The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[AlexTX ret]

Almost certainly not. We can and should avoid wars like these and when a real war comes along -- and it eventually will -- people are going to be in for a big shock...Keep the M4 as is for now, minimal mods, no new upper, simply improve the cartridges in general issue.

There are multiple reasons to change; maintenance intensity not sustainable in heavy conflict, inadequate lethality, unreliability -- but we should take the time to do it right. Not that we will do that...

Yep, we really scewed the pooch on our small wars in Iraq and Afganistan. though I know quite a bit of what went on in the administration and the military on the ground, I can't say much about it. Let us say that we took weak intelligence and used it to further our objectives. Then we exacerbated our problems by confused and conflicting after action orders.

However, a real war would be really messy and possibly "frightening". I agree that we are headed for it and if we don't start acting properly with indepth intelligence that may not be politically correct, a lot of people are going to wake up with a hot round in their laps. *sigh*

I agree on the M4 though it would reguire a barrel change to optimize for the better 5.56 cartridge. The M262 requires a 1 in 8 spin optimally. Not to say the M262 is the optimum cartridge.

As for taking our time, I agree. However, there is a problem with our procurement system To simplify and take more control of the procurement system, the military decides ahead of time what the parameters of the weapon, etc should be. Yes, this is the perogitive of the Generals and their civilian advisors. However, it keeps designers from thinking outside of the box. And I've seen little such thinking by the "Tactical Generals". So who will step up to the plate and speak for those who have to accomplish the mission?

One pistol or SMG cartridge (9mm has major lethality problems for moderately trained shooters) and one for a carbine / rifle / AR / GPMG. No belt fed below company level (maintenance and training problem). Four cartridges at Bn level, pistol / carbine etc. / .50 / 40mm or whatever grenade like rounds we finally select. A real war will be far more supply intensive than anything seen by us in the last 50 years.

The LAW is good, need more and better and that's achievable; Javelin is good and needs to stay until a lighter, better replacement is developed. RPG has more disadvantages than advantages.

I don't have an answer to the 9mm question. Would a 40S&W be the answer, I don't know because it isn't as acurate a round as the 9mm or the 45. Would a 45 be the answer, better accuracy but there would have to be more and better training for those men and women who are of a smaller stature to handle the recoil of the weapon. I'm not saying that they can't handle it, I just saying they would need more experience. However, that goes for any weapon. Without proper training and continued practice, any weapon might as well be a rock.

I would add the 40mm grenade launcher to the squad/platoon mix but I agree with your accessment. I'll bite my toungue and say that the M72 PI would also be a good addition to the squad/platoon mix since it is issued a single round and doesn't require a weapon to fire it. You either have it or not.

I think your also correct to most weapons requireing a crew be regulated to company level. In my years as a RA, I found such weapons confusing to both leaders who needed to field and fight them and to training of other members of the squad/platoon to pick up the weapon and operate it in an aggresive manner, when casualties occured. People get hurt out ther you know!

The F-22 decision has been made, Congress may or may not go along. Why would /do we need a better fighter at this time -- and if we developed one, would it be manned or unmanned?Yes and no.

Both China and Russia are showing much improved fighters than possibly we can field now. I don't know if they are just a handfull of protoypes in which we could be wasting money for nothing. However, we can't compete with the 2nd world countries in number of aircraft, so we need to create better aircraft that will give us air superiority. We need good intel more and more. it might be the best investment we can make now!?!

More range, less handy, more rounds per magazine, less lethal, more maintenance, less reliable. All weapons are compromises.Thus my lambasting McCaffery on the M4. It is better than the existing pistol, we have no SMG and both those are better in the proper caliber for some jobs than the M4.

Agreed!

All weapons are compromises and the M4 is adequate but not as good a compromise as is possible.

Agreed! But when we try to fit weapons that don't fit their supposed mission then the "feet on the ground" suffers.

Good question, been my observation that those who spout such idiocy are rarely seen carrying the weapon they tout in combat.That's more because the ARVN hated the M1 which they also had in large quantities; the weapon was bigger than they were in some cases and the recoil was, to them, vicious. They were given the option of Carbines with less lethality and less recoil so they took it. Proving that the US is not alone in making dumb weapons decisions.

My opposite number on one of my rotations was so disgusted with the M1 carbine that he cried when I got him a M16. It was kind of sad really. I thought the "Mattel" rifle was terrible but it was so much better than the M1 carbine. And so the story goes...

[Ken White]

...though I know quite a bit of what went on in the administration and the military on the ground, I can't say much about it...

Wow.No one else here can say that. Or would.

.Then we exacerbated our problems by confused and conflicting after action orders.

We exacerbated our problems by incompetence at high levels in uniform and showed the result of 25 years of poor training.

However, a real war would be really messy and possibly "frightening".

War is not frightening to those who are prepared for it. It will be for those who want to fight nicely.

...we don't start acting properly with indepth intelligence that may not be politically correct.

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.

The M262 requires a 1 in 8 spin optimally. Not to say the M262 is the optimum cartridge.

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.

I'll bite my toungue and say that the M72 PI would also be a good addition to the squad/platoon mix...

There are some new ones in the works.

Agreed! But when we try to fit weapons that don't fit their supposed mission then the "feet on the ground" suffers.

True, that's why the M16 as purely political for the initial purchase is pretty sad.

My opposite number on one of my rotations was so disgusted with the M1 carbine that he cried when I got him a M16.

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.

[AlexTX ret]

I'm glad to see a smiling face!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Ken White]

I'm glad to see a smiling face!!!

I worked for a time as as contract intell.

As have a good many here, contract or otherwise. Most don't broadcast; no need to, as you say it'll come out.

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.

Been true in my observation since I was big enough to notice, my Father was in the Navy before WW II and I can recall the period well, I went in in the Marine corps in '49 after a couple of years in the NG, then in the Army, retired and worked for 'em as a civilian -- been dictatorial and bureaucratic ever since I can remember. Not to worry, the kids make it work.

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.

New blood comes with every war; we'll see how this batch does. Hopefully the kids will do better that the post Viet Nam crowd who got more enamored of protecting the institution than they did of doing their jobs.

War is frightening no matter how prepared you are for it. ... 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 don't think I said that and I certainly didn't mean to. War is only frightening if you decide it should be; decide you're okay with it and you can be. Some people cannot do that but most can. Some people actually enjoy it and they aren't crazy. Different strokes. You can tell a 19 year old how bloody and gory war is for hours, they don't care, they're immortal.

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.

Because a pathetically bad personnel system and the one year tour in Viet Nam produced a systemic disregard for the nation and its people. I don't mind scrounging, I did and do mind contraband. Corruption by US folks in country or 'corruption' by the Viet Namese doing what they'd always done in their country?

Keeping dead men on muster rolls was viewed by many Co Van as corrupt -- most didn't realize and in a year didn't find out that money usually didn't go the the commander -- the pay for one dead soldier would support the families of three or four dead ones in a system that had no pensions, death gratuities or insurance...

Corruption is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who believes the Viet Namese were corrupt will enjoy the Middle East or South Asia...

[William F. Owen]

The acceptance/ overiding politics of the M16/AR15 and its cartridge had less to do with ranges and mission optimization than some poorly though out criteria. And the military as a whole has the same blind spots. We still have the M16/AR15 as our primary infantry weapon 46 years after the debacle of the M16 in the early years of the 'Nam.

Whoah there! Let's separate a few things out.

a.) The reasoning behind a small calibre was good and has been proven. Low-recoil high velocity rounds mean low dispersion during handheld auto/semi-automatic fire.

b.) That the AR-15 was poorly designed and that the original M193 round was a bit of mess, in no way invalidates the concept.

c.) Like it or not, 5.56mm has gone on to be one of the, (perhaps the) most successful, widely used military SAA rounds of all time.

[AlexTX ret]

Was a bit under the weather when I replied last...

As have a good many here, contract or otherwise. Most don't broadcast; no need to, as you say it'll come out.

Exaserbated a problem. I'll paraphrase Gary Cooper who supposed to have said this when his party wasn't admitted to a celebrity restrant. A member of his party was supposed to have said that Gray Cooper should have told the Maitre De (spl) who he was. "If I have to tell them who I am then I'm not."

Been true in my observation since I was big enough to notice, my Father was in the Navy before WW II and I can recall the period well, I went in in the Marine corps in '49 after a couple of years in the NG, then in the Army, retired and worked for 'em as a civilian -- been dictatorial and bureaucratic ever since I can remember.

Good, God, I'm a mere babe in arms.

Not to worry, the kids make it work.New blood comes with every war; we'll see how this batch does. Hopefully the kids will do better that the post Viet Nam crowd who got more enamored of protecting the institution than they did of doing their jobs.

1949, It must have been the same after WW2 or Korea, My father talks about the same problems that I had after 'Nam. yea, I know Nicaragua all over agqain. I guess it really never changes.

Yea, its all about youth. We went into WW2 with our expectations of WW1 intact. We did the same in Vietnam and every confrontation I've been in since. However, young soldiers and officers are resilient. They are always there to correct us when we lose our sight of the objectives. However, I think the military as a whole slowly failed when officers failed to protect the soldiers under them, failed to give them proper respect. In return the enlisted grades realized this and felt that they needed to protect themselves or said fubar and got out. It sort of took out the heart of the Army. In the end all we got was a lot of leaders that became self serving and political. It's kind of sad, really. But it happens to almost every country in the world so we shouldn't feel alone. Though it don't make it right.

I don't think I said that and I certainly didn't mean to. War is only frightening if you decide it should be; decide you're okay with it and you can be. Some people cannot do that but most can. Some people actually enjoy it and they aren't crazy. Different strokes. You can tell a 19 year old how bloody and gory war is for hours, they don't care, they're immortal.

No you didn't say that. I said it all on my own.

I guess I see the same thing you see just reacted to the situation differently. I was afraid and it never wore off. I just never let it become destructive. Instead I learned to channel it constructively so that I could do what ever was neccessary to complete the mission. Not pleased in all of my actions but I got the mission done. However, in the end it became a job, just a job. However, I always ascribe it to patriotism. And that is what I'm most proud of. no matter how sordid my job was, I realized that it furthered our country in some way. what more could one ask for.

I still remember 19 and being very bulletproof. My son is 22 and he is truly immortal and he' not shy about saying to. Yea, I have all the success you can probably imagine telling him different.

Because a pathetically bad personnel system and the one year tour in Viet Nam produced a systemic disregard for the nation and its people. I don't mind scrounging, I did and do mind contraband. Corruption by US folks in country or 'corruption' by the Viet Namese doing what they'd always done in their country?

I think that Americans for the most part were naive and the South Vietnamese were glad to take advantage of it. But we lost our virginity and got caught up in the game. Sort of childhoods end. I was willing to do what ever it needed to get the tools and suppies to do the mission that was required of my unit irregardless of what cost it did to me as a man/soldier. I guess everyone loses somethng in the end.

Keeping dead men on muster rolls was viewed by many Co Van as corrupt -- most didn't realize and in a year didn't find out that money usually didn't go the the commander -- the pay for one dead soldier would support the families of three or four dead ones in a system that had no pensions, death gratuities or insurance...

Corruption is in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who believes the Viet Namese were corrupt will enjoy the Middle East or South Asia...

Oh, yea! Operators over there will sell you anything from a senator's robes to a senator inside them. Paraphrasing Robert Heinlein if it matters.

[AlexTX ret]

Whoah there! Let's separate a few things out.

Okay...

a.) The reasoning behind a small calibre was good and has been proven. Low-recoil high velocity rounds mean low dispersion during handheld auto/semi-automatic fire.

Yes, a smaller round is always better than a full sized cartridge to do these things. The problem is that what is too small. The M16 and the 5.56 was and still is marginal without precise shot management. Something not always attainable in most fire fights. And now we have a significant number of M16/M4s. Do we scrap these weapons to find another possibly better round.

There is talk of creating another round that will better take down an enemy soldier. If not the Mk 262, then another one. I've heard over the last couple of weeks that the Army is looking to replace the 5.56 round with a 6.5 MPC round. It uses a modified 5.56 case with a heavier bullet. Same basic range as the SS109/M855 cartridge with a greater energy released into the target. It also has a greater pulse that improves the reliability of the Impinged direct gas system in the M4.

But you're right all of these are smaller cartridges. Though all the experts say that the 7mm round is the best overall cartridge for an assault weapon. The major parties in the world use a 5mm+/- bullet in a smaller case. The problem is that do we need to follow established protocal and not take the chance of upsetting our NATO allies for not remaining with the 5.56 ss109 cartridge or do we think outside the box?

b.) That the AR-15 was poorly designed and that the original M193 round was a bit of mess, in no way invalidates the concept.

No but it didn't help matters. I'm not a one to change things if the old design still work. However, we have had the basic 5.56 round for over 46 years and once again there is talk about changeing. I don't see this happening for political and entrenchmentissues. However, even in Russia there is a clamoring amoung their SOG groups to return to the 7.62x39 round.

c.) Like it or not, 5.56mm has gone on to be one of the, (perhaps the) most successful, widely used military SAA rounds of all time.

Yes, but why? Is it because it is really that good or did America strong arm the rest of NATO into accepting our cartridge? There has been at least one change in the bullet weight to try and make 5.56 more effective. Will there soon be another? Anything else would require a upper receiver change instead of only a barrel change. All of this costs money, something the goverment doesn't have a lot of at this time. so the reason that we may not change to another round from 5.56, is purely economics.

[William F. Owen]

Yes, a smaller round is always better than a full sized cartridge to do these things. The problem is that what is too small.

Too small to do what? 9mm suppresses as well as .308 Winchester at 200m.
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.

But you're right all of these are smaller cartridges. Though all the experts say that the 7mm round is the best overall cartridge for an assault weapon.

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?

[reed11b]

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 believe the logic is that an "intermediate" round would allow the MG and AR to effectively use the same round; i.e. a round heavy enough to knock down cover and have decent range and trajectory, and a round small enough and low enough recoil to be a good AR round. I would argue that the numbers say between 6 and 7mm rounds are ideal for that concept, but the question is, is the concept itself valid? As for me, 5.56 worked pretty well for me in the M4, but I was wanting for something more substantial for the SAW (the old tank berms on the side of the MSR back in '03 stopped the SAW round cold).
Reed

[William F. Owen]

I believe the logic is that an "intermediate" round would allow the MG and AR to effectively use the same round; i.e. a round heavy enough to knock down cover and have decent range and trajectory, and a round small enough and low enough recoil to be a good AR round.

Something like this

Right now, I can live and thrive with 5.56mm for ARs, 7.62mm NATO for MGs, and 8.59mm for snipers

[AlexTX ret]

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?

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.

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.

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? :

[Ken White]

I do not agree at all that the 5.56mm is an adequate military cartridge or that the caliber of the weapon used by the infantry is irrelevant.

The number of rounds fired in a fight are directly proportional to the damage the average Soldier thinks he will inflict -- I'll guarantee you that those using a 5.56mm weapon will fire more than those using a 7.62x51. That has psychological and logistic impacts (and yes , I'm allowing for the difference between weapons that will fire full auto and those that will not. I never allowed people that worked for me to fire M16s on full auto -- and more than one kid got a Steel Helmet thrown into his back for forgetting. Yeah, I know that, too; Article 93, throw in 117 and 128 if you want to stack charges...).

I also strongly disagree with suppression as a tactic or technique, I know many studies and a lot of observers and combat experienced leaders say it works but most of those efforts have been against poorly trained troops. You go up against well trained troops and try to hold them in place with 'suppression' and you'll get a shock. Suppression doesn't work against good troop but accurate shots do.

Wilf said:

"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."

I'll grant the operations not lost is probably correct but I'm not at all sure you're correct on tactical actions, even with the caveat you added, 'consistently.'

Not the question -- question is how many people have been killed unnecessarily due to an inadequate round failing to drop an opponent? You can start by looking at the PPSh 41 / 43 carriers...

(Acknowledging the Finns did better with their KP31s, partly a function of the Finns, partly the woods, partly a bigger caliber... )

Then look at US M1 / M2 Carbines used by the US, the UK and others in WW II -- then 5.56 in Viet Nam and in Afghansitan.

Size does make a difference. (so do terrain and vegetation, 5.56 will deflect on many leaf hits; the 7.62x39 rarely does that)

[William F. Owen]

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 am not sure what organisation has to do with the calibre of the round, but I am open to opinion.

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.

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.

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.

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."

I do not agree at all that the 5.56mm is an adequate military cartridge or that the caliber of the weapon used by the infantry is irrelevant.

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 also strongly disagree with suppression as a tactic or technique, I know many studies and a lot of observers and combat experienced leaders say it works but most of those efforts have been against poorly trained troops. You go up against well trained troops and try to hold them in place with 'suppression' and you'll get a shock. Suppression doesn't work against good troop but accurate shots do.

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.

Not the question -- question is how many people have been killed unnecessarily due to an inadequate round failing to drop an opponent? You can start by looking at the PPSh 41 / 43 carriers...

...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?

[Ken White]

My standard answers apply. Oh, you can also add the human element...

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.

Unfortunately, the troops do not get to read all those and they regrettably rely on rumors of opinions and that affects quite strongly their perceptions -- and their willingness to fight (that's minor).

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."

That's a function of training; we -- most all Armies -- do not adequately train Soldiers to shoot. To do so requires time and lots of ammo, both in short supply. Those costs have forced Armies to try shortcuts like full automatic weapons for all which only worsened the problem. It's notable that penuriousness in spending money for training Ammo is more than outweighed by the excessive use of Ammo in combat engendered by that shortfall. (that training shortfall, OTOH, is MAJOR).

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 agree in that sense. However, in the end, a Soldier and his weapon are the critical element as far as that Soldier is concerned. Even good training and good leadership plus an effective organization can be counteracted by Soldiers who do not want to fight because they distrust their equipment. Add the practical effect -- enemy troops killed or disabled (versus those temporarily scared) and minor element it may be but it should not be ignored. Armies have a bad habit of touting their belief in the human element then ignoring it based on 'empirical data.' The majority of which is genned up by people who aren't out there carrying a weapon or being fired upon...

...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?

Two men or two small units, yes -- but there's also the possibility of range overmatch. Ideally I can hit him before he gets close enough to hit me in some locales; in others I can kill him when his round will not penetrate my cover or protection but mine will overcome his.

Take the M1 Carbine problem in Korea. It outranged the PPsh clone carrying North Koreans but it did not stop them and thus allowed them to advance to a range that allowed those little 7.62 rounds to do some damage. OTOH, If said NK Troopie got hit with a .30-06 he generally became a non-problem. The Chinese, not dumb, quickly dumped their PPShs for Nagants. Less fire, more damage. Same thing occurred in Viet Nam with M1 Carbine carrying ARVN vs. AK carrying NVA. In both wars, the better cartridge made a TACTICAL difference in vastly different terrain and vegetation.

It later with M16 armed ARVN became apparent that vegetation would easily deflect 5.56 rounds but had little effect on 7.62 rounds. I can also recall on several occasions as an Advisor with an M1 being called by the troops or the Commanders to use said weapon when a range or a hut wall penetration problem appeared...

Thus I believe that Strategically or Operationally, your argument is correct. However, at a tactical and practical level, the weapon and caliber have to fit the organization, leadership and training levels of the troops involved. Conversely, training and organization are also affected by caliber and weapon...

Also affected can be the ability of even the best leadership to persuade people to do what's needed if they're worried about the kit...

[AlexTX ret]

But here goes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AlexTX ret]

Sorry!

[William F. Owen]

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.

For me, effective range is a function of target size and a definable terminal effect. I don't know what "knockdown power" is.

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.

The 5.56mm round came out of the "SALVO" study papers that accumulated after the Korean War, long before McNamara. The British used the AR-15 in combat in 1963, - with reportedly good results

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.

What Small Round Tactics? The "wound rather than kill" is an urban myth. The observation about soldiers not fighting because they are assisting the wounded goes back to the Napoleonic Wars and specifically observations as to Austrian Infantry leaving the firing line while under long range fire from skirmishers and cannon. Ardant Du-Pic mentions it long before WW2 (1870?)

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.

So what do you do? Back in 06 I took part in a British Army Light Weapons workshop, specifically about 5.56mm lethality, where we had all the open US data (including the US ARDEC OA from 93), plus all the UK data, plus some other stuff. The conclusions were many but nowhere did we conclude that the UK needed to replace 5.56mm.

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.

Sorry, but that is proven rubbish based on Marshall's work(Men Against Fire) and then regurgitated by Grossman (On Killing). It is simply not true and confuses a supposed moral objection to killing with a lack of participation in combat caused by "suppression." As a specialist in this area, I would suggest you re-read Fitz-Gibbon, Jary and Wigram. If you are military you can also access all the UK DRA reports on combat participation, and I think Griffith's rebuttal of Grossman is available on line. Obviously there is Spillers analysis of Marshall data.
The inability to hit a target on the range, while exhausted/pressured is purely bio-mechanical, and is a function of the hand held dispersion. What testing has shown, is that when hand-held dispersion is a factor, fully automatic fire incrases the chance of a hit. Go look at the SALVO studies. - 3 rounds into 24 inch radius etc etc.
If full automatic fire is not a factor in creating suppression or the increased likelihood of a hit, then you probably need to drop the SAW from the Platoon, - but that's actually another issue.

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.

OK, I have shot the old UK Sniper Test with a 5.56mm rifle, out to 600m, an seen folks hit targets out at 800m (M16A4 with ACOG). M855 will "kill and suppress" out to 800m.

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.

I'm not sure what you point is here, but let me put it this way. Given exactly the same contact drill for a 10 man patrol, how would you differ the drill, given each man carrying a G3, or each man carrying a G-36? Add or subtract rifle grenades?
Or, given a 3-man Gun group in a Section, or supporting a Platoon, how would you differ their employment, based on 2 x Bren Guns/LARs or 1 x GPMG/MG.

As for hand to hand, in Vietnam it came down to distances that you could reach out and touch your enemy.

Hand to hand combat with hand's reach. There's a thing.

[Ken White]

Having been involved with the US Army Troop test of the M-16, I read most of the SALVO papers in 1963 and have looked at some of them since. It's a classic case of a senior officer espousing a theory and the data being assembled to validate said theory. The study was done by a number of people with no combat experience who scanned 'data' and decided, to simplify, that the number of friendly rounds fired was directly related to the number of enemy casualties.

Aside from the 'duh' factor on that, it overlooked the fact that most of the Soldiers and Marines involved in WW II were only marginally trained -- and combat experience, while it teaches many things, does NOT improve marksmanship. It also neglected the fact, which Wilf acknowledged above, that suppressive fire will not deter competent troops to any great extent. The SALVO study led to a host of idiotic ideas like 'salvo' rounds, flechettes from small arms and other essentially civilian or technician driven idiocy.

The first people to use the M-16 in combat were the Viet Namese whom we had presented with a thousand of the then little green rifles in 1962. They had mixed results with the weapon but generally were positive and wanted more. The problem is that the weapons and cartridge supplied to the Viet Namese and initially tested by the 82d Abn Div were not the identical to the weapon the Army later fielded as the M-16. Both were adopted on a political, not a proven efficiency, basis and both were tinkered with by the Ordnance Corps until they were LESS effective than the tested weapons.

S.L.A. Marshall and Grossman are both wrong. Troops will fire -- and they will hit targets if they are well trained. Western Armies do not invest enough in training and the inability to fire accurately in combat or when exhausted is the result. That can be -- and should be -- fixed.

The M855 will kill (as opposed to hitting a target on a range) past 500 meters only with luck, a better than average shooter and the right weapon -- the M16 rifle beaten about in infantry combat is not that weapon. An M4 Carbine even if specially selected and brand new is not that weapon.

[William F. Owen]

Having been involved with the US Army Troop test of the M-16, I read most of the SALVO papers in 1963 and have looked at some of them since.

I've never actually seen the complete set of papers. What I know of them is the ARDEC data that relates to hand-held dispersion. I concur the data they gathered was very much open to abuse, and lacked certain aspects of operational reality. However a lot of basic ballistics and physics is pretty useful stuff.

The SALVO study led to a host of idiotic ideas like 'salvo' rounds, flechettes from small arms and other essentially civilian or technician driven idiocy.

No argument there.

S.L.A. Marshall and Grossman are both wrong. Troops will fire -- and they will hit targets if they are well trained. Western Armies do not invest enough in training and the inability to fire accurately in combat or when exhausted is the result. That can be -- and should be -- fixed.

yep, but these guys won't stay down! I fully concur that there are things you can teach, that reduce the bio-mechanical effects, associated with fatigue, but I am not sure you can do anything about the mental. 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

The M855 will kill (as opposed to hitting a target on a range) past 500 meters only with luck, a better than average shooter and the right weapon -

Can't say you're wrong. I have little faith in individual combat shots over 200m.

[Ken White]

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.

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...

This too:

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...