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 judgementsOriginally Posted by Distiller
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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."
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
Here is a link to illustrate the relative lack of effectiveness of the 5.7 x 28mm round.
http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a...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.
Last edited by 120mm; 12-18-2007 at 02:48 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...102#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.)
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!
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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)
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".
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Thanks Wilf.
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?
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?The ability to perforate cover is absolutely critical.
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.
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.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.
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.3. PDW rounds have very low dispersion and good accuracy at <200m. Very few tests take this into account.
So are you thinking along Project Salvo lines? Lots of grouped small-calibre rounds to increase hit probability, at the sacrifice of terminal performance?
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.Hoplophile = Lover of Weapons, or "gun nuts".
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.
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.
Last edited by William F. Owen; 05-07-2008 at 12:06 PM. Reason: Can't read or write
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
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.
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"
- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks