After blowing upon another forum...
I'm glad to see a smiling face!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
Wow.No one else here can say that. Or would.
I worked for a time as as contract intell. Everything I know is hearsay but at the right time and the right place, a simple question can verify the most complex of concepts. Also everything I say, I know that it has been reported in the media repeatedly. Everything else, I'll tell my grandchildren when they'e grown, if I live that long. I don't get a thrill out of being a hero. That should be left to one's children and the young. Who knows after 9/11, anyone could be listening and I might find myself on a list. I just hope they get my name right. :D
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
We exacerbated our problems by incompetence at high levels in uniform and showed the result of 25 years of poor training.War is not frightening to those who are prepared for it. It will be for those who want to fight nicely.Democracies in peacetime do not do good intel -- or adequately train their military forces; Legislators and Mommies get upset. I can accept that for the benefits of the system.
Our Founding Fathers created a system that freedom and the ability to say, without fear, what we felt was neccessary. So it's not unreasonable that we have a system that is unperfect but flexible. The problem is when we turn from that path. In certain ways, the military has turned to the dark side. It is bloated and dictitorial. So we find ourselves unable to come up with clear, comprehensive and tested policy that can comprehend shades of gray.
The military has changed little since I was a shave tail 2lt. If anything, it has gotten worse. I'm not discussing sedition but there may come a time for new blood to rise to the top and let in some light. However, it won't come anytime soon. So we do with what we have and try and make it better.
War is frightening no matter how prepared you are for it. It is how you handle that fear that dictates ow effect you are. It's like a new man in your squad or platoon. He talks like he's big and bad but you know to keep an extra eye on him when he is baptised by fire. Sorry for stating the obvious to one as distingished as yourself. I think the problem is that we've become complacent and have forgotten the true sting of combat. Those who play nice are going to be the ones hurtiing the most. I think we are doing a diservice to our troops by trying to make it anything but a terrible, gory business. But like you say, it would upset the kiddies.
I too accept the benefits of the system and would fight again if came to that. I think most veterans would. That is our way. And I hope to God that it never changes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
The Mk262 (I guess that's the one you're referring to) has a 77 grain bullet; the new one has a 70 grain bullet. Barrel change either way but that's okay because we don't teach people how to clean weapons well so barrels get excessive wear from over maintenance.There are some new ones in the works.
Yeah, I had an interesting discussion about the 6.5 MPC and how the goverment is taking a serious look at it. It is shorter ranged than the Mk262 but it hits with more authority. It also gives a greater pulse than the 5.56 and that would make the impinged gas system more reliable. And all it would reguire is a barrel change. And your right, most of the Army's M16/M4s are close to needing a rebuild/refit. From what I've heard tonight the Army has decided already that the SCAR-L is too unreliable even before the Rangers get a chance to test it. They are saying the same thing about the HK416. It seems that they feel that the short stroke piston gas system is an unwarranted change. Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ken White
True, that's why the M16 as purely political for the initial purchase is pretty sad.The Viet Namese Airborne Brigade had a number of purchased AR-15s; 15 to 20 per Rifle Company. If a troop carrying one got hit, they'd get five men killed to get that weapon back. We got some 'to be scrapped' M-60s to use in lieu of the BARs -- bear to scrounge Ammo for 'em. The little guys loved the Pig as well. :D
I can imagine. Why did we do so poor a service to the ARVN and then complain that they couldn't fight their own war? Scrounge? Didn't you have the magic mojo. Contraband or anything hard to get would open all sorts of doors. I always wondered if it was corruption that added to our failure in 'Nam.
Weapons Acquisition Overhaul Bill...
The President signed it into law this afternoon. IMHO, it's going to change the way the Pentagon does business. However, I'm afraid it's going to tie the procurement system closer to the whims of Congress. What the Military couldn't do for itself, will be done by politicians. Net loss for the Military. Is it a net gain for the taxpayer or just a gain for the Lobbyists?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Too small to do what? 9mm suppresses as well as .308 Winchester at 200m.
I could argue that one but it would be IMHO, relatively fruitless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
There is simply no coherent body of evidence to support that assertion. Most evidence supports the assertion the fact that the calibre of round used by the infantry is utterly irrelevant. No tactical actions have ever been consistently lost, or operations failed because troops were using 5.56mm. Lots of armies using 5.56mm have no complaints.
The problem with what you aserting is that it becomes to a great extent dependant on what you want to achieve. The 5.56 is exceptional for some situations. The problem is that you have to define your TO&E to fit those expectations. I have a terabyte and half hard drive filled with all sorts of tests, ballistics and even force projections based on different cartridges that are operational and some that are still in the "testing" stage. It's all relatively black magic and I have accumulated it over a period of 25+ years. And in the final result it all comes down to what compromises you want to accept and those you don't.
The 5.56 round is a compromise. So is the Russian 5.54 or the Chinese 5.8. The Russians have a real killer of a cartridge but their use of materials in the construction of the round leave a lot to be desired. Because of this, the effectiveness of the cartridge, the rifle and the infantry man using it are all in jeopardy. The Russian SOG units and Contract NCOs want a return to the 7.62x39. The Chinese 5.8 doesn't fragment or yaw when it hits flesh. It over penatrates in contact with non-armored body parts. However, this is what the Chinese want.They have built thier cartridge to penetrate body armor esp. the US Army's Interceptor armor package. This it will do except for the cerramic inserts.
As for the present S109/M855 round, there is a great debate going on in the halls of the Pentagon. There have been reports of complaints by troops in both Iraq and Afganistan that the 5.56 overpenatrates and will not knock down enemy combatants. The Military has done a great job of squashing this but there are other sources than the "official" ones. So the Army has changed it's tune and now says the problem isn't the cartridge but the combat skills of the soldier. (Shades of "Nam all over again) They say that present day soldier is insufficent in training and needs to gain greater skills in shot placement. This may work for some but the majority of troopers I've known in my life try their best (it's their *ss on the line) but become less focused during a serious fire fight. So shot placement becomes less effective.
There are also complaints about the range of the 5.56 cartridge (200m+) vs the 7.62 which hits harder and has shown better effective range. However, I'll leave that for another time.
So shot placement will solve the problems of the 5.56 round. Why should we have to rely on a crutch when there might be other cartridges that would shoot farther, hit harder and create a better pulse to help impinged gas systems work better. The latter has become a problem with the M4. The shortness of the barrel, besides causing a serious drop in Balistic Energy, show a great tendency to jam because of material build up in the gas system and a much reduced gas pulse from the shortened barrel that is unable to overcome the partial blockage to fully operate the bolt. The Army has countered with a series of bulletins that say it's all the fault of the soldier again. This time he's not providing enough maintinance. If this is the case, why did we build a rifle that requires that amount of care. The sad part is that systems like the HK416 and the SCAR-L which use short throw pistons do not have this problem but are being judged already not reliable and upset the zero of the rifle barrel because of the movement of the piston. This rush to judgement is coming before the test by the Rangers can take place.
The marines knew the problems of the 5.56 round when they raided all the depots in America for M14/M21/M25 rifles to give to their best riflemen. The DM program was a force multiplier as well as giving greater range and hitting power to Sqauds and platoons.
And our soldiers aren't the only ones complaining. If I could get the link system working I know of a lot other countires that have complaints. Though it's not so negative as to require the the removal of the 5.56 round from use. I don't think anyone has the finacial support to consider that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Yet when you actually crunch the numbers on weapons weight, recoil, and weight of carried rounds, this is not true, unless you go for a very short 7mm like 7.62mm x 25 (PPSH - TT33 etc). When all is said and done, 5.56mm is good enough. Why change?
I've said that before myself. We are in an economic crunch that any expenditure is looked at long and hard before agreed upon. Also I think Ken said, we should use what we have until something can be done to come up with a truly better concept. For the Cartridge determines the parameters of the rifle and the rifle determines the parameters of the soldier. We are fighting a war of 200m. Would it be better to fight a war that has an effective range of 500m-600m+ and the rounds hit harder and guarentee more combatants will fall with one shot. But there are compromises. This round is heavier reducing the total rounds carried by the soldier. So we are trading off some full auto capability for a more lethal one shot capability.
And this all has an effect on the makeup of squads and platoons because it determines how we fight and where we pick our fights. It also determines what is the optimum support weapons will be. So everything hindges on everything else. In the end, what compromises are we willing to make? :o:
I don't know if I can do better than Ken...
But here goes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
I am not sure what organisation has to do with the calibre of the round, but I am open to opinion.
Balistics and the effect on human flesh is not the "black art" that everyone claims. Every cartridge is a total of its compromises. Unfortunately, the creation of a cartridge is subject all sorts of things that we have no control over. Tecnology (Such as the effects of different powder or bullet weight which in turn determines size) determines the majority of what the compriomises you will have to choose from. So you just can't decide on a set of abilities that your new cartridge will have. And all the wannas that a military may want don't mean a thing if the technolgy of the time doesn't support it.
However, it is the cartridge design which determines the best and worst atributes of the rifle that is designed to fire it. Again there is no amount of wanna will change that.
So you have a cartridge with a set of balistics and qualities and a rifle that fires the round in a way that the military wants the rifle to work. Auto vs Semiauto, accuracy vs reliability and so on but is greatly effected by cartridge parameters.
The combinations of both effective range and knockdown power determine what ranges you will fight at and its effect on the enemy combatant at those ranges. The Russian Guards Unit was an awesome (frightening to most German units) fighting machine but in the face of units with strong morale and Esprit de Corps, these Russian juggernaughts could be picked apart at range. So you have two different units here whos tactics and TO&E weree determined by the weapon type and how each side determined the war should be fought.
The deciding factor here was training which would help the arguments you put forward. The Russians had little more than peasants of little understanding of war was about. So training was limited and its linch pin was aggression. The German's were the exact opposite. More and detailed training showed greater results.
However, the weapons were created to further the decisions of the different armies and came about because of the technlogy of the times. So it is with the M16. SecDef Mcnamara had a need to produce a weapon that would be handy to be carried by Air Force security forces and to increase its chances of being aquired, he said that it would be a better weapon than the M1 rifle for the South Asian soldiers that were to rise up against the Communists.
He found that wasn't enough. So the famous Small Round Tactics came about. It was better to wound the enemy than to kill him. If you wounded the a enemy soldier than up to 4 extra men would leave the fighting frontline to get the wounded soldier to an aid station. And if you threw in Auto Fire, then your troops wouldn't require the extra training that was required for expert marksmenship. This also worked better for our Military because the Army and Marines were made up mostly of Conscripts. An automatic weapon would be better in lesser trained hands and it cost less money on soldier's training that would only be in the services for 24 (usually 18+ months). So the Army and Marines were told to accept the 5.56 cartridge and the "Mattel" M16. The marines tried to keep thier M14s but to no avail.
This wasn't only something that the US came up with. The Russian army was also made up of conscripts and they created a similar weapon.
There was hesitation on the part of the Allies to accept the cartridge but were finally convinced (strong armed) to accept the round in the name of standardization.
Thie is all factual and is for the most part findable by the average web browser if one uses a little smarts and a real desire to find out the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Reports of complaints? Rumours of opinions? Half the problem with debate is the lack of empirical data. Soldiers in combat do not make reliable witnesses, but autopsy reports do.
The one thing that the weatern military orginizations esp the US isn't is proactive. So a lot of these "Rumors" and "Complainrs" actually come out on the internet. So if you have a reason to keep your ear to the ground, these matters of interest become readily available. The problem is that if the military decides this puts them in a bad light, it will try to squash them and say that they are untrue and made up by conspiracy theorists. However, it helps me in my job to know the truth. No, it is essential to know truth from propoganda. Because the military might want to lie or at least put a better face on a problem than what the truth is, I have to know what is really going down because I'm highly paid to "know" what my opinions are based on. I agree autopsy reports are valuable and I have them too. Analysts do their own studies rather than trust the "official" reports for they might have an agenda to forward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Testing done by both the UK MOD and the Canadian DOD, showed that under stress, fully train infantrymen, who have qualified with their personal weapon, can only get consistent hits at 35-55m, from the standing position against man sized targets. I would also suggest that multiple hits are far more likely to yield results under operational conditions, than striving for an impossible "one shot kill."
Do they also show what a small percentage of soldiers in the frontline (the pointy end of the stick) actually shoot to kill. To the West, the small round shows great rewards in the fact an Auto fire rifle allows for soldiers that can't fire at a human target or are reticient to do so, the capability to spray downstream a number of rounds that might hit a enemy combatent or at least keep his head down. Still true today. Expert qualifying marksmenship is of little use if some if not most won't shoot to kill. That was the concept behind the Rangers in WW2. Men that could shoot to kill given the best training possible to do what couldn't be done by regular soldiers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Technically it is not a great round, but I don't know any that is. The calibre of the infantry weapon may not be irrelevant, if you compare like with like in a specific environment, and weapons of differing calibre's are the only weapons used.
I merely suggest that the combined effects of training, leadership, and weapons mix within the platoon/Company, make the benefits or one calibre versus another a very minor element in the overall capabilities to be discussed.
I know that is what most military systems would like to say. And I agree with it in part. However, I would be wrong to say that it is a minor part. The weapons you use determine the effective range that your unit is active at. The S109/M855 (they are marginally different) allows our troops to be effective at 200+m. How can you say the weapon doesn't have a great effect on our small group tatics? If we don't accept that fact and make our descions on tactics, TO&E and C&C reflect that limitation then we are doing a disservice to our troops and leaders. We can't wish things to be different. We can only accept the truth. This limitation also decides what support weapons we use and how they are placed in our battle formations for maximum effect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
My definition of "suppression" is creating the failure to act through fear or harm. So if we want to question the effect of suppression, we have to ask does weapons fire, a.) Create fear? b.) Stop people doing things they would normally do, if not being shot at? - eg: shoot back, change position, advance.
I would agree that calling "suppression" a tactic, and relying on it alone to break the will of the enemy is only going to work against the less than determined.
...but would this not apply only to those circumstances were two men encounter one another - at close range? - and one hits the other, fails to kill him - with single or multiple shots, and then dies when the man who was hit, returns fire. For the Police, I can see this as a concern, but is it that common in infantry operations?
Ever since the Romans took on the world it comes down to Mano A Mano. Automatic weapons may make this less of a situation and superior small group tactics may catch the enemy when he is surprised and unable to defend himself. But it always comes down to the moral of your men and can they take down the enemy. When he looks through his sights he is engaging a single enemy. Can he pull the trigger is all that matters.
As for hand to hand, in Vietnam it came down to distances that you could reach out and touch your enemy. Broken Arrow is a Hollywood term. And on the lighter side. Yes, the Russian SOG types are taught to use an entrentching tool. It can be pretty damn effective. :o
Broken arrow is "NOT" a Hollywood term.
Good points all. On this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
One NATO country has just done some trials on sleep depravation effects on marksmanship, and they show very sever drop offs after only 24 hours without sleep...
I totally agree and I are not a NATO Country. :D
Only solution to that I've seen work is rotating elements in and out of contact -- and that obviously is not possible in all circumstances. However, I've seen it done quite often in a couple of places and scenarios by a few people who fought smart instead of the way everyone else seemed to...
Variation instead of repetition is the key to tactical survival... :cool:
This too:
Quote:
Can't say you're wrong. I have little faith in individual combat shots over 200m.
is true though I'd argue for 300m with a decent weapon but it goes back to the weapon / caliber choice plus tactical procedures, plus organization and, of course training. IOW, it can be bettered -- but whether to do it or not is a METT-TC decision. In an ideal world, forces would be able to adapt fairly quickly to the type of combat skill / TTP needed.
Pity we don't live in an ideal world... :wry: