MAJ Ehrhart - Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afgh.

[JMA]

What M4 fiasco? Almost all NATO SF use the M4/C8/HK416, including UK, and Australian SF. The IDF uses it without complaint and will shortly adopt a replacement with near identical external ballistics. ( a 5.56mm weapon with a >330mm barrel). OK, the Tavor X95 is a lot more reliable, but the bullet will be doing the same thing.

No we are talking about the M4 alone. and to the C8/HK416 you can add the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62.

Comparatively the M4 is the poorest of the breed. They knew that before they selected it. That is why it is a fiasco.

PS: and discussing this with a good friend from way back (who has carried and fought with a variety of weapons) he commented that I had no frame of reference as the FN was the only weapon I really knew. My response was that I did not need a lighter weapon nor lighter ammo and was quite happy with the stopping power of the7.62x51mm so my question remains why the change?

Also I believe that the weight problem the infantry is faced with is not and was not caused by his weapon it was always the other crap that he carried. So they go and exchange a great calibre and great weapons for peashooters and BB rounds. The decision making process around this weapon and calibre selection was not that of sane people. The first effort should be to bring the weight of the body armour down... not that of weapons and ammo.

[Fuchs]

The M4 was selected before SCAR-L and HK416 existed iirc.


------------------

The Russians are apparently not satisfied with their light machine guns.

Their approach is interesting: They took their good medium machinegun PKM, modified it with a fixed barrel and issued it to infantry squads (with the usual budget restraints). Different sources claim that the barrel can either sustain 500 rds in uninterrupted full auto or 600.

The Pecheneg weights 8.7kg on bipod, 12.7 kg on tripod. The PKM was already much lighter than MG3 and MAG.
The only real weight-saving between PKM and Pecheneg appears to be the lack of a spare barrel (that should account for about 1.7 kg).

[JMA]

The M4 was selected before SCAR-L and HK416 existed iirc.

------------------

The Russians are apparently not satisfied with their light machine guns.

Their approach is interesting: They took their good medium machinegun PKM, modified it with a fixed barrel and issued it to infantry squads (with the usual budget restraints). Different sources claim that the barrel can either sustain 500 rds in uninterrupted full auto or 600.

The Pecheneg weights 8.7kg on bipod, 12.7 kg on tripod. The PKM was already much lighter than MG3 and MAG.
The only real weight-saving between PKM and Pecheneg appears to be the lack of a spare barrel (that should account for about 1.7 kg).

There wasn't much wrong with the RPD. And why the new calibre 7.62x54mm for the PKM?

[Fuchs]

The PK/PKM/Pecheneg had that calibre all along.


The Russians had several machine guns in WW2, some of them badly outdated or suboptimal. They were exposed to MG34 and MG42 and apparently impressed by the universal machine gun concept. Thus the PK - it was their MG3/MAG/M60 counterpart (the Czechoslovakians also had a great and very interesting universal machine gun).

The Russians kept nevertheless the idea of a light machine gun alive with the RPD and later (for commonality) the RPK series. This approach seems to have been unsatisfactory, in part because of the weak cartridge (especially with 5.45x39 - 7.62x39 is more popular with many Russians afaik).

[Ken White]

That's about the limit of my options at the moment. Make a suggestion. I'll probably be game.

Come up with a viable solution to the well documented POLITICAL problem in US military procurement. I've come up with one, vote all the B@$terds out but it suffers from lack of adherents -- though that is improving if the last election is a harbinger. We'll see what happens with the next. Congress is capable of adequately instead of selectively supporting the Armed Forces, so far they've only been pretty much forced to do it in existential wars...

You have a point but that's not the point.

Unfortunately it is THE point.

Do you really think any US politician will campaign openly and publicly on the basis of wanting to send US soldiers off to war a substandard personal weapon and other kit to save money or to give a sweetheart deal to a local manufacturer?

Of course not. What a silly question. He will lie and dissemble to his voters and the armed forces and he will insure his efforts are well concealed in the arcane and opaque US Federal Budgeting system. It is no accident that numerous Commission's recommendations that the US Government fully adopt the GAAP (LINK) is deliberately and forcefully rejected by Congress though they are slowly being forced into a corner on the subject.

Do you really think that the vast majority of US citizens would want US soldiers to be sent into battle with substandard weapons and kit?

Not at all. However, they are captive to an ill informed and rather militarily ignorant media and mailed or otherwise published announcements by their politicians --so few understand what really transpires. More do every day and many things are getting fixed but it's a long slow effort and is being fought every step of the way. A Century's worth of US Congresses have fought to insure that incumbents are very difficult to dislodge and that accurate information is obscured. That is being attacked -- has been for year but the volume is increasing.

This issue is not on the radar because the senior officers seem to care more about their pensions than this particular issue. Now that tells you something.

It tells me that once again you do not understand all you know about what you're saying. The Canadians have a great tradition along that line -- Resigning in protest -- the British less so. The US has almost none and there good and bad reasons for that but the biggest deterrent is that the few time it has been done, the individual was effectively if dishonestly in some cases discredited and his replacements did what was wanted. Once again, you fall afoul of trying to judge the US by other western nations. doesn't work.

The issue is on the Radar, however, it is only one of couple of thousand blips of about the same size and import to the nation as a whole -- it is a ar bigger blip for the Troops but they are only a very small slice of the population. Politicians can count and they count voters -- and count on ignorant voters -- and have constructed a system that aids in perpetuating that ignorance.

[Ken White]

The chain of incompetence extends beyond the politicians and into the military (whether you like it or not).

Of course it does. So does the chain of crimnal actors so extend (don't forget the, incompetence is not the only sin) -- however, in both cases, the military component is much smaller and much more constrained than is the political side.

No, no Ken. Just look at the adoption of 5.56mm, just look at the adoption of the AR-15 with the massive problems and now look at the M4 fiasco.

I was present for the first item and was one of those that worked through that POLITICAL decision that the Army did not wholeheartedly support.

The AR-15 adoption problems were a case of military incompetence (and that of military hired civilian employees), period -- the Pols skate on that one.

The only M4 fiasco is the one you seem to have invented on these pages...

As much as you would wish to lay all the blame on the politicians there is a significant complicit involvement by serving officers in the process. As much as they would plead that they are doing the best they can they remain party to a series of acts (way beyond what I have mentioned) for which they have no excuse and should not be allowed to have any excuse.

You're wrong on the first issue, there is certainly enough blame to go around -- however, you're treating it like the greatest scandal in town -- it is not, it's just one of many. That's not being blase, just realistic. If you think the same sorts of chicanery and incompetence do not happen in every nation in the world on issues as or even more important, you're living in a dream world.

Okay, they have no excuse -- now what? What do you recommend we do about it?

[Ken White]

No we are talking about the M4 alone. and to the C8/HK416 you can add the SCAR in both 5.56 and 7.62.

All of which have their problems, though they are different problems than those of the M4 (except for the C8 which has the same problems). You might also talk to some SCAR users...

Comparatively the M4 is the poorest of the breed. They knew that before they selected it. That is why it is a fiasco.

Actually, Fuchs is correct, the adoption of the M4 precedes the manufacture of any of the others -- so you're wrong again and the only fiasco is the one you're trying to invent for some obscure reason...

PS: and discussing this with a good friend from way back (who has carried and fought with a variety of weapons) he commented that I had no frame of reference as the FN was the only weapon I really knew...

You really should listen to good advice -- it, essentially, was don't shoot your mouth off unless you know what you're talking about.

It was adopted for all the reasons discussed ad nauseam earlier in this thread.

[Ken White]

There wasn't much wrong with the RPD. And why the new calibre 7.62x54mm for the PKM?

boggles the mind.

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round.

It is the rough equivalent of the 7.62X51used in the MAG 58 -- which is why the USSR adopted the PKM. New it was not, been around since 1891.

[William F. Owen]

My response was that I did not need a lighter weapon nor lighter ammo and was quite happy with the stopping power of the7.62x51mm so my question remains why the change?

...because had you taken part in properly conducted comparative trials, it would have been shown that in certain areas you were more effective with a 5.56mm weapon.

I was in the British Army when we changed calibre and marksmanship scores went up across the board. Now that was not just a calibre issue. Ergonomics and optics played their part, but at <300m the SA-80/LSW equipped section could hit more targets and suppress for longer than an SLR/GPMG equipped section.

Now, if you alter the trials criteria, you will get differing results, but for what they tested, the results showed an improvement.

[JMA]

...because had you taken part in properly conducted comparative trials, it would have been shown that in certain areas you were more effective with a 5.56mm weapon.

And those areas would be?

I was in the British Army when we changed calibre and marksmanship scores went up across the board. Now that was not just a calibre issue. Ergonomics and optics played their part, but at <300m the SA-80/LSW equipped section could hit more targets and suppress for longer than an SLR/GPMG equipped section.

These properly conducted comparative trials included range marksmanship achieved with the L1A1 SLR fitted with optics?

Now, if you alter the trials criteria, you will get differing results, but for what they tested, the results showed an improvement.

Yes, it appears that with carefully selected trials criteria the desired results were achieved.

[JMA]

You really should listen to good advice -- it, essentially, was don't shoot your mouth off unless you know what you're talking about.

Good to see you back Ken. I missed your acerbic way with words.

[Kiwigrunt]

Wonder how the SA army have been getting along with 5.56 for the last 20 or so years.

Or with the R4 and R5, which have been derived from the Israeli Galil. Strangely, the Israelis seem to prefer the M4 over the Galil.

Our SAS prefer the M4 over the Steyr.

I don't think the M4 is perfect, but a fiasco???

[Fuchs]

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round.

Afaik neither bullet was designed to yaw and break or did the same. The calibre was the same, so the difference was largely about the kinetic energy still left after exiting the wound.
7.62x39 is generally considered to be a good cartridge - its primary shortcoming is the rather low MV and thus a high bullet drop at longer ranges than it was meant for in the AK.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness (or necessity) of machine gun suppressive fires beyond the effective range of the RPD.
The dispersion is unavoidably (well, unless you use a turret-mounted gun) awful, it's difficult to detect an assault rifle muzzle fire or its muzzle blast dust from beyond 300 m in daylight and every officer who thinks that his infantry should leapfrog over 350m in face of the opposition of an infantry squad and without a huge deal of obscuration should be fragged.
You could of course want a fire base farther away from the enemy fighting positions than the jump-off point for the assault element. In that case I'd ask why would you insist on keeping your base of fire distant enough to allow them the use of even artillery against it?

The range of the RPD looks thus only like a lethality problem and not so much like a tactical problem to me. Kills by machine guns at more than 300 m aren't terribly often even with a heavier machine gun, though. You can usually use scoped rifles, indirect fire support or simply keep your position unknown when you see suitable targets at such ranges.

[William F. Owen]

And those areas would be?

Ease of training. Firing from the standing position. Weapons carriage. Total effects of weapons and ammunition, etc etc.

These properly conducted comparative trials included range marksmanship achieved with the L1A1 SLR fitted with optics?

The SUIT sight wasn't that good and was never on general issue.

Yes, it appears that with carefully selected trials criteria the desired results were achieved.

Well most soldiers seem unable to articulate what they actually want from a rifle, in terms of things that can be usefully measured.

[Ken White]

7.62x39 is generally considered to be a good cartridge - its primary shortcoming is the rather low MV and thus a high bullet drop at longer ranges than it was meant for in the AK.

True, it is a good cartridge, better than the 5.56 as a combat cartridge IMO but both suffer from a range shortfall for some situations and terrain.

I'm also somewhat skeptical about the effectiveness (or necessity) of machine gun suppressive fires beyond the effective range of the RPD.

See the underlined element above...

The dispersion is unavoidably (well, unless you use a turret-mounted gun) awful...

It's only awful if you do not use it as the advantage it provides -- at longer ranges, the MMG becomes an area weapon with many benefits -- particularly in the defense. Plunging fire is particularly useful and relies on that dispersion for much of its effect.

it's difficult to detect an assault rifle muzzle fire or its muzzle blast dust from beyond 300 m in daylight and every officer who thinks that his infantry should leapfrog over 350m in face of the opposition of an infantry squad and without a huge deal of obscuration should be fragged.

I'd go with trained properly or fired; fragging is a bit extreme . However, your point is valid.

You could of course want a fire base farther away from the enemy fighting positions than the jump-off point for the assault element. In that case I'd ask why would you insist on keeping your base of fire distant enough to allow them the use of even artillery against it?

You may not have Artillery due to priority of fires or for other reasons. Same applies even to own mortars. No one weapon provides all the answers, properly allocating and synchronizing their use is what the senior people get paid to do and the good ones will make use of all their assets in accordance with the ol' METT-TC bit...

Redundancy is a combat imperative.

The range of the RPD looks thus only like a lethality problem and not so much like a tactical problem to me. Kills by machine guns at more than 300 m aren't terribly often even with a heavier machine gun, though. You can usually use scoped rifles, indirect fire support or simply keep your position unknown when you see suitable targets at such ranges.

True in many, perhaps even most cases but the MG has it uses at extended ranges and, at shorter ranges, the increased lethality and shoot through (walls, etc.) capability is, umm, beneficial...

But I only used that acronym once and buried it in the middle of the post.

[Ken White]

Good to see you back Ken. I missed your acerbic way with words.

Regardless, that guy is indeed a good friend and you could well benefit by heeding his advice...

All of which evades the larger point -- there is no M4 fiasco.

[Entropy]

It's been kind of an interesting thread for someone who isn't at all a small arms expert. Here are what seem to be the takaways:

- There's no such thing as a perfect weapon/cartidge combo - any choice will have compromises.

- Small arms don't exist in a vacuum, therefore ideally the compromises resulting from a particular choice are mitigated elsewhere.

- Politics will always play a role in these decisions.

[JMA]

Wonder how the SA army have been getting along with 5.56 for the last 20 or so years.

Or with the R4 and R5, which have been derived from the Israeli Galil. Strangely, the Israelis seem to prefer the M4 over the Galil.

Our SAS prefer the M4 over the Steyr.

I don't think the M4 is perfect, but a fiasco???

Maybe you should read this: The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy

[JMA]

It's been kind of an interesting thread for someone who isn't at all a small arms expert. Here are what seem to be the takaways:

- There's no such thing as a perfect weapon/cartidge combo - any choice will have compromises.

- Small arms don't exist in a vacuum, therefore ideally the compromises resulting from a particular choice are mitigated elsewhere.

- Politics will always play a role in these decisions.

You forgot one...

- soldiers die as a result of these decisions... and very few people seem to care.

[JMA]

boggles the mind.

There was a great deal wrong with the RPD, not least the range and stopping power issues of the 7.62X39. The 7.62X54 is a bigger, more powerful cartridge -- it actually measures about 15mm longer than the earlier mentioned round.

Whats wrong with the RPD beyond range and stopping power issues?

It is the rough equivalent of the 7.62X51used in the MAG 58 -- which is why the USSR adopted the PKM. New it was not, been around since 1891.

OK new as in addition different calibre ammo carried at section level. Would have thought they would have learned from the stupidity of NATO mixing 5.56 and 7.62. Maybe this military procurement process is equally stupid across all nations... or equally corrupt?