.pdf

Two and more vitally, the reference to ".338in variant” (page 15) indicates the internal mechanism of the LWMMG can be modified and mated with an appropriate barrel to operate with some calibre(s) other than .338in.

One likely calibre is 7.62mm and especially a magnum cartridge, with 7.62x51mm NATO as a less likely contender. The .338in reference covers both the current 8.59mm NM cartridge and longer cased 8.59mm Lapua. An amateurish effort at mensuration suggests that the LWMMG feedslot might be able to admit something even larger such as a 9.3 or 9.5mm cartridge.

The power of such ammunition would seem too much for a lightweight gun. However it also seems that no-one inside/outside GD is prepared to fully describe what it is intended for and with the LWMMG.

Compost
07-10-2012, 06:21 AM
My last post fell into a soundless abyss. So here is another attempt to obtain views on what GD Armament and Technical Products is really intending for the one or more ‘variants’ of its LWMMG.

The GDATP brief on the LWMMG at NDIA 2012 featured a somewhat misleading table that tallied weights for the 7.62x51mm M240B, 8.59x63.5mm LWMMG and 12.7x99mm M2HB as tripod-mounted weapon systems. The table ignored on-bipod weights and used different quantities of ammunition - 800 rds with the M240B, 500 rds for the LWMMG and M2HB – because those quantities approximate each gun’s cyclic rate of fire in rounds per minute. That supposed equivalence of 800 and 500 rounds is only sometimes appropriate. Also the tally did not include the weight of the containers/magazines holding each ammunition supply.

Ammunition for a section and platoon level M240B is typically carried in ILCE pouches as free belts of 100 or fewer rounds, or in 100-rd belt bags that can be attached to a bipod-mounted M240B to function as a magazine. The weight of a 100-rd belt (6.6lb) and magazine bag is about 7.1lb and one such bag can be carried in a large ILCE pouch. Alternatively - and especially when the M240B is mounted on a tripod at platoon or company level - ammunition is supplied in strongly constructed metal cans each containing two 100-rd belts of 7.62mm rounds in two cardboard cartons with cloth bandoliers. The metal can has a gross weight of 17lb and is suitable for use as an off-gun magazine.

The GDATP table lists the weight of a 50-rd belt of 8.59x63.5mm Norma Magnum ammunition as about 6lb. The brief also shows a 50-rd soft pouch/bag on the LWMMG. On a pro-rata basis relative to the 7.62mm magazine bag that 8.59mm magazine bag would weigh about 0.45lb empty and hence about 6.45lb gross. On a similar pro-rata basis, an off-gun ammunition can containing 100 rounds of 8.59mm NM ammunition would have a gross weight of about 15.45lb.

Ammunition for a tripod-mounted 12.7x99mm M2HB is usually supplied as a 105 or a 100-rd belt (29lb) in a metal can which has an empty weight of about 6lb. For completeness it is useful to expand the GD table to include the squad level 5.56x45mm M249 LMG. A 100-rd belt of 5.56mm ammunition weighs about 3.2lb and the M249 typically carries a 200-rd magazine bag that has a gross weight of about 6.9lb. As a short-range weapon the M249 is rarely mounted on a tripod.

The above data together with other ammunition and gun parameters (from the NDIA brief and various references) can be used to correct and expand the GDATP table to better inform consideration of the main bipod and tripod-mounted MGs that might be used by infantry units.

MG on Bipod or Tripod .. M249_B . . . . M240B_B . . . M240B_T . . . LWMMG_B . . LWMMG_T. . M2HB_T
Cartridge (mmXmm) . . . 5.56x45 . . . . 7.62x51 . . . . 7.62x51 . . . . 8.59x63.5 . . 8.59x63.5 . . 12.7x99
Projectile wt (gm) . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . .9.5 . . . . . . . .9.5 . . . . . . . 19.4 . . . . . . 19.4 . . . . . . 46
App Rate of fire (spm) . .800 . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . .500 . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . 525
Muzzle velocity (mps) . . 915 . . . . . . . 850 . . . . . . . 850 . . . . . . .810 . . . . . . . 810 . . . . . . 900
Effective range (m) . . . .500 . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . . 1100 . . . . . . approx 800 . .1700 . . . . . 1800
Weapon length (in) . . . .42 . . . . . . . .48 . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . . 49 folded . . .49 folded . . 65
Basic weight wt (lb) . . . 15.6 . . . . . . .28 . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . 84
ACOG sight wt (lb) . . . .. 2.5 . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . 2.5
Spare barrel wt (lb) . . .. 4.6 . . . . . . . 6.6 . . . . . . . . 6.6 . . . . . . . 6.2 . . . . . . . 6.2 . . . . . . 25
Tripod wt (lb) . . . . . . .. na . . . . . . . .na . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . na . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . 44
Ammunition (lb) [rds] . . 27.6 [800] . . 56.8 [800] . . . 68 [800] . . . .64.5 [500] . . 77.3 [500] . . 175 [500]
TOTAL GD+ (lb) [rds] . . 51 [800] . . . .94 [800] . . . . 116 [800] . . . 98 [500] . . . 122 [500] . . . 331 [500]
MG on Bipod or Tripod .. M249_B . . . . M240B_B . . . M240B_T . . . LWMMG_B . . LWMMG_T. . M2HB_T

The above table is focused on suppression and on the duration of fire as approximated by cyclic rate. However for any reasonable standard of accuracy, the lethality inflicted - as opposed to suppression imposed - by ball projectiles on a series of fully or partly exposed area targets increases with the number of rounds fired before those targets obtain cover. The next lines show the system weights of the M249, M240B and LWMMG when each has 800 rounds available.

MG on Bipod or Tripod .. M249_B . . . . M240B_B . . . M240B_T . . . LWMMG_B . . LWMMG_T
TOTAL w800 (lb) . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . 94 . . . . . . . . 116 . . . . . . . 137 . . . . . . . 168

If NATO adopted 8.59mm NM ammunition and the LWMMG then they could be employed alongside current MGs that fire 5.56, 7.62 and 12.7mm ammunition. Alternatively, 8.59mm NM ammunition might wholly succeed/replace one or more of the current types of ammunition with the LWMMG similarly replacing the corresponding MG or MGs. Various options can be briefly assessed and ranked in a pseudo-math format where: + positive, - negative, +*n strong positive, -*n strong negative, . spacer.

Why pseudo-math ? Here’s an example.

Option 5: 8.59NM LWMMG as special-purpose MG for snipers
+ . light-weight barrel assists portability and is unsuitable for sustained fire
- .. sniper prefer rifles chambered for faster and flatter trajectory 8.59x71 Lapua Magnum
- .. 8.59x63.5 NM would be orphan round
= odds against.

- as opposed to the wordy -

Snipers usually have a choice of several long-range calibres and specialised types of rifle. Also snipers typically use match-grade ammunition that often employs a non-standard cartridge size. Perhaps snipers should be able to additionally select a MG that can fire that same ammunition. Such a MG should be light-weight and compact for ease of carriage and handling into, in and out of a location. However, such specialized MGs are not currently available. Mitigating against any prospective use of the LWMMG by snipers, the initial ‘variant’ (as described by GD) is chambered for the 8.59x63.5mm NM cartridge rather than the 8.59x71mm Lapua Magnum cartridge that has been widely adopted by snipers.

Several options can be briefly considered.

Option 1: 8.59x63.5mm and LWMMG to succeed 7.62x51mm and M240B
+ . 8.59NM & LWMMG harder hitting
+ . 8.59NM & LWMMG longer effective range
-*n. 8.59NM & LWMMG could not effectively replace infantry use of M240B because
. . . 100rd belt of 8.59 in magazine bag (& in ammo can) weighs same as 180rds of 7.62
. . . 8.59NM too powerful for parallel use in infantry rifle, also unsuitable for marksman rifle
. . . LWMMG_B awkwardly long compared to M240B_B
-*n. large expenditure invested in production facilities for 7.62 ammunition
-*n. ditto barrels, receivers and other sub-assemblies for M240B & other 7.62 MGs
= long odds against.

Option 2: 8.59NM and LWMMG to succeed 12.7x99mm and M2HB_T
+ . LWMMG_T is more compact and can be readily used on bipod
+ . also 2ndary use as compact MG on vehicle ring and skate, swing-arm mounts etc
- .. but inappropriate light-weight barrel
- .. 12.7 and M2HB harder hitting
- .. 12.7 and M2HB longer effective range
+*n. LWMMG_T system weighs less than 43% that of M2HB and occupies smaller logistic cube
-*n. large expenditure already invested in 12.7x99 ammo & M2HB & M3 & rotary
= odds against.

Option 3: 8.59NM LWMMG as successor for both M240B and M2HB
-*n as per Option 1, also Option 2
= long odds against.

Option 4: 8.59NM LWMMG alongside 5.56mm M249, 7.62mm M240B and 12.7mm M2HB
-*n . logistical load inherent in supply of four calibres of ammunition in general use
= odds against.

Option 5: 8.59NM LWMMG as special-purpose MG for snipers
+ . light-weight barrel assists portability and is unsuitable for sustained fire
- .. sniper prefer rifles chambered for faster and flatter trajectory 8.59x71 Lapua Magnum
- .. 8.59x63.5 NM would be orphan round
= odds against.

Option 6: 8.59NM LWMMG as MG for vehicles, and subsequently other purposes ?
+. .. 8.59 NM possibly superior to 8.59 Lapua Magnum for vehicle use
- . .. light-weight barrel unsuitable for sustained fire
-*n . logistical load inherent in supply of 3rd calibre of ammunition alongside 7.62 and 12.7
...... as per Option 4
= odds against.

Option 7: 8.59 LWMMG as trojan horse for 7.62 Magnum MG to succeed 7.62x51
+*n. prove soft recoil and ruggedness, then introduce a variant in 7.62 Magnum
. . .. 7.62 Magnum harder hitting and longer-ranged than 7.62x51
. . .. weight differential of 7.62 Magnum ammunition is less extreme than that of 8.59NM
-. 7.62 Magnum too powerful for standard infantry rifle, marginally suitable for marksman rifle
-*n .large expenditure invested in production facilities for 7.62x51 ammunition and barrels
+. some continued use of facilities to produce Magnum barrels etc
+. continue 8.59 variant as prospective MG for vehicles, see Option 6
- . light-weight barrel inappropriate for infantry use and especially vehicles
= marginal but best option so far considered.

None of these options provides a convincing case. It is unlikely that GDATP has gone totally off the rails so I have missed something(s). What is missing ?

Compost
07-10-2012, 07:15 AM
Just remembered that Lapua Magnum caselength is 69.2mm sometimes referred to to as x70 mm, rather than 70.2mm which might be referred to as x71.

Fuchs
07-13-2012, 10:06 PM
I have rediscovered (dated 2010) and polished a multi-page doc of mine about the infantry platoon assault (modified Stotrupp) including some lines about its movement to contact.

This text won't go public or it might actually not be total nonsense and might thus be useful to the wrong people.

Contact me by PM if you're interested (and think that you're not too much unknown to me) in a read.

Compost
08-03-2012, 02:32 PM
Due to lack of alternate views on the 8.59mm LWMMG it seems appropriate to change a query of 23 May into a prediction: LWMMG is intended as a MG for sniper teams. After all US snipers do not currently employ many rifles chambered for the 250 grain 8.59mm Lapua Magnum. So assuming a US military intention that its 8.59mm sniper rifles will in future be standardized on the shorter cased 300 grain Norma Magnum cartridge, the LWMMG and its lightweight ‘Norma Magnum’ barrel make reasonable sense.

One associated development is that US snipers and also marksmen will possibly cease using 7.62mm Magnum (.308 Winchester Magnum) rifles. More importantly it suggests substantial changes in sniper doctrine and operations.

ganulv
08-03-2012, 03:38 PM
One associated development is that US snipers and also marksmen will possibly cease using 7.62mm Magnum (.308 Winchester Magnum) rifles. More importantly it suggests substantial changes in sniper doctrine and operations.

The option of a single weapon well-suited for use by snipers, designated marksmen, and machine gunners could be a very good thing. But it could be a very bad thing if that leads the three roles to be bundled.

max velocity
08-03-2012, 03:59 PM
New to the forum, love this kind of discussion. I will admit that I have not read every post in the threat, but I am primarily interested in commenting on the original article and discussion of platoon weapons and weight.

I am a former Parachute Regiment officer and one time platoon commander. I find the article very interesting and well informed and I think this discussion is worthwhile. I remember internally within the Regiment there were several discussions about reorganizing the fire team, section and platoon concept. I have a slightly different approach in regards to what the author proposes:

I am loathe to move to an IW system that gives up the ability to reach out at ranges beyond 200. I think that the enemy should be engaged at the greatest range possible to touch them before they can touch you, and we need the capability to do so, even if statistics say that most SAF engagements take place within 200 meters. Let's not give up the ability to shoot!

Weight is definitely an issue for an infantryman, but I don't think we should reduce capability by saving weight on weapons systems. Currently there is a tendency for an infantryman to be a "turtle" with so much armor and equipment that he loses mobility. I would propose that within budget contraints we save weight in other areas of equipment such as body armor, radios, batteries, ECM equipment, utilizing better technology to reduce weight. Body armor is a prime example. I would happily save weight in that area so I could carry bigger weapons and more ammo!

I like the 8 man section/squad concept. In order to be able to maneuver effectively the two fireteams need to be balanced and mobile. I am a fan of the use of the SAW/minimi one per fireteam, the other weapon systems being an accurate IW such as the SA80 A2 or the M4. One of those per team should have an UGL mounted. I think this is the ideal situation. The SAW can be used at both long and short ranges and can generate effective and accurate morale boosting firepower that will help facilitate suppression and movement.

The "Gun"! GPMG/MAG/240B. Excellent. Nothing better than the beat of the gun in fire support. We are talking about platoon weapons so the discussion does not just rest at section level. I used to utilize amended platoon battle drills involving having one or two GPMG gun teams held at platoon level to allow me to influence the battle. With current technology this could take the form of a fourth fire support section at platoon level (this was discussed, not sure what happened to it, writing from the US). This could consist of suitable weapons such as the GPMG and grenade launchers or similar, which would also negate the need for the 51mm mortar, or you could include that in the new fire support section or leave it with the platoon sergeant. Don't forget the utility of ATVs for dismounted operations and the carriage of heavy crew served weapons and ammunition, in appropriate circumstances.

The Parachute Regiment routinely carried the GPMG at section level. If there are a couple of two man gun groups at platoon level, or a fire support section, then this allows the platoon commander to either deploy them to support by fire at a platoon level, or attach a gun group to a section for specific operations, perhaps detached from the platoon, making a ten man section.

TheRagingTory
10-06-2012, 05:23 PM
I'm glad this debate is still going, it suddenly popped back in to my mind a few weeks ago.

I cant help but feel most of the arguments against this article have missed the point.

It could of course just be lack of knowledge on my part showing itself, but isnt the point that a GPMG (or MGL, or DMR, or ect) by itself is more "effective" than four conventional individual weapons?

The three PDWs in a section are not as effective as three more conventional IWs, but is anyone claiming otherwise?

Add in a fourth IW, and a GPMG however, and since the GPMG can outshoot the four IWs anyway (right?), the three PDWs are just a cherry on top.

Fuchs
10-06-2012, 06:34 PM
It could of course just be lack of knowledge on my part showing itself, but isnt the point that a GPMG (or MGL, or DMR, or ect) by itself is more "effective" than four conventional individual weapons?

An open secret is that many riflemen in post-1914 infantry organisations were/are in fact porters with a self-defence weapon. You can increase a small unit's technical firepower by replacing rifleman with an additional GPMG (it was done in '45 with Panzergrenadier squads that had 2 MG 42, and it is similar to the choice of 2 light machineguns / "SAW"s), but this comes at a price.
A ceteris paribus change of that kind ("all else equal" means you lack porters, or worse - you equipped a porter-minded soldier with a crew-served weapon.

TRT; you know a certain blog where this was already mentioned.

Compost
10-11-2012, 02:16 AM
The option of a single weapon well-suited for use by snipers, designated marksmen, and machine gunners could be a very good thing. But it could be a very bad thing if that leads the three roles to be bundled.
Although some US marksmen have been using 7.62mm Magnum rifles there is hopefully no prospect of their being issued 8.59mm rifles. Believe a marksman as member of an infantry squad should be almost invariably armed with a weapon that fires the same ammunition - either 7.62mm NATO or possibly 5.56mm NATO - already used within the squad or platoon, and issued with match-grade rounds when available. It is also unlikely that any army would routinely weigh down a marksman or sharpshooter with an extended-range weapon weighing more than 10kg.

Contrastingly a strong argument that can be made for common but distinctive and non-‘bundled’ use of an extended-range MG by infantry companies when fitted with a ‘heavy barrel’, and by sniper teams with a ‘light barrel’.

My small army viewpoint is that 8.59mm is an awkward calibre for general use and inferior to a modern 7.62mm magnum cartridge such as the Winchester Short Magnum. However, thinking long and hard about the above post indicates that another viewpoint could see awkwardness as a goal and as justification. And if GD’s basic LWMMG proves to be both reliable and robust then it could in 8.59mm become a real goer for a large army.

Possibly some corporate or other has been reading Machiavelli and caused GD to seek multi-mode overmatch with its 8.59mm MG. The justification being that an opposing force with less capable logistics would be unable to field and support a large number of an extended-range MG intermediate between the usual 7.62mm and 12.7mm varieties. A possible response or reaction to that would be to succeed/replace a 12.7mm cartridge and MG by something a bit smaller and more portable that would nonetheless over-match an 8.59mm MG. However such a cartridge and MG would be in some ways inferior to the 12.7mm M2/M3 Browning and especially one with SLAP-type ammunition.

Ultimately the question of 8.59mm is just another iteration of the problem that affects infantry: how to rationalise and employ to advantage some family of modern rifle/MG calibres and cartridges. And it is finally apparent that small army and large army viewpoints could be very different.

carl
03-04-2013, 08:40 PM
The January 28, 2013 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page DT5 has this to say about one of the reasons the British Army recently decided to replace the Browning High Power with the Glock 17 pistol, "...the sliding fire mechanism means less recoil, allowing greater accuracy when shooting at a higher cadence...".

So that is why those things are designed like that.

(I wonder how Ian Hogg would have responded to that statement.)

Compost
08-26-2014, 12:51 AM
All4shooters website has recently added a well-assembled summary on GDs LWMMG.
See http://www.all4shooters.com/en/news/pro-zone/2014/General-Dynamics-LWMMG-machinegun-Eurosatory-2014/

An accompanying video shows muzzle jump off the lightweight tripod and also vehicle mounts, but seemingly less off the bipod. The apparent lack of success on the sales front might be partly explained by a lack of linear attachment buffers or by a need for some heavier form of softmounting.

Biggus
08-26-2014, 07:39 PM
The January 28, 2013 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page DT5 has this to say about one of the reasons the British Army recently decided to replace the Browning High Power with the Glock 17 pistol, "...the sliding fire mechanism means less recoil, allowing greater accuracy when shooting at a higher cadence...".

So that is why those things are designed like that.

(I wonder how Ian Hogg would have responded to that statement.)

I sense the spirit of John Moses Browning spinning in his grave every time I read that sentence.

I see merit in having light machine guns and precision rifles in a common calibre, but only in the sense that in an emergency, the precision rifleman might have a source of ammunition in lieu of what would always be high-cost, high precision equivalents. I can't imagine an infantry platoon would enjoy humping a belt-fed .338 instead of a 7.62x51mm.

The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.

Compost
09-19-2014, 08:10 AM
The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.

Brit Army revealed intention to test 40x46 Extended Range and compatible ammunition back in Oct 2013. See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:338249-2013:TEXT:EN:HTML

Meanwhile US Army has seemed with little publicity to be perservering with XM-25. Junior members of ABCA may have been simply waiting a decision or decisions by the seniors.

However it is worth noting that on 12 Sep 2013 Australian Munitions – a subsidiary of Thales - released a media statement regarding an agreement with STK of Singapore “ to cooperate in Australia and New Zealand for the development, manufacturing and marketing of ST Kinetics’ world-leading 40mm low velocity, extended range, and air bursting ammunition. " http://www.australian-munitions.com.au/media/2013-09-11%20New%2040mm%20ammunition%20for%20Australia/New%2040mm%20ammunition%20for%20Australia.pdf

Six weeks later on 22 October 2013 STK announced sale of 40mm HV ammunition to Canada, and also that STK 40mm LV airburst (possibly LV/ER airburst) ammunition had been selected for the US Army Foreign Comparative Testing program. http://www.stengg.com/press-centre/press-releases/st-kinetics-secures-over-us$30m-in-international-orders-for-its-40mm-solutions

Have not found any recent internet mention of ABCA interest in 40x46mm LV/ER or 40x51mm MV ammunition.