Platoon Weapons

[William F. Owen]

However, 5.56 just stinks against even light barrier material. And I challenge you to maneuver either the GPMG OR the Sniper Rifle in CQB in order to deliver projectiles on a target behind a light to medium barrier.

1. The performance of 5.56mm is always up for grabs. I judge SS109 derived rounds to be pretty good, for suppression and engaging targets in the open. If I want to punch up some cover then 7.62mm or HE is a better choice. All very obvious.

2. I wouldn't even try to maneuver a GPMG or Sniper rifle in CQB, except as part of a 3-5 man team and supported by another team doing the recce. EG - Recce team clears the building and then calls up the weapons teams so as they can use their weapons against the enemy in the next building.

[120mm]

1. The performance of 5.56mm is always up for grabs. I judge SS109 derived rounds to be pretty good, for suppression and engaging targets in the open. If I want to punch up some cover then 7.62mm or HE is a better choice. All very obvious.

2. I wouldn't even try to maneuver a GPMG or Sniper rifle in CQB, except as part of a 3-5 man team and supported by another team doing the recce. EG - Recce team clears the building and then calls up the weapons teams so as they can use their weapons against the enemy in the next building.

I'd think the obvious problem with what you suggest would be the non-linear nature of urban combat. Sooner or later, the "whackamole" pops up where you don't expect him.

To be sure, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here, but I've heard from some folks who've used the admittedly problematic M14 to good effect in towns to punch through barriers using reflexive fire in CQB.

[William F. Owen]

I'd think the obvious problem with what you suggest would be the non-linear nature of urban combat. Sooner or later, the "whackamole" pops up where you don't expect him.

To be sure, I'm playing "devil's advocate" here, but I've heard from some folks who've used the admittedly problematic M14 to good effect in towns to punch through barriers using reflexive fire in CQB.

But the "whackamole" is inherent to warfare. No technique will defeat him, except being generally better at what you do than he is. The "Recce finds places for weapons" is one of the few tactical concepts I see that seems to keep working time and again. It is often misrepresented as fire and manoeuvre.

As concerns the M14, I guess this begs the question, how many 7.62mm 20-inch barrelled semi-automatic rifles do you need in a platoon?

[120mm]

Okay, I finally broke down and read the article. I'm with you, until you advocate the 5.7 x 28mm and other PCOW rounds.

Frankly, those things are worse than worthless. Want your infantry to be effective? Give your enemies plenty of 5.7 x 28mm ammo and the required weapons. I have a police officer friend whose department adopted the FN5.7 pistol, and they have had ZERO luck with actually stopping a bad guy with that particular "tickle gun". Here's a quote: "Stop shooting me with that g-d-mned gun or I'm gonna get pissed off!"

EVERYTHING I've read, seen or discussed with OIF vets indicate the need for more lethal short-ranged ammo. Not more whiz-bang NATO fast-small b.s..

Again, this is more of the same "statistical firefight" stuff. So, by your reckoning, 20% of the time you're SOL???

[William F. Owen]

1. Okay, I finally broke down and read the article.

2. I'm with you, until you advocate the 5.7 x 28mm and other PCOW rounds.

3. Again, this is more of the same "statistical firefight" stuff. So, by your reckoning, 20% of the time you're SOL???

Where to begin?

1. OK, you read the article. Thank you.

2. I advocate making better use of the carried load. Nowhere do I say, "give everyone 5.7 or 4.6 weapons". When I was a young radio operator and Number 1 on the Carl Gustav, I had a Sterling SMG, with 3 x 30 round magazines. 4.6mm and even 5.7mm weapons are generally more effective in terms of measurable criteria (CRISAT performance and PERMANENT wound channel) than 9mm SMGs. Is it better to carry more 7.62mm link for the M-240 and 40mm HE, for the MGL, or carry a Thermal weapons sight than lug 30 round magazines for a 5.56mm weapon, that 90% of soldiers cannot use effectively under pressure.

3. Never heard of a statistical fire fight, but I am pretty up on light weapons operational analysis. If you can't measure it, it can't be improved. (Which is where scaling 6.5mm across the platoon 'seems' to fall down) What is "effective range" etc. What we know from trials is that soldiers under stress perform some 75% less accurately, than when not. No amount of training seems to correct this.

Now I am not coming down on any one side here, but we need to stop saying things like "all PDWs are crap" and start doing real trials and measurements. Some folks have done the work and their conclusions are instructive. The P-90 and MP-7 have both been used in combat. I have talked to folks who are equipped with both weapons and neither seems to have a problem with it, in the role they use it.

...other wise just give everyone M4s chambered with 6.5mm and suck up the extra weight, based on the opinions rather than data.

[Distiller]

One should think that with current ops going on in Iraq & -stan it shouldn't be too difficult to equip a few units with non-standard calibers and simply find out!

And isn't it, that a soldier's confidence in his weapon influences the way he uses it?

Funny that "the other side" never seems to have gripes about what caliber to use, even as the composition and fire power of our side changes.

[William F. Owen]

One should think that with current ops going on in Iraq & -stan it shouldn't be too difficult to equip a few units with non-standard calibers and simply find out!

And isn't it, that a soldier's confidence in his weapon influences the way he uses it?

Funny that "the other side" never seems to have gripes about what caliber to use, even as the composition and fire power of our side changes.

All the evidence suggests that soldiers confidence in their weapons is a product of the way they use it, and not the other way around as you suggest. EG:- They observe the effect of their weapon, and make a series of what can be flawed judgements

The key is education. Take them out on the field firing range and show them, using acoustic and sensor based targets, what can and can't be done.

[120mm]

My initial, and lasting negative reaction is something I trust. We could deconstruct it, if you like, and approach it a different way.

A soldier's IW is a confidence-building tool, and provides emotional security, as well as being a tool for fighting. Dismissing the soldiers' concerns based upon whatever trivia that can be gathered, scientific or not, is the "anti-leader" thing to do.

We have lots of relevant data: WWII USSR and Korean War-era Chinese/North Korean forces made substantial use of very ballistically similar 7.62 x 25mm submachinegun rounds. And units equipped with light weapons like this, did pretty well combined with heavier support weapons. However, there is also lots of data which suggest the round was not an effective incapacitator.

But here's some US Army reality for you:

The rollout of the PDW will be flawed. Training will be flawed. Funds for the sensors and "acoustic targets" will not be produced, (And soldiers will not believe "sensors" anyway) and NCOs who do not believe in the PDW concept will run the training. And the soldier will rightfully decide that the PDW is a piece of crap only good for letting the bad guys know where he is, so they can come kill him. (Which will happen, just often enough to shatter whatever confidence you think can be built up around more lightly armed troops)

I question the need to save weight by making the bullets smaller. History shows that "Army Leaders" will only make the soldier carry more crap, because they "don't have to carry heavy bullets anymore." Just look at how soldier loadouts went UP when changing from the M14 to the M16.

I think your concept makes some assumptions about reality, which cannot be easily proven by arranging neat and simple "facts."

[JonathanF]

Hi all - just a layman (museum worker) here really, but from everything I've read the small PDW calibres are woefully inadequate both anecdotally, and in ballistic gel. So I was confused to read William Owen's RUSI article suggesting adoption of 4.6 or 5.7mm weapons, and his comments here regarding the NATO data.

Can I confirm Wilf (if I may) that you saw the post by DocGKR on the Lightfighter forum link you were given earlier in this thread?

http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a...102#4131082102

How do you reconcile that data with what you have (and I admit that I have seen none of your data - I'm genuinely interested in how two so different assessments of the same round (5.7mm) can emerge, bearing in mind that you do support the validity of ballistic gel tests.

Look forward to your reply, but quite understand if you're too preoccupied (and also that this isn't really the thrust of your RUSI article - but it's an aspect that stuck out for me.)

[William F. Owen]

How do you reconcile that data with what you have (and I admit that I have seen none of your data - I'm genuinely interested in how two so different assessments of the same round (5.7mm) can emerge, bearing in mind that you do support the validity of ballistic gel tests.

Look forward to your reply, but quite understand if you're too preoccupied (and also that this isn't really the thrust of your RUSI article - but it's an aspect that stuck out for me.)

Hey Jonathan F! Very happy to take time to reply.

No, I haven't been able to access the link, but its most likely immaterial.
There is a massive hoplophile inspired bug fight over PDWs and small calibre rounds, that has nothing to do with operational reality - in my view - and has not been tested in that regard.

Testing the rounds is easy. We can measure their terminal effect on targets. The problem is that no one can agree on the most desirable effects. My contention is that we are missing the point. (I also speak direct to both FN and Heckler Koch's - so I ignore most of what is on the net)

What my RUSI article was suggesting was that we trade IW weight for sensors, support weapon, and projected HE weight. EG- The things we know create greatest benefit in dismounted operations. The article was intended to be provocative, but has sparked little useful debate, except here!