Platoon Weapons

[William F. Owen]

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.

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]

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]

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+).

[William F. Owen]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Rex Brynen]

... 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.)

[William F. Owen]

.
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!

[slapout9]

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 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...&v=iJSNDofoOfg