The "certainly" is incorrect. The U.S. 7.62 mm bullet was of poor design and barely better than 5.56 mm (not much more than piercing with a rapier if the man was skinny), so personal experiences vary a lot.Originally Posted by JMA
Why?
A torso shot with a 7.62mm NATO will certainly knock your man down. Then you finish him off where he was seen to fall. The vast majority of people who take a torso hit will be put out of play. That is what riflemen should be trained to achieve. One accepts that one may inflict only peripheral wounds and that is why you continue to fire into likely cover (Drake Shooting) to ensure that someone (perhaps someone hitherto unseen) skulking is not in a position to take you (or one of your troopies) with them when you close with to kill them.
My sergeant used to explain it using the analogy of a bar fight in that if you need to punch someone in a bar you keep on punching and kicking until his only way out of there is on his back. (Troopies understand this analogy)
The same with combat shooting... you don't just fire off some rounds and then wait to see what will happen. You go for the jugular.. you finish it.
Yes, and that's why you keep of firing (in a controlled manner) until you have cleared the area and are sure not a living thing is out there. Leave nothing to chance.Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.
Final comment: it is difficult enough for most people to shoot accurately in combat (that is to hit someone with a clean shot once let alone twice). When you see him go down (which he will with a hit from 7.62mm NATO) work on the worst case scenario that he took a dive to try and outsmart you... then approach rapidly using sustained and controlled fire and deal with him/them. So what I am saying is that you need to provide your troops with the means to give them the ballistic advantage in combat. To do anything less would be criminal.
Last edited by JMA; 05-27-2012 at 09:40 AM.
The "certainly" is incorrect. The U.S. 7.62 mm bullet was of poor design and barely better than 5.56 mm (not much more than piercing with a rapier if the man was skinny), so personal experiences vary a lot.
Where on the torso could you hit a person where he would not go down?
Doesn't matter. It has been observed many times.
You talk of exceptions. There are always exceptions. You want to provide your soldiers with the best terminal ballistic result at combat ranges. Don't get hung up on semantics.
LWMMG variants
Re-reading the NDIA 2012 notes on the LWMMG for the N-th time made two things very clear. One, the brief is slanted. It exaggerates the range gap by comparing the M240 on its bipod against the M2HB on a tripod (page 5), but tabulates weights for the M240 with tripod against the LWMMG with tripod (page 15).
See http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012armamen...662steimke.pdf
Two and more vitally, the reference to ".338in variant” (page 15) indicates the internal mechanism of the LWMMG can be modified and mated with an appropriate barrel to operate with some calibre(s) other than .338in.
One likely calibre is 7.62mm and especially a magnum cartridge, with 7.62x51mm NATO as a less likely contender. The .338in reference covers both the current 8.59mm NM cartridge and longer cased 8.59mm Lapua. An amateurish effort at mensuration suggests that the LWMMG feedslot might be able to admit something even larger such as a 9.3 or 9.5mm cartridge.
The power of such ammunition would seem too much for a lightweight gun. However it also seems that no-one inside/outside GD is prepared to fully describe what it is intended for and with the LWMMG.
LWMMG and other MGs for infantry squad, platoon and company
My last post fell into a soundless abyss. So here is another attempt to obtain views on what GD Armament and Technical Products is really intending for the one or more ‘variants’ of its LWMMG.
The GDATP brief on the LWMMG at NDIA 2012 featured a somewhat misleading table that tallied weights for the 7.62x51mm M240B, 8.59x63.5mm LWMMG and 12.7x99mm M2HB as tripod-mounted weapon systems. The table ignored on-bipod weights and used different quantities of ammunition - 800 rds with the M240B, 500 rds for the LWMMG and M2HB – because those quantities approximate each gun’s cyclic rate of fire in rounds per minute. That supposed equivalence of 800 and 500 rounds is only sometimes appropriate. Also the tally did not include the weight of the containers/magazines holding each ammunition supply.
Ammunition for a section and platoon level M240B is typically carried in ILCE pouches as free belts of 100 or fewer rounds, or in 100-rd belt bags that can be attached to a bipod-mounted M240B to function as a magazine. The weight of a 100-rd belt (6.6lb) and magazine bag is about 7.1lb and one such bag can be carried in a large ILCE pouch. Alternatively - and especially when the M240B is mounted on a tripod at platoon or company level - ammunition is supplied in strongly constructed metal cans each containing two 100-rd belts of 7.62mm rounds in two cardboard cartons with cloth bandoliers. The metal can has a gross weight of 17lb and is suitable for use as an off-gun magazine.
The GDATP table lists the weight of a 50-rd belt of 8.59x63.5mm Norma Magnum ammunition as about 6lb. The brief also shows a 50-rd soft pouch/bag on the LWMMG. On a pro-rata basis relative to the 7.62mm magazine bag that 8.59mm magazine bag would weigh about 0.45lb empty and hence about 6.45lb gross. On a similar pro-rata basis, an off-gun ammunition can containing 100 rounds of 8.59mm NM ammunition would have a gross weight of about 15.45lb.
Ammunition for a tripod-mounted 12.7x99mm M2HB is usually supplied as a 105 or a 100-rd belt (29lb) in a metal can which has an empty weight of about 6lb. For completeness it is useful to expand the GD table to include the squad level 5.56x45mm M249 LMG. A 100-rd belt of 5.56mm ammunition weighs about 3.2lb and the M249 typically carries a 200-rd magazine bag that has a gross weight of about 6.9lb. As a short-range weapon the M249 is rarely mounted on a tripod.
The above data together with other ammunition and gun parameters (from the NDIA brief and various references) can be used to correct and expand the GDATP table to better inform consideration of the main bipod and tripod-mounted MGs that might be used by infantry units.
MG on Bipod or Tripod .. M249_B . . . . M240B_B . . . M240B_T . . . LWMMG_B . . LWMMG_T. . M2HB_T
Cartridge (mmXmm) . . . 5.56x45 . . . . 7.62x51 . . . . 7.62x51 . . . . 8.59x63.5 . . 8.59x63.5 . . 12.7x99
Projectile wt (gm) . . . . .4 . . . . . . . . .9.5 . . . . . . . .9.5 . . . . . . . 19.4 . . . . . . 19.4 . . . . . . 46
App Rate of fire (spm) . .800 . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . .500 . . . . . . . 500 . . . . . . 525
Muzzle velocity (mps) . . 915 . . . . . . . 850 . . . . . . . 850 . . . . . . .810 . . . . . . . 810 . . . . . . 900
Effective range (m) . . . .500 . . . . . . . 800 . . . . . . . 1100 . . . . . . approx 800 . .1700 . . . . . 1800
Weapon length (in) . . . .42 . . . . . . . .48 . . . . . . . . 48 . . . . . . . . 49 folded . . .49 folded . . 65
Basic weight wt (lb) . . . 15.6 . . . . . . .28 . . . . . . . . 28 . . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . 25 . . . . . . . 84
ACOG sight wt (lb) . . . .. 2.5 . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . . 2.5 . . . . . . 2.5
Spare barrel wt (lb) . . .. 4.6 . . . . . . . 6.6 . . . . . . . . 6.6 . . . . . . . 6.2 . . . . . . . 6.2 . . . . . . 25
Tripod wt (lb) . . . . . . .. na . . . . . . . .na . . . . . . . . .11 . . . . . . . . na . . . . . . . 11 . . . . . . . 44
Ammunition (lb) [rds] . . 27.6 [800] . . 56.8 [800] . . . 68 [800] . . . .64.5 [500] . . 77.3 [500] . . 175 [500]
TOTAL GD+ (lb) [rds] . . 51 [800] . . . .94 [800] . . . . 116 [800] . . . 98 [500] . . . 122 [500] . . . 331 [500]
MG on Bipod or Tripod .. M249_B . . . . M240B_B . . . M240B_T . . . LWMMG_B . . LWMMG_T. . M2HB_T
The above table is focused on suppression and on the duration of fire as approximated by cyclic rate. However for any reasonable standard of accuracy, the lethality inflicted - as opposed to suppression imposed - by ball projectiles on a series of fully or partly exposed area targets increases with the number of rounds fired before those targets obtain cover. The next lines show the system weights of the M249, M240B and LWMMG when each has 800 rounds available.
MG on Bipod or Tripod .. M249_B . . . . M240B_B . . . M240B_T . . . LWMMG_B . . LWMMG_T
TOTAL w800 (lb) . . . . . 51 . . . . . . . . 94 . . . . . . . . 116 . . . . . . . 137 . . . . . . . 168
If NATO adopted 8.59mm NM ammunition and the LWMMG then they could be employed alongside current MGs that fire 5.56, 7.62 and 12.7mm ammunition. Alternatively, 8.59mm NM ammunition might wholly succeed/replace one or more of the current types of ammunition with the LWMMG similarly replacing the corresponding MG or MGs. Various options can be briefly assessed and ranked in a pseudo-math format where: + positive, - negative, +*n strong positive, -*n strong negative, . spacer.
Why pseudo-math ? Here’s an example.
Option 5: 8.59NM LWMMG as special-purpose MG for snipers
+ . light-weight barrel assists portability and is unsuitable for sustained fire
- .. sniper prefer rifles chambered for faster and flatter trajectory 8.59x71 Lapua Magnum
- .. 8.59x63.5 NM would be orphan round
= odds against.
- as opposed to the wordy -
Snipers usually have a choice of several long-range calibres and specialised types of rifle. Also snipers typically use match-grade ammunition that often employs a non-standard cartridge size. Perhaps snipers should be able to additionally select a MG that can fire that same ammunition. Such a MG should be light-weight and compact for ease of carriage and handling into, in and out of a location. However, such specialized MGs are not currently available. Mitigating against any prospective use of the LWMMG by snipers, the initial ‘variant’ (as described by GD) is chambered for the 8.59x63.5mm NM cartridge rather than the 8.59x71mm Lapua Magnum cartridge that has been widely adopted by snipers.
Several options can be briefly considered.
Option 1: 8.59x63.5mm and LWMMG to succeed 7.62x51mm and M240B
+ . 8.59NM & LWMMG harder hitting
+ . 8.59NM & LWMMG longer effective range
-*n. 8.59NM & LWMMG could not effectively replace infantry use of M240B because
. . . 100rd belt of 8.59 in magazine bag (& in ammo can) weighs same as 180rds of 7.62
. . . 8.59NM too powerful for parallel use in infantry rifle, also unsuitable for marksman rifle
. . . LWMMG_B awkwardly long compared to M240B_B
-*n. large expenditure invested in production facilities for 7.62 ammunition
-*n. ditto barrels, receivers and other sub-assemblies for M240B & other 7.62 MGs
= long odds against.
Option 2: 8.59NM and LWMMG to succeed 12.7x99mm and M2HB_T
+ . LWMMG_T is more compact and can be readily used on bipod
+ . also 2ndary use as compact MG on vehicle ring and skate, swing-arm mounts etc
- .. but inappropriate light-weight barrel
- .. 12.7 and M2HB harder hitting
- .. 12.7 and M2HB longer effective range
+*n. LWMMG_T system weighs less than 43% that of M2HB and occupies smaller logistic cube
-*n. large expenditure already invested in 12.7x99 ammo & M2HB & M3 & rotary
= odds against.
Option 3: 8.59NM LWMMG as successor for both M240B and M2HB
-*n as per Option 1, also Option 2
= long odds against.
Option 4: 8.59NM LWMMG alongside 5.56mm M249, 7.62mm M240B and 12.7mm M2HB
-*n . logistical load inherent in supply of four calibres of ammunition in general use
= odds against.
Option 5: 8.59NM LWMMG as special-purpose MG for snipers
+ . light-weight barrel assists portability and is unsuitable for sustained fire
- .. sniper prefer rifles chambered for faster and flatter trajectory 8.59x71 Lapua Magnum
- .. 8.59x63.5 NM would be orphan round
= odds against.
Option 6: 8.59NM LWMMG as MG for vehicles, and subsequently other purposes ?
+. .. 8.59 NM possibly superior to 8.59 Lapua Magnum for vehicle use
- . .. light-weight barrel unsuitable for sustained fire
-*n . logistical load inherent in supply of 3rd calibre of ammunition alongside 7.62 and 12.7
...... as per Option 4
= odds against.
Option 7: 8.59 LWMMG as trojan horse for 7.62 Magnum MG to succeed 7.62x51
+*n. prove soft recoil and ruggedness, then introduce a variant in 7.62 Magnum
. . .. 7.62 Magnum harder hitting and longer-ranged than 7.62x51
. . .. weight differential of 7.62 Magnum ammunition is less extreme than that of 8.59NM
-. 7.62 Magnum too powerful for standard infantry rifle, marginally suitable for marksman rifle
-*n .large expenditure invested in production facilities for 7.62x51 ammunition and barrels
+. some continued use of facilities to produce Magnum barrels etc
+. continue 8.59 variant as prospective MG for vehicles, see Option 6
- . light-weight barrel inappropriate for infantry use and especially vehicles
= marginal but best option so far considered.
None of these options provides a convincing case. It is unlikely that GDATP has gone totally off the rails so I have missed something(s). What is missing ?
LM is x69.2 or x70 NOT x71
Just remembered that Lapua Magnum caselength is 69.2mm sometimes referred to to as x70 mm, rather than 70.2mm which might be referred to as x71.
Infantry platoon-related:
I have rediscovered (dated 2010) and polished a multi-page doc of mine about the infantry platoon assault (modified Stotrupp) including some lines about its movement to contact.
This text won't go public or it might actually not be total nonsense and might thus be useful to the wrong people.
Contact me by PM if you're interested (and think that you're not too much unknown to me) in a read.
backtracking
Due to lack of alternate views on the 8.59mm LWMMG it seems appropriate to change a query of 23 May into a prediction: LWMMG is intended as a MG for sniper teams. After all US snipers do not currently employ many rifles chambered for the 250 grain 8.59mm Lapua Magnum. So assuming a US military intention that its 8.59mm sniper rifles will in future be standardized on the shorter cased 300 grain Norma Magnum cartridge, the LWMMG and its lightweight ‘Norma Magnum’ barrel make reasonable sense.
One associated development is that US snipers and also marksmen will possibly cease using 7.62mm Magnum (.308 Winchester Magnum) rifles. More importantly it suggests substantial changes in sniper doctrine and operations.
the tool ≠ the craftsman ≠ the job
The option of a single weapon well-suited for use by snipers, designated marksmen, and machine gunners could be a very good thing. But it could be a very bad thing if that leads the three roles to be bundled.
If you don’t read the newspaper, you are uninformed; if you do read the newspaper, you are misinformed. – Mark Twain (attributed)
re: original article
New to the forum, love this kind of discussion. I will admit that I have not read every post in the threat, but I am primarily interested in commenting on the original article and discussion of platoon weapons and weight.
I am a former Parachute Regiment officer and one time platoon commander. I find the article very interesting and well informed and I think this discussion is worthwhile. I remember internally within the Regiment there were several discussions about reorganizing the fire team, section and platoon concept. I have a slightly different approach in regards to what the author proposes:
I am loathe to move to an IW system that gives up the ability to reach out at ranges beyond 200. I think that the enemy should be engaged at the greatest range possible to touch them before they can touch you, and we need the capability to do so, even if statistics say that most SAF engagements take place within 200 meters. Let's not give up the ability to shoot!
Weight is definitely an issue for an infantryman, but I don't think we should reduce capability by saving weight on weapons systems. Currently there is a tendency for an infantryman to be a "turtle" with so much armor and equipment that he loses mobility. I would propose that within budget contraints we save weight in other areas of equipment such as body armor, radios, batteries, ECM equipment, utilizing better technology to reduce weight. Body armor is a prime example. I would happily save weight in that area so I could carry bigger weapons and more ammo!
I like the 8 man section/squad concept. In order to be able to maneuver effectively the two fireteams need to be balanced and mobile. I am a fan of the use of the SAW/minimi one per fireteam, the other weapon systems being an accurate IW such as the SA80 A2 or the M4. One of those per team should have an UGL mounted. I think this is the ideal situation. The SAW can be used at both long and short ranges and can generate effective and accurate morale boosting firepower that will help facilitate suppression and movement.
The "Gun"! GPMG/MAG/240B. Excellent. Nothing better than the beat of the gun in fire support. We are talking about platoon weapons so the discussion does not just rest at section level. I used to utilize amended platoon battle drills involving having one or two GPMG gun teams held at platoon level to allow me to influence the battle. With current technology this could take the form of a fourth fire support section at platoon level (this was discussed, not sure what happened to it, writing from the US). This could consist of suitable weapons such as the GPMG and grenade launchers or similar, which would also negate the need for the 51mm mortar, or you could include that in the new fire support section or leave it with the platoon sergeant. Don't forget the utility of ATVs for dismounted operations and the carriage of heavy crew served weapons and ammunition, in appropriate circumstances.
The Parachute Regiment routinely carried the GPMG at section level. If there are a couple of two man gun groups at platoon level, or a fire support section, then this allows the platoon commander to either deploy them to support by fire at a platoon level, or attach a gun group to a section for specific operations, perhaps detached from the platoon, making a ten man section.
I'm glad this debate is still going, it suddenly popped back in to my mind a few weeks ago.
I cant help but feel most of the arguments against this article have missed the point.
It could of course just be lack of knowledge on my part showing itself, but isnt the point that a GPMG (or MGL, or DMR, or ect) by itself is more "effective" than four conventional individual weapons?
The three PDWs in a section are not as effective as three more conventional IWs, but is anyone claiming otherwise?
Add in a fourth IW, and a GPMG however, and since the GPMG can outshoot the four IWs anyway (right?), the three PDWs are just a cherry on top.
--------------------
I know nothing
An open secret is that many riflemen in post-1914 infantry organisations were/are in fact porters with a self-defence weapon. You can increase a small unit's technical firepower by replacing rifleman with an additional GPMG (it was done in '45 with Panzergrenadier squads that had 2 MG 42, and it is similar to the choice of 2 light machineguns / "SAW"s), but this comes at a price.
A ceteris paribus change of that kind ("all else equal" means you lack porters, or worse - you equipped a porter-minded soldier with a crew-served weapon.
TRT; you know a certain blog where this was already mentioned.
Last edited by Fuchs; 10-06-2012 at 06:37 PM.
more backtracking
Although some US marksmen have been using 7.62mm Magnum rifles there is hopefully no prospect of their being issued 8.59mm rifles. Believe a marksman as member of an infantry squad should be almost invariably armed with a weapon that fires the same ammunition - either 7.62mm NATO or possibly 5.56mm NATO - already used within the squad or platoon, and issued with match-grade rounds when available. It is also unlikely that any army would routinely weigh down a marksman or sharpshooter with an extended-range weapon weighing more than 10kg.
Contrastingly a strong argument that can be made for common but distinctive and non-‘bundled’ use of an extended-range MG by infantry companies when fitted with a ‘heavy barrel’, and by sniper teams with a ‘light barrel’.
My small army viewpoint is that 8.59mm is an awkward calibre for general use and inferior to a modern 7.62mm magnum cartridge such as the Winchester Short Magnum. However, thinking long and hard about the above post indicates that another viewpoint could see awkwardness as a goal and as justification. And if GD’s basic LWMMG proves to be both reliable and robust then it could in 8.59mm become a real goer for a large army.
Possibly some corporate or other has been reading Machiavelli and caused GD to seek multi-mode overmatch with its 8.59mm MG. The justification being that an opposing force with less capable logistics would be unable to field and support a large number of an extended-range MG intermediate between the usual 7.62mm and 12.7mm varieties. A possible response or reaction to that would be to succeed/replace a 12.7mm cartridge and MG by something a bit smaller and more portable that would nonetheless over-match an 8.59mm MG. However such a cartridge and MG would be in some ways inferior to the 12.7mm M2/M3 Browning and especially one with SLAP-type ammunition.
Ultimately the question of 8.59mm is just another iteration of the problem that affects infantry: how to rationalise and employ to advantage some family of modern rifle/MG calibres and cartridges. And it is finally apparent that small army and large army viewpoints could be very different.
The January 28, 2013 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page DT5 has this to say about one of the reasons the British Army recently decided to replace the Browning High Power with the Glock 17 pistol, "...the sliding fire mechanism means less recoil, allowing greater accuracy when shooting at a higher cadence...".
So that is why those things are designed like that.
(I wonder how Ian Hogg would have responded to that statement.)
Last edited by carl; 03-04-2013 at 09:16 PM.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
8.59mm LWMMG
All4shooters website has recently added a well-assembled summary on GDs LWMMG.
See http://www.all4shooters.com/en/news/...rosatory-2014/
An accompanying video shows muzzle jump off the lightweight tripod and also vehicle mounts, but seemingly less off the bipod. The apparent lack of success on the sales front might be partly explained by a lack of linear attachment buffers or by a need for some heavier form of softmounting.
I sense the spirit of John Moses Browning spinning in his grave every time I read that sentence.
I see merit in having light machine guns and precision rifles in a common calibre, but only in the sense that in an emergency, the precision rifleman might have a source of ammunition in lieu of what would always be high-cost, high precision equivalents. I can't imagine an infantry platoon would enjoy humping a belt-fed .338 instead of a 7.62x51mm.
The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.
Brit Army revealed intention to test 40x46 Extended Range and compatible ammunition back in Oct 2013. See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOT...3:TEXT:EN:HTML
Meanwhile US Army has seemed with little publicity to be perservering with XM-25. Junior members of ABCA may have been simply waiting a decision or decisions by the seniors.
However it is worth noting that on 12 Sep 2013 Australian Munitions – a subsidiary of Thales - released a media statement regarding an agreement with STK of Singapore “ to cooperate in Australia and New Zealand for the development, manufacturing and marketing of ST Kinetics’ world-leading 40mm low velocity, extended range, and air bursting ammunition. " http://www.australian-munitions.com....0Australia.pdf
Six weeks later on 22 October 2013 STK announced sale of 40mm HV ammunition to Canada, and also that STK 40mm LV airburst (possibly LV/ER airburst) ammunition had been selected for the US Army Foreign Comparative Testing program. http://www.stengg.com/press-centre/p...40mm-solutions
Have not found any recent internet mention of ABCA interest in 40x46mm LV/ER or 40x51mm MV ammunition.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks