The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[Compost]

Going to war with a bullpup is like going to the beach in a Speedo. It just doesn’t work for Americans.

Amusing response but do Americans insist on swimming everywhere in boardshorts ? Some obviously do and will continue to. However, Speedo was bought out by an American conglomerate in the 1990s.

The F90 is probably aimed first at targets in Europe such as succeeding the 5.56mm Famas. Complementing the M16/M4 might come later.

[Ken White]

Amusing response but do Americans insist on swimming everywhere in boardshorts ?

Most of us prefer no shorts but the law -- like other things -- is humorless...

Some obviously do and will continue to. However, Speedo was bought out by an American conglomerate in the 1990s.

We will sell it to the Chinese and you can buy it back.

Complementing the M16/M4 might come later.

Been done, didn't sell, thus the comment from Ganulv -- and my effective concurrence thereto.

Why add a 'complement' to a flawed weapon anyway...

[Compost]

Most of us prefer no shorts but the law -- like other things -- is humorless...

That’s certainly a way to stress the front end. But why would any force rely mainly on a weeny 5.56mm that lacks power and range ?

Why add a 'complement' to a flawed weapon anyway...

To accentuate the attributes of a bullpup.

Related topic. Believe we had sort of agreed elsewhere that 9x19mm Parabellum (plus alternate 6.5x25) was the way to go for pistols and SMGs. The other bookend could be 20x102 or less likely 20x128. The anaemic 5.56x45 will be around for a while yet. But it will ultimately be disposed of. My preference for that time is for three calibres between the bookends corresponding to infantry squad/platoon, platoon/company and company/other.

Those three – with say a 5 percent variance – could be as follows. One: 6.6mm with 8gm projectile, MV of 825mps from rifle barrel and supersonic to about 1000m. Two: 7.62 magnum with 13.5gm, 900mps from MG to about 1500m; and three: 9.5mm with 27gm, 900mps from MG to about 2300m. That era also is certain to include some poorly designed and flawed weapons.

And in the interim numerous commentators will continue pifing about the need for yet another rework of 5.56mm.

The 6.6mm rifle and carbine and the 7.62 magnum and 9.5mm sniper rifles should of course be available with bullpup and alternate fwd-mag gripstocks.

[Ken White]

... But why would any force rely mainly on a weeny 5.56mm that lacks power and range ?

We can agree on that.

We can also disagree on all the rest. While your arguments make take technical sense, they are less practical militarily or tactically. I, for one never agreed to any 9mm cartridge; I've always argued for 10mm or larger for pistols and SMG. Your 6.6mm caliber is IMO too light for the Company level machinegun and so should be avoided; all small arms in a Battalion should be of one of two calibers, pistol / SMG and rifle / MG. A medium MG is also required at about 12-15mm. My observation has been that the 20mm is not an effective military cartridge (it is both range and payload limited) and the 20x102 is particularly poor. IMO 25mm is a far better top end choice. A 30mm would be better yet but the size penalty is too great unless it is restricted to Armored / Mechanized forces (which probably should occur).

However, neither your nor my solution is likely. Nor is US use of a bullpup configuration likely (quite sensibly in my view...)...

[Compost]

We can agree on that.

We can also disagree on all the rest. While your arguments make take technical sense, they are less practical militarily or tactically. I, for one never agreed to any 9mm cartridge; I've always argued for 10mm or larger for pistols and SMG. Your 6.6mm caliber is IMO too light for the Company level machinegun and so should be avoided; all small arms in a Battalion should be of one of two calibers, pistol / SMG and rifle / MG. A medium MG is also required at about 12-15mm. My observation has been that the 20mm is not an effective military cartridge (it is both range and payload limited) and the 20x102 is particularly poor. IMO 25mm is a far better top end choice. A 30mm would be better yet but the size penalty is too great unless it is restricted to Armored / Mechanized forces (which probably should occur).

However, neither your nor my solution is likely. Nor is US use of a bullpup configuration likely (quite sensibly in my view...)...

However 6.6mm is spot-on for what is needed at squad/platoon level, with 7.62mm magnum at platoon/company. The bookend at 20mm is a realistic limit for a man-packable rifle type weapon to equip some pioneers and snipers for EOD and anti-material tasks.

You surely included 25mm and 30mm as vehicle rather than man-pack weapons. US infantry already have plenty of variety and weight with 9mm Parabellum, 5.56mm NATO, 7.62mm NATO, 7.62mm magnum and 12.7mm Browning. And that's before 8.59mm magnum is added as a gap-filler or replacement.

My last words (on this thread) regarding bullpups are a repeat from way back.

A future that insists on the bullpup configuration would be as backward as a present that insists upon the fwd-mag.

[Tukhachevskii]

... the Lightweight Medium Machine Gun in a whopping .338 calibre!

[castellanoc1]

For squad level organization, I support the USMC model. For weaponry, particularly direct fire, I would argue for a baseline of squad level weapons being chambered in 300 Blackout, while granting the squad better access to 7.62x51 weapons based on the mission and environment.

As state-on-state conflict continues to lose utility, training and equipping for the small wars has a greater value than ever. Embodying past, present, and projected future trends, what capabilities should the infantryman’s primary weapon have? Former SEAL and tactical firearms trainer Kyle Defoor advocates that the modern fighting carbine should “be able to shoot effectively at CQB distance, take positive head shots at 100, and engage at the max distance for 5.56 - IMO 400 yds on the body.” By many accounts, practical combat accuracy out to approximately 300-400 yards seems to be the common understanding for the capabilities of an infantryman and his rifle.

Some have taken a look at the relatively new 300 Blackout (7.62x35) as a more ideal caliber due to its better terminal ballistics from shorter barrels, better intermediate barrier performance, acceptable external ballistics for the ranges considered, and better integration with suppressors. It is designed to operate reliably suppressed or unsuppressed, using supersonic or subsonic ammunition. Pairing this extremely versatile cartridge with the extreme versatility of the AR-15 platform is a natural match to arm the infantryman with a more effective weapon. At the squad level, this could materialize as a 7.62x35 service rifles, multiple auto-rifles for volumetric fire, and a squad designated marksman rifle for precision fire. By adding some improvements such as lightweight customizable free-float rail systems, improved triggers, and good optics/lights/lasers, you earn an improved AR-15 family of squad-level weapons ready to dominate at common combat ranges.

What do we give up in terms of capabilities compared to 5.56 chambered service rifles and squad support weapons? In the case of the US Army where current M4 training/qualifications are limited to 300 yards, there is no real change in hit-probability. However, the 400-600 yard ranges where auto-rifles/SAWs and designated marksmen rifles have the capability to reach out is generally outside the envelope of capabilities for 7.62x35. Nevertheless, even with 5.56 support weapons, what we see in Afghanistan is an increasing squad level reliance on 7.62x51 based precision semi-automatic rifles, lightweight variants of the medium machine guns, and essentially heavyweight variants of light machineguns chambered in 7.62x51. To mitigate the shortfalls when compared to 5.56, the theoretical 7.62x35 armed squads would benefit from even better access to 7.62x51 weapons in order to achieve true well-rounded effectiveness from CQB distances to ranges up to 800 yards and beyond. In this sense, the squad designated marksman would be proficient at both 7.62x35 and 7.62x51 chambered precision platforms, and have both available based on the nature of the operating environment and mission at hand. Squad auto-riflemen would enjoy a similar proficiency with 7.62x35 and 7.62x51 chambered fully automatic weapons. Having 2-3 M240s available for use if needed in each squad may sound excessive at first. However, when you consider the mobile patrols in the Iraq War where each HMMWV or MRAP had a crew-served weapon mounted, it seems not so excessive.

Basic breakdown of the two variations:

-Squad Leader

-TL: 7.62x35 carbine
-Auto-rifleman: 7.62x35 auto-rifle OR 7.62x51 medium machine gun
-Squad DM: 7.62x35 carbine OR 7.62x51 DM Rifle
-Grenadier: 7.62x35 carbine +assorted HE weapons

-TL: 7.62x35 carbine
-Auto-rifleman: 7.62x35 auto-rifle OR 7.62x51 medium machine gun
-Rifleman: 7.62x35 carbine
-Grenadier: 7.62x35 carbine +assorted HE weapons

-TL: 7.62x35 carbine
-Auto-rifleman: 7.62x35 auto-rifle OR 7.62x51 medium machine gun
-Rifleman: 7.62x35 carbine
-Grenadier: 7.62x35 carbine +assorted HE weapons

While I think this approach could make for some highly versatile and lethal squads, realistically it will likely be a little while before the US and NATO considers replacing 5.56 with another intermediate cartridge.