Platoon Weapons

[Fuchs]

Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?

Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.

Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.

The only thing that instantly kills is a hit to the central nervous system (including brain). Additionally, cutting the bone and/or nerve bundle in a leg drops a man and cutting the same in the weapon-wielding arm keeps him from returning fire.
All else is unreliable.

[ganulv]

Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please? […] Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.

But it can potentially induce a sudden change in blood pressure. [1] [2]

[Ken White]

Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?

Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.

True and not true. On the true, I've seen a guy with a 76mm (that's not a typo) round in his chest walk a couple of hundred meters to an aid station. I've seen a Viet Namese paratrooper with a live 40mm grenade in his abdomen get that removed at another aid station. I've also seen people take multiple .30 Cal (not 7.62, .30-06) hits and keep fighting, I've seen 7.62mm SMG rounds not even slow people down -- albeit briefly in both cases. Long story short, the human body is amazingly resilient -- and amazingly unpredictable. In the not true aspect, I've seen people die from innocuous things, minor wounds that frightened the wounded person too badly, A grenade fragment the Medics missed because it went up a nostril...

More importantly and pertinent, I' ve seen a great many knocked down or off balance or just frightened and thus taken out of action -- they were effectively 'stopped' though not dead. One memorable incident was a Chinese gentleman who was hit high in the right shoulder by one .30 round and who was partially turned but not 'knocked down' by the impact, who dropped his weapon and departed the area at a rapid run, screaming and holding his shoulder. He wasn't dead but he was stopped...

Combat is unpredictable and there are few 'rules' that are inviolate. That's why I wrote in the post that started thus sub thread: "...the issue is whether one wants a usually man stopping cartridge or a usually lightly wounding, rarely man stopping cartridge" (emphasis added / kw). Notice the phrasing; "man stopping" is NOT the same thing as "knock down" or even more so, fatal. Fatal was neither stated nor implied. Stopping is stopping and dissuasion or deterrence counts as much as death -- and are far easier to obtain.

Most lethal pistol hits are lethal because of bleeding, and no matter how big the hole in your leg or stomach, it cannot drain the blood from your arm instantly.

That's law enforcement and 'study' talk. While it's mostly true if a big slug hits you in the arm, you may or may not want to or be able to use that arm -- if you can't or won't use it, you are effectively, for combat purposes, stopped --as were almost all those folks I mentioned above. One also can be knocked off balance or simply diverted from further action, however briefly thus allowing a more decisive hit or another action (the Chinese gentleman cited above was while departing struck in the back with several more .30 bullets from a nearby BAR, causing his permanent removal from the rolls of combat effectives...). Lethal is nice but not always possible or necessary, stopping (impeding, diverting or deterring) is possible far more often and can be temporarily effective -- that's often good enough.

The only thing that instantly kills is a hit to the central nervous system (including brain).[

Not true (define instant... ). A brain stem nick introducing blood will kill just as quickly; a kidney hit is almost as quick (2 seconds on average, they say...) and as Ganulv mentioned an arterial strike can have a very rapid effect. An arterial hit in a limb or the thorax at the precise instant of systolic pressure can rupture heart or brain feeds. Cutting off the oxygen supply to that nervous system / brain by destroying lungs or the larynx is also fairly fast and can under some circumstances be instantly fatal. To corrupt a word, too many variables in human / animal physiognomy / physiology / metabolism / mental processing / state of rest or lack thereof (all aspects in all cases) and conditions for 'rules.' For example, while your next statement is true, it is also true that shredded or badly torn muscles and ligaments do not work well...

Additionally, cutting the bone and/or nerve bundle in a leg drops a man and cutting the same in the weapon-wielding arm keeps him from returning fire. All else is unreliable.

Yes, it is unreliable -- virtually everything in combat is unreliable, but do the math, Economist; the odds favor mass and energy.

[carl]

Man-stopping sounds good, especially when you add enough qualifiers, but I reject it because there is no uniformly quantifiable "man" to be stopped. What stops one guy won't slow down another. So man-stopper is meaningless.

Pistol rounds are second best. Probably, all things being equal, a pistol round that is 1 whopping mm. bigger and somewhat faster than another pistol round will be do more damage. Physics is physics, it has more energy to impart. But whether that marginal advantage is worth the trouble of complicating your logistics is another matter. I figure it ain't worth it. You figure it is. One of the reasons is I don't figure it is worth it is because I don't think we actually have so many ammo types floating around that it is funny, if you disregard the spec ops types. In my limited view I see the lousy M-9, 9mm bullet, NATO standard (I think). It may be a minor advantage, but an advantage nevertheless that when working next to a NATO ally and he runs out of pistol ammo you can give him some and it will fit his pistols, and vice versa.

If a pilot is down, he is running or hiding for his life. I suppose it is conceivable that a 10mm pistol rather than a 9mm pistol will make the critical difference but I don't think it is worth the trouble for that 1 in a (pick any big big number) occasion. Same with the officers, missile gunners (if Patriot crews have to depend on 1mm of pistol bore, things are worse than they think) and the others mentioned. These are just pistols. If some guy is set on 10mm, he can buy it and carry it. I don't see retooling the factories for a pistol round.

You were kidding when you said this about pistol rounds right?

"True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement."

P.S. If we were really serious about increasing the effectiveness of a pistol round, we would be talking about expanding rounds. But those aren't going to be fielded.

[Ken White]

Man-stopping sounds good, especially when you add enough qualifiers, but I reject it because there is no uniformly quantifiable "man" to be stopped. What stops one guy won't slow down another. So man-stopper is meaningless.

Your rejection is noted with a smile but the phrase isn't meaningless if the opponent is halted, stopped, deterred or whatever.

...But whether that marginal advantage is worth the trouble of complicating your logistics is another matter. I figure it ain't worth it. You figure it is.

Not exactly, I figure it's a consideration IF this whole thread was more than the conjecture and idle thought that it is.

One of the reasons is I don't figure it is worth it is because I don't think we actually have so many ammo types floating around that it is funny, if you disregard the spec ops types.

You need to get out more. If you mean calibers, you're right but you'd be amazed at the number of types within a given caliber...

These are just pistols.

True and they're going to be secondary armament for most -- but that doesn't mean accepting less than optimum is desirable.

If some guy is set on 10mm, he can buy it and carry it.

Not in the modern Yankee Army, that's frowned on excpet in a few units. Very few...

I don't see retooling the factories for a pistol round.

Nor do I and I didn't suggest that; I merely said that a potent 10mm round is better than a moderate 9mm round.

You were kidding when you said this about pistol rounds right?

"True -- that's why they need one that will work regardless of shot placement."

Yes -- and no. As I wrote, ideal shot placement isn't always possible, a better caliber would enhance the possibility of stopping an opponent -- that's true of the 9mm -- and of the 5.56 and, in view of the .338, of it as opposed to a 7.62. As you said, physics.

P.S. If we were really serious about increasing the effectiveness of a pistol round, we would be talking about expanding rounds. But those aren't going to be fielded.

Of course not, the folks in Geneva get upset, the ICRC would have a cat fit...

Ideally as you mentioned, no pistols -- however, the need for portability and psychological support intrudes. Reality is so-o-o- annoying...

[JMA]

Could we skip the "knock down" nonsense, please?

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.

Even multiple 7.62 GPMG hits do not 100% ensure that a man doesn't return fire any more.

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.

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.

[Fuchs]

Why?

A torso shot with a 7.62mm NATO will certainly knock your man down.

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.

[JMA]

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?

[Fuchs]

Doesn't matter. It has been observed many times.

[JMA]

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.

[Compost]

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.

[Fuchs]

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.

[Compost]

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.

[ganulv]

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 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.

[Compost]

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.

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.

[carl]

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.)

[max velocity]

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.

[TheRagingTory]

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.

[Fuchs]

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?

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.