The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[William F. Owen]

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/show...ename=2516.pdf

To continue:

One notable incident occurred in 1991, when then Lieutenant Colonel David H. Petraeus was shot in the chest by an M855 round from an M249 squad automatic weapon. He walked out of the hospital several days after the accident. Had the round performed optimally, he likely would have been killed.

One data point? What about the majority of folks who have died shot in the chest? I know a British Army Colonel who was hit in the chest by 30.06 in Northern Ireland and survived! That is not data!

The author witnessed a soldier shot in the shoulder from a distance of 75 meters during a night live fire exercise and the soldier was walking around smoking a cigarette twenty minutes after the accident.

And? What about all those guys in WW2 who were hit in the shoulder and survived - hit by 7.92mm!!

From a distance of three meters, four soldiers where hit in the extremities and none sustained life threatening wounds.

Actually this is lacks rigour and makes a very sloppy use of data. Best I can tell this is pumping an agenda for 6.8mm SPC.

[Fuchs]

This is opinion unsupported by data. The limitation of hitting targets over 200m under operational conditions is entirely human. It's nothing to do with equipment or doctrine. Yes, a magnifying optic sight and a bipod makes hits on the range more likely at longer ranges, but it will make no difference to combat behaviour.

Actually, there is a hardware fix to the problem; periscoped weapons that permit firing from behind cover (minimized influence of fear).

Again, opinion. No evidence and not true. "Ineffective" compared to what?" SS-109 5.56mm punch CRISAT at well over 300m dependant on barrel length! That will kill anyone hit in the head or chest, most of the time.

The penetration of 1.6 mm titanium alloy followed by 20 layers kevlar tells "very little" about killing power.
The primary cavity caused by a 5.56NATO at long range is almost identical to the primary cavity caused by a small calibre pocket pistol at short range (unless bones are being shattered).
Unattended wounds of that type can be deadly, but treatment of such wounds is relatively simple unless heart or bones were hit. It's basically about stopping the (internal) bleeding (relatively simple due to the small wound) and good wound hygiene.

There is a vast amount of casualty data to support this.

Feel free to show it off.

5.56NATO has its limits and is clearly below optimum, just as 7.62NATO is below optimum for vehicle mounts and sniping and above optimum for general dismounted use.

I say let them experiment in an unimportant and low intensity war like Afghanistan. It's better than to stumble into a major war without recent experiences. We should be aware that the infantry's job profile will differ a lot between both types of war.

[William F. Owen]

5.56NATO has its limits and is clearly below optimum, just as 7.62NATO is below optimum for vehicle mounts and sniping and above optimum for general dismounted use.

I would only dispute that we really do not know what optimum is.
Having said that, I believe the basic need is for the individual weapon, sights and round most likely to produce consistent hits on an A3 sized target at 100m from the standing position, and the same prone supported at 300m.

Hits merely have to have sufficient energy perforate CRISAT 100% of the time.

[William F. Owen]

The penetration of 1.6 mm titanium alloy followed by 20 layers kevlar tells "very little" about killing power.

Not true. What is "killing power?" What it clearly demonstrates is for comparative purposes (hence the name CRISAT) is the ability to perforate cover and thus the ability to perforate any biological medium. That is relevant.
Infantry rounds need to be better at punching cover than they do fragmenting in the body.

The primary cavity caused by a 5.56NATO at long range is almost identical to the primary cavity caused by a small calibre pocket pistol at short range (unless bones are being shattered).

Bullets kill in the same way arrows and knives do. Are we disputing the severity of a wound cause by 5.5mm Ice-pick strike perforating the head or chest cavity? Most people would die from such an injury.[/QUOTE]

There is a vast amount of casualty data to support this.

Feel free to show it off.

I do not have it to hand, but most armies record it, and it's mostly open source. What the WW2 data generally proves is that it is where you are hit and not by what that makes the difference.

Percentage deaths versus wounds from SAA seems to stay remarkably consistent, regardless of the round concerned. - which is why the Light Weapons Technology folks always want to ignore it!

[Fuchs]

Statistics such as this one?
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...ister/ch3.html
Sorry, it doesn't seem to back you up that much. Chest (thorax) wounds were very survivable. The KIA percentage is of course higher than for extremities, but very, very far from "Most people would die from such an injury.".


Your overemphasis on CRISAT is completely misplaced.
CRISAT was a hypothetical future Soviet body armour, made up during the Cold War by some analysts or whatever and it later rose to fame because its penetration became a PDW requirement.
There's no CRISAT armour in use anywhere, nor does a penetration of CRISAT tell much about wound ballistics.

Armour penetration is furthermore quite opposed to wound ballistics performance in regard to slow bullets. There are few compromise rounds that get both right.
The situation isn't much better for military rifle cartridges - the AP examples tend to be poor in regard to wound ballistics (OK, 5.56 ball can penetrate CRISAT as well, but what's the point, with that being an infinitely less relevant battlefield body armour than NIJ level II?).


Finally; yes, there is a huge difference between an ice pick / arrow /knife / 5.56NATO long range / old U.S. 7.62NATO long range hit and a hit by a modern 5.56 or 7.62 bullet designed for maximum wound ballistic effect.
The difference is like between an artillery dud and artillery air burst.

The one wound is a clean primary cavity channel of less than 2 cm width and a small exit wound. First aid prevents death by loss of blood and a surgeon is almost guaranteed to save the life if he can treat the wound soon. The soldier would we expected to recover within few months and return to duty.
The exception are -as mentioned before - complicating bone hits (especially on the way in and spine) and of course heart injury.


Oh, by the way; I know someone whose vest was penetrated three times and he survived three chest hits. The triple vest penetration meant little, while first aid and the surgeon team meant everything.

Hitting the right places is of great importance in wound ballistics, but the calibre, velocity and bullet design decide about the area of the "right places" for a hit.

You may have studied external ballistics well enough, but your expression of opinion on wound ballistics appears to be superficial, Wilf. Especially the reference to CRISAT is a very bad idea. That's on the level of FNH or HK marketing efforts.


Here's some quickly accessible wound ballistics stuff

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

http://www.firearmstactical.com/wound.htm

http://www.recguns.com/Sources/IVF1.html

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/1904trial.html

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/pigboard.html

An ice pick wound has really little relation to what the better bullet designs do.

[William F. Owen]

Statistics such as this one?
http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksd...ister/ch3.html
Sorry, it doesn't seem to back you up that much. Chest (thorax) wounds were very survivable. The KIA percentage is of course higher than for extremities, but very, very far from "Most people would die from such an injury.".

Exactly. I actually have the paper version of this, so thanks. As you will note the highest percentage of fatal wounds occur in the head and thorax. EG: If you get hit there, you are most likely to die. I see no data there to indicate anything contrary to the assertion that hits, by high velocity small arms projectiles, to the head and thorax are usually fatal. Additionally we also multiple hits are disproportionately fatal compared to single hits.

Your overemphasis on CRISAT is completely misplaced.
CRISAT was a hypothetical future Soviet body armour, made up during the Cold War by some analysts or whatever and it later rose to fame because its penetration became a PDW requirement.

Comparative Research Into Small Arms Technology. - OK, show me a better analogue with better data? It's what we can measure, and it has been shown to be consistent.

There's no CRISAT armour in use anywhere, nor does a penetration of CRISAT tell much about wound ballistics.

Show me the NATO Group working paper that says body armour was the model for CRISAT? The Soviet Body Armour myth was a post discussion rationalisation, as far as I can tell. Again, what do you suggest as a better engineering model?

Finally; yes, there is a huge difference between an ice pick / arrow /knife / 5.56NATO long range / old U.S. 7.62NATO long range hit and a hit by a modern 5.56 or 7.62 bullet designed for maximum wound ballistic effect.

Yes there is a huge difference, but bullets kill in exactly the same way as Knives, ice-picks and arrows. The difference is merely velocity and the issue of multiple wound channels.

The one wound is a clean primary cavity channel of less than 2 cm width and a small exit wound. First aid prevents death by loss of blood and a surgeon is almost guaranteed to save the life if he can treat the wound soon.

Unless you can stop the internal bleeding and other causes of exsanguination, and nerve path damage, knives and arrows kill as surely as bullets

Oh, by the way; I know someone whose vest was penetrated three times and he survived three chest hits. The triple vest penetration meant little, while first aid and the surgeon team meant everything.

As I said, I know someone hit by 30-06 in the chest and survived. That's not data. It's a story.

Hitting the right places is of great importance in wound ballistics, but the calibre, velocity and bullet design decide about the area of the "right places" for a hit.

So the difference to being hit in the exact same spot, in the chest by 6.8mm versus 5.56mm will have a noticeable and decisive effect on infantry operations? Really?

You may have studied external ballistics well enough, but your expression of opinion on wound ballistics appears to be superficial, Wilf. Especially the reference to CRISAT is a very bad idea. That's on the level of FNH or HK marketing efforts.

It may well be superficial because, based on data, it is amazingly unimportant. Additionally it is an area with particularly bad data, bad physics and poor engineering. So I actually went to Royal Army Medical Corps and asked the questions. - The answer was essentially - "any hit by any high velocity round to the head or chest is a nightmare. Hits are hits." - and there is no data that shows otherwise!

EG: Deaths from Small Arms fire rose from 32 and 33% in WW2 and Korea, to 51% in Vietnam. Does that mean 7.62mm x 39 and 5.56mm are more lethal than 7.92mm and .303?
Put simply, Infantry combat has seen no significant change despite using very different bullets!

An ice pick wound has really little relation to what the better bullet designs do.

So explain how the causes of death differ between the two, as concerns its medical mechanism? If the wound channels are the same length and diameter through the same parts of the body, what is the actual difference?

[Fuchs]

"Small arms (bullets) hits to the head resulted in the highest fatality rate (59.9 percent), with bullet hits to the neck (40.3 percent) second"

Note: 40.3 % is less than half, therefore not
"EG: If you get hit there, you are most likely to die."
at all!
It's obvious that death is more likely if hit in those vital parts, but the chance of survival once hit is still large.

"Comparative Research Into Small Arms Technology. - OK, show me a better analogue with better data? It's what we can measure, and it has been shown to be consistent."

CRISAT hardly earns to be mentioned together with "data" in one line.
As I mentioned, that CRISAT target is a made-up laboratory standard with no relation to real-world combat.

A better working model would include a loaded AK magazine vest followed by a flak vest and average weather clothes.
An alternative would be to use a NIJ level II (~ Schutzklasse 2) body armour instead of a thin flak vest. That's the standard for vests with plate inserts options today.

Yes there is a huge difference, but bullets kill in exactly the same way as Knives, ice-picks and arrows. The difference is merely velocity and the issue of multiple wound channels.

No, they don't. Especially not "exactly".
They cause a loss of blood and destroy tissue, that's it with commonality. Inform yourself about wound ballistics.

So the difference to being hit in the exact same spot, in the chest by 6.8mm versus 5.56mm will have a noticeable and decisive effect on infantry operations? Really?

As much as having a rifle with 10-30% jam probability of not. The difference is not overwhelming, but significant. A 5.56NATO near miss of the spine or heart would incapacitate immediately or in seconds with better bullets.

So explain how the causes of death differ between the two, as concerns its medical mechanism? If the wound channels are the same length and diameter through the same parts of the body, what is the actual difference?

The same as the difference between having 1 gram TNT exploding in your hand and 1kg.
One kills you because too much damage while the other damages such a little part of the body that survival is quite likely.


Again: An ice pick or arrow is a completely different league than a good rifle bullet in wound ballistics. Poor bullets and in general small calibre low velocity pistol bullets approximate the arrow/ice pick attack, though.

[Ken White]

The real problem is that most infantrymen cannot hit targets under-stress and training has very clear absolute limits. You cannot train out the bodies physical reaction to fear,which is what degrades marksmanship at 100m by >90%. Regardless of operational conditions, 99% of the infantry cannot hit anything much over 200m, when using handheld IWs.

I have read and heard that but I have difficulty accepting it based on observation (admittedly not scientific) and experience. Acknowledging that the figures are very much nation, service and even unit and to a slight extent equipment dependent (both the Koreans and the Viet Namese had trouble with the big M1 and the .30 cal cartridge and its recoil), I'm firmly convinced that one should cut the overall percentage of degradation to 50-67% and the percentage of those who can get hits at 200m or more to the same 50-67% in good units and no more than half that again for mediocre units perhaps rising to your figures for poor units.

I contend most of that loss is attributable to selection, training and, most importantly, to combat conditioning (which most western forces do not do in training because it is 'dangerous' and expensive. So is combat...). It is only somewhat equipement dependent

This is opinion unsupported by data. The limitation of hitting targets over 200m under operational conditions is entirely human. It's nothing to do with equipment or doctrine. Yes, a magnifying optic sight and a bipod makes hits on the range more likely at longer ranges, but it will make no difference to combat behaviour.

I'm aware much 'data' supports your numbers -- I also suggest much of that 'data' was developed by various Armed Forces in support of their position on the topic -- and the proposed weapon purchase (and the costs thereof -- much was also predicated on NW Europe / WW II and flawed 'research' ala S.L.A. Marshall). Said data was also mostly developed on Ranges under controlled conditions...

I do totally agree that almost all the inability to hit at over 200m is due to human and not mechanical factors. I do not agree that doctrine is inapplicable, I believe it is very much a factor -- if your 'doctrine' says the typical combat range is 100-250m due to flawed research and compilation (2% at 500m, 11% 400m, 17% 300m, 21% 200m, 34% 100m, 15% <100m does not necessarily equal a mean of ~188m because of the variance in target presentation, weather and light conditions, terrain, etc. as well as individual shooter training, experience, mental outlook and general capability ) then your training will not attempt to teach people how to shoot properly IN COMBAT -- which requires conditioning by the application of stress, both physical and mental.

True, but only if it done badly by stupid people.

Umm, I think that may be the problem...

If he means most soldier do not understand infantry weapons or their employment, I would strongly agree! However some simple testing can very simply rectify this. It's been done and been ignored.

We can agree on that with a caveat or two.

[William F. Owen]

"Small arms (bullets) hits to the head resulted in the highest fatality rate (59.9 percent), with bullet hits to the neck (40.3 percent) second"

How many of those were direct hits by high velocity rounds? I do not see anyone seriously disputing the fact that if you are hit in the head, by an HV rifle bullet, you are most likely to die. - even with about 35% of the heads structure, not being essential to life - eyes, nose, jaw, ears etc.

CRISAT hardly earns to be mentioned together with "data" in one line.
As I mentioned, that CRISAT target is a made-up laboratory standard with no relation to real-world combat.

CRISAT was never meant to replicate anything to do with "real world combat!" It's an engineering analogue - for comparison! - and it did generate useful data. It's exactly the same as "Ballistic Gelatine" - which does not replicate how rounds perform in the human body. It's merely a engineering analogue/model/comparative medium!

They cause a loss of blood and destroy tissue, that's it with commonality.

They destroy tissue and/or organs, causing the loss of blood! - and interrupt/destroy nerve functioning - which causes organ failure.

Inform yourself about wound ballistics.

Just me, or both of us?
A lot "wound ballistics" is a pseudo-science, populated with poor science and popular opinion.

The difference is not overwhelming, but significant. A 5.56NATO near miss of the spine or heart would incapacitate immediately or in seconds with better bullets.

So basically you are telling me that the percentage difference between possible relative incapacitation between identical hits from 5.56mm and let us say 6.8mm will have a significant operational effect?

Essentially this arguments suggests that equipping 10 men with a X.Ymm rifle (same weapon, same optics) will make them more operationally capable than the same 10 men with a 5.56mm rifle, based on the terminal effects of that round on the body?
Please correct me if I have not articulated the argument correctly.

Again: An ice pick or arrow is a completely different league than a good rifle bullet in wound ballistics. Poor bullets and in general small calibre low velocity pistol bullets approximate the arrow/ice pick attack, though.

OK, different league. Same mechanism. Tell me something bullets do that knives or arrows do not. Point being, all these theories about "Energy dump," and "Temporary cavities" is basically rubbish.

Now, before all the hoplophiles and gun-nuts get too excited, I am not doubting that you can have a better IW round than 5.56mm, but let me ask this. Do you want to put that budget into a new round, or into better training? Which do you think will pay-off better in the long run?

[William F. Owen]

I do totally agree that almost all the inability to hit at over 200m is due to human and not mechanical factors. I do not agree that doctrine is inapplicable, I believe it is very much a factor -- if your 'doctrine' says the typical combat range is 100-250m due to flawed research and compilation (2% at 500m, 11% 400m, 17% 300m, 21% 200m, 34% 100m, 15% <100m does not necessarily equal a mean of ~188m because of the variance in target presentation, weather and light conditions, terrain, etc. as well as individual shooter training, experience, mental outlook and general capability ) then your training will not attempt to teach people how to shoot properly IN COMBAT -- which requires conditioning by the application of stress, both physical and mental.

I am also very wary of poor doctrine (what is taught). I think attributing a "typical range to combat" is probably a bad idea. However you have to have some place to start from - and very little time and effort is put towards discussing that start point.
My schtick is that folks need to get real about weapons and human performance.
Can we teach folks to shoot better in combat? We probably can. _ and I would rather put money into that than new rounds and weapons..... but human frailty is a considerable restraint on what you can actually get the 80% percentile infantry recruit to do.

[Fuchs]

Wilf, no strawmanning, please.
I did not even mention temporary cavities or energy.


So you want to know what a bullet does that a knife, ice pick or arrow does not?
- bullets shatter bones
- bullets often change their course in soft tissue
- bullets create a primary cavity that's greatly expanded during its 180° turn (moving its heavier back to the fore) (certain bullet designs >~600m/s only)
- bullets expand in diameter (handgun bullets)
- bullets break up and leave several fragments in different parts of the body, at times even fragments that move with the blood stream into remote organs (typically Spitzer ball at >~700m/s)

The causes of death are the same - loss of blood, damage to central nervous system, inability of heart to keep pumping or wound infection.

The way how it's done is as different as air travel is to riding a bike.


Wound ballistics is an incomplete science under development, but that doesn't excuse to equate the effects of an arrow to the effect of a breaking Spitzer rifle bullet. The difference is obvious enough that it's not in need of any explaining theory.



About the relevance of (better) bullet effects:

- psychological: Seeing comrade get pierced, transported to hospital and coming back after weeks is definitively something different than when the hit prove deadly already during first aid. This is strongly related to the importance of medics to combat troops, and that one is well known. Medics cannot bolster morale much if they're perceived to be helpless against typical wounds.

- strategic relevance: Trickle back to units is smaller if wounds are more
lethal.

- operational relevance:
no obvious one except spillover effects by the strategic and tactical level

- tactical relevance (for the user of the better designed bullets):
slightly quicker incapacitation/neutralisation of enemies
slightly better suppression
slightly better morale
slightly less ammunition to be carried (or more firepower with given ammunition)
...it sums up

[SethB]

Wilf, the L96 is a great weapon, but it uses specialty ammo to achieve a slightly longer range than a machinegun.

It weighs the same as a SAW. And it takes a lot more training to use correctly.

At the same time, it doesn't have much short range utility.

[William F. Owen]

.
I did not even mention temporary cavities or energy.

No you did not, but modern wound ballistics theory is built around those two fallacies.

Wounds from sharp weapons can and do shatter bone. Apart from the secondary missiles effect, the same mechanisms apply to whit:

The causes of death are the same - loss of blood, damage to central nervous system, inability of heart to keep pumping or wound infection.

- which was ALL I was saying!

Wound ballistics is an incomplete science under development, but that doesn't excuse to equate the effects of an arrow to the effect of a breaking Spitzer rifle bullet. The difference is obvious enough that it's not in need of any explaining theory.

Well we'll have to disagree. Modern Wound Ballistics is a pseudo-science that confuses well understood medical issues with mechanical modelling. How platoon weapons perform against hard cover is far more relevant and measurable.

About the relevance of (better) bullet effects:
- psychological:
- strategic relevance:
- operational relevance:
- tactical relevance :
slightly quicker incapacitation/neutralisation of enemies
slightly better suppression
slightly better morale
slightly less ammunition to be carried

In the last 100 years, no one has ever lost a war for using the wrong bullet.
Fact is, a sensible mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm is good enough. There is no evidence that we need to change.

[William F. Owen]

Wilf, the L96 is a great weapon, but it uses specialty ammo to achieve a slightly longer range than a machinegun.

So did the L42, -which I trained on before doing the conversion to the L96. All UK sniper weapons do. GPMG is employable out to the observed fall of shot,

It weighs the same as a SAW. And it takes a lot more training to use correctly.

- and what does that tell you?

At the same time, it doesn't have much short range utility.

- which is why it has always mattered how you group and move snipers! - that has nothing to do with kit the UK's historic/continuing inability to understand Platoon weapons requirements.

[jcustis]

The only thing I want out of a round different from M855 is something that offers a velocity that supports a flatter trajectory, penetrates cover so it can get to those vital hydraulic organs or the spine, and can better withstand wind effects. That's it. A round with a bigger cross section and yawing characteristics does me no good if I can't hit the target because it has terrible velocity, under penetrates, etc.

As for the shooters to my left and right?...well, Wilf has it right. Invest in better gunfighter training, which we sorely need.

[Firn]

The only thing I want out of a round different from M855 is something that offers a velocity that supports a flatter trajectory, penetrates cover so it can get to those vital hydraulic organs or the spine, and can better withstand wind effects. That's it. A round with a bigger cross section and yawing characteristics does me no good if I can't hit the target because it has terrible velocity, under penetrates, etc.

I'm far from an expert on this topic, but may have as a well read and experienced hunter some insight.

Increased velocity can cause both increased and decreased penetration of hard structures such as bone and light cover. The specific relationship is greatly influenced by the bullet design. "Softer" bullets tend to fragment with great effect at far lower velocity than "harder" bullets, but may not reach the vital animals due to heavy bones, light cover and body armor to cause that devastation, having too little united mass left. On the other hand the harder bullet may penetrate the soft parts of the body while not causing the devastation of a soft ones. The hunter has of course far more leeway when it comes to the selection of bullet designs.

All in all one can never be sure how precisely bullet and animal interact. That's why one should only take secure shots and have a tracking dog handy. Needless to say that this only goes for the hunter. Long story short, to some extent your requirements do conflict.


Firn

[Tukhachevskii]

...looking at 5.56mm lethality in close quarters battle originally publiched in the Sept-Oct 2006 edition of Infantry Magazine.

The major problem occurs at the very beginning: What is effectiveness? As it turns out, that simple question requires a very complex
answer. For the Soldier in combat, effectiveness equals death:
the desire to have every round fired result in the death of the
opposing combatant, the so-called “one-shot drop.” However,
death – or lethality – is not always necessary to achieve a military
objective; an enemy combatant who is no longer willing or able
to perform a meaningful military task may be as good as dead
under most circumstances. Some equate effectiveness with “stopping
power,” a nebulous term that can mean anything from physically
knocking the target down to causing the target to immediately stop any threatening action. Others may measure effectiveness as foot-pounds of energy delivered to the target – by
calculating the mass and impact velocity of the round – without
considering what amount of energy is expended in the target or
what specific damage occurs to the target. In the end, “footpounds
of energy” is misleading, “stopping power” is a myth, and
the “oneshot drop” is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics
of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection.
Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons
system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat.(p.3)

The projectile must have enough penetration to be able to reach vital organs to cause them damage. At the same time, it must not have so much
penetrating capability that it passes completely through the target
without significant damage – resulting in a so-called “throughand-
through.” Energy expended outside the target is useless (incidentally,
this is why “impact energy” is a poor measure of bullet
comparison, as it does not separate energy expended in damaging
the target from energy lost beyond the target). The ideal bullet
would have enough energy to penetrate through any intervening
barrier to reach vital organs without significantly slowing, then
dump all of its energy into damaging vital organs without exiting
the body. Unfortunately, design of such a bullet is nearly impossible
in a military round, even if all human bodies were uniform
enough to allow for such a thing. A round that reaches the vital
organs of a 5-foot 6-inch 140-pound target without over-penetration
is likely to react differently against a 6-foot 2-inch 220-
pounder, even without considering target posture. To complicate
matters, when hitting a prone firing target the bullet might have
to pass through a forearm, exit, enter the shoulder, then proceed
down the trunk before striking heart or spinal cord. A flanking
hit would engage the same target through or between the ribs to
strike the same vital regions. All these possibilities are encountered
with the same ammunition. Ultimately, bullet design is a
series of tradeoffs complicated by the need to survive launch,
arrive at the target accurately, possibly penetrate armor, glass, or
other barriers, and be producible in large quantities (1+ billion
per year) at costs the military can afford.(p.5)

Joint Services Wound Ballistics (JSWB) Integrated
Product Team (IPT) was eventually able to conclude that: (1)
there were no commercially available 5.56mm solutions that
provided a measurable increase in CQB performance over fielded
military ammunition, (2) the reports from the field could be
explained and supported with sound scientific evidence, and
(3) there are steps that can be taken to immediately impact
performance of small arms at close quarters ranges.(p.3)

[kaur]

Review of Infantry Magazine 2006 Lethality Article

http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=32989

[Tukhachevskii]

... could someone tell me why equipping all rifelmen with an IAR would be a bad idea? I remember reading the James Webb article for Marine Corps Gazette written referenced earlier and he suggested the same thing (as I recall). I understand weight is an issue but surely rifelment would be more than compensated by the capability it would bring in terms of suppressive fire (when needed) and also accuracy. I get flumoxed when I read that fireteams and sections/squads need/do not need SAW/LMG/IAR capabilities for the close fight only to then read that allied forces small arms are/are not capable of supporting the rifleman out to 500m (as per the article by Erhart; sp?). AFAIK the whole reason for equipping infantry sections/squads with rifles capable of automatic fire (Bren/BAR/MG3) was because the standard infantry rifles were bolt action. Now we have rifles capable of true automatic fire (when necessary) why do we have what ammount to heavier versions when true SF GPMG should be organised at Coy level to mass their fires (and in pairs)? Comments and clarification would be much appreciated.

[William F. Owen]

Now we have rifles capable of true automatic fire (when necessary) why do we have what ammount to heavier versions when true SF GPMG should be organised at Coy level to mass their fires (and in pairs)? Comments and clarification would be much appreciated.

Does this help?
Yes I've posted this before, but I think it gets the major points you ask across.