Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article

[stanc]

Whoever is writing this is obviously out-of-touch with what it takes to achieve hits at 800m...

I will only say that achieving hits at 800 meters is not quite the same as being able to engage the target.

...and how a cartridge/rifle system capable of that is a liability at the 8m range.

It would certainly not be ideal for such close distances, but the fact that it's been done in the past, with bigger, heavier, more powerful cartridge/rifle systems, indicates to me it's not a great liability.

Even among the infantry squad, there are weapons capable of reaching out to 800m, where a rifleman can't even see a target unless he's using optics.

Other than Javelin, which is carried in very small numbers (one? two?) by a dismounted infantry squad, what is there?

The statements are made as if riflemen are the only soldiers on the battlefield.

I'd say it's made in recognition of riflemen being the most numerous soldiers on the battlefield.

It would be interesting to poll riflemen to find out if they would prefer to stick with 5.56 for its CQB superiority, or switch to a somewhat more powerful cartridge like 6.5 Grendel.

[JASmith]

So, going to the platoon adds the M240 and the AT weapons.

I've heard that folks frequently have to get permission from "higher" to use the AT weapons. Is this because they cost so much, or because the ROE are getting sensitive to collateral damage as Tony has indicated?

Thanks!

[stanc]

Air and artillery are always there...

Tell that to the Marines. If you watch this video of the battle for Marjah, you'll see the majority of their requests for artillery and air strikes were either denied by higher, or cancelled by the unit for lack of timely approval.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zBZWGKJJY

[LRRPF52]

The SAW is an 800m weapon for area targets, as are DM weapons for suppression. A 7.62 DMR with a well-trained shooter in lower winds can be an effective 800m weapon if he uses someone to spot for him with capable optics.

As far as riflemen go, many will be awe-stricken at the thought of something new or cool, until they have to carry it. (Surveying 1st-term riflemen is not a good way to determine caliber appropriateness, as they have a very limited understanding of their role in the big picture.) Then anything heavier than 5.56 will become an albatross real quick, and buyer's remorse will occur within the 1st few minutes of a field exercise with it if it is adopted for all riflemen. The bean-counters will see quickly how dismounted and even mounted units are requiring re-supplies more often, and have significantly reduced combat endurance compared to what we have now with 5.56, and it will be back to the M60/M14 fiasco all over again.

The 5.56 is not just superior at CQB distances, but out to 150m, where most riflemen engagements will occur. For the 300m-800m distances, it would be an advantage to have DMR's and LMG's with something roughly equating 7.62 NATO capabilities, with less weight and recoil, from lighter platforms than the SAW and M14EBR or M110 SASS. An 18" Grendel SPR/DMR would weigh less than even a 5.56 SPR with the same barrel length/profile, so we just need a new LMG that weighs half of what a SAW does. That is the main code to crack, as I would lean towards a 5.56 SPR with the 77gr or maybe even a different projectile suited to better performance at 700yds, and still cross-compatible with the riflemen in the squad carrying M4A1 SOPMOD Block II's.

I would also like to see lightweight barrel M4 Mk18 CQBR-type blasters for the FO, RTO, PL, PSG, SL, Combat Medic, and others who are in leadership or direct support duty positions that only require them to engage targets with their carbine in a worst-case, getting overrun type scenario. An 11.5" barrel would be better in that regard, but a smaller, lighter carbine without the leftovers from the M16A2, like the heavy forend barrel.

Either way, the new LMG needs to be the primary focus, as that is the weak point right now.

[LRRPF52]

After Obama took office, indirect and CAS requests took on a whole new ROE sequence, which was politically structured to result in "DENIED" more than not. Soldiers can expect to see thses types of rulings from the CinC when a new President takes over, like when Nixon came in for 1969, and restrictions were lifted in many cases, and there was more of a full court press from the White House regarding bombing the North, which Johnson's admin had severly restricted with all types of crazy ROE.

[stanc]

As far as riflemen go, many will be awe-stricken at the thought of something new or cool, until they have to carry it. (Surveying 1st-term riflemen is not a good way to determine caliber appropriateness, as they have a very limited understanding of their role in the big picture.)

Simple solution: omit 1st-termers from the survey.

Then anything heavier than 5.56 will become an albatross real quick, and buyer's remorse will occur within the 1st few minutes of a field exercise with it if it is adopted for all riflemen.

That depends on how much heavier. You have 5.56 and 6.5 carbines -- do you consider the Grendel carbine to be so much heavier (if it is heavier) as to be an albatross?

The bean-counters will see quickly how dismounted and even mounted units are requiring re-supplies more often, and have significantly reduced combat endurance compared to what we have now with 5.56...

That assumes intermediate-caliber ammo would be expended at the same rate, which may not hold true.

The 5.56 is not just superior at CQB distances, but out to 150m, where most riflemen engagements will occur. For the 300m-800m distances, it would be an advantage to have DMR's and LMG's with something roughly equating 7.62 NATO capabilities, with less weight and recoil, from lighter platforms than the SAW and M14EBR or M110 SASS.

So the choice is:

a. Have the rifle cartridge optimized for the close fight, which makes only the two SAW gunners (and the DM, if there is one) adequately armed for long range engagements.

b. Have a rifle/SAW cartridge that makes all squad members adequately armed for both the close fight and long range engagements.

Either way, the new LMG needs to be the primary focus, as that is the weak point right now.

I agree. The question is, what's the best option?

[LRRPF52]

Grendel carbines themselves would be lighter slightly, due to bore diameter. It's the ammo I'm talking about.

The choices are:

a. Keep the 5.56 NATO, which is optimized for 0-400m from mag-fed carbines, AND adopting a high performance belt-fed LMG/cartridge system that increases the LMG penetration capability in the close fight, while extending the effective range of the Squad-level gunners further for point target and distance penetration. The new DMR or SASS could also be chambered in the LMG cartridge as well, but they would have different packaging and loads, with an accurate match load for the precision guns. The new TO&E includes a DMR in the B Fire Team, so that is 3 out of 9 guys who can provide longer-range fire, which is plenty for a unit that small.

b. Going with a universal caliber: This will hinder maneuverability, shot recovery for Joe tentpeg, reduce marksmanship qualification scores and proficiency-especially in CQM, and reduce combat endurance of the Infantry Squad, Platoon, & Company...assuming soldiers will pull the trigger as soldiers do under combat conditions. Even if Joe Tentpeg had an 800m capable weapon, he would need considerable training on compensating for wind to make a hit under those conditions, and that's with a perfect elevation figure already plugged into the optic. It basically solves a problem that doesn't exist.

[stanc]

What about the assertion that "it is bad for morale when troops are unable to respond effectively with their [5.56] rifles on half the occasions when they come under fire"?

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf

[LRRPF52]

What about the assertion that "it is bad for morale when troops are unable to respond effectively with their [5.56] rifles on half the occasions when they come under fire"?

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf

One of the problems with the British perspective is that they don't really use 5.56 NATO as we understand it, unless something has changed with the logistics chain. What I mean by that is that they found out early on with the L85 being the substandard weapon that it is, simply can't take the pressures of M193 or M855 loaded to the pressures that we're used to in the AR15 family, so the UK manufactures a lower power load, that supposedly only reaches between 2700 and 2800fps, even from the 20" L85. This was done to increase the service life of the weapons to an acceptable level. That's 100-200fps slower than a 14.5" M4 carbine.

Another statement we commonly hear about 5.56 is that it relies on yaw to cause the tissue damage that the Small Caliber High Velocity concept called for and delivered with the AR15. The tissue damage is really more of a factor of a thin jacketed projectile impacting at over 2600fps on the target. At those speeds, it doesn't really matter how a thin-jacketed, light bullet is oriented, because it will shed its jacket and come apart violently.

Looking at these clarifications, you can start to see how there might be a perfect storm for UK soldiers to see significantly-reduced performance from their 5.56 weapons. If they're only getting 2700fps mv, what is the impact velocity on a person at 200m? It certainly isn't 2600fps, which is often cited at the fragementation threshold of M193 and M855.

When it comes to the individual service rifle, I think the UK made a huge and costly mistake that they're continuing to pay for to this day with the L85 fiasco, and the fact that the SAS & SBS use Colt Commando variants as their main service weapon screams volumes to that assertion.

I am in total agreement that 5.56 does not make an ideal LMG cartridge for the Infantry Squad.

I am also in agreement that 5.56 isn't ideal for engaging targets out past 400m, and is marginal in the hands of untrained soldiers from 200-400m.

We already know that 7.62 NATO is not the answer, but neither is getting rid of 5.56, which is why I have been advocating the 2-caliber system of 5.56, a 6.5 grendel LMG, and a 6.5 Grendel DMR/SASS.

That said, we can't blame the extended distance limitations on low-powered 5.56 and crappy weapons alone.

I would like to see some citations for sources of complaints from British Infantry Units, to get a better idea if this is a solution looking for a problem, a widespread feeling among infantrymen, or a few anecdotal comments from guys looking to be important.

If the UK does adopt a larger cartridge, the Bullpup will have to go, unless they find a reliable way to pack 30rds into a smaller space. The LMT 7.62 MRP would be much better in Grendel, as would the LMG's.

[Tony Williams]

What I mean by that is that they found out early on with the L85 being the substandard weapon that it is, simply can't take the pressures of M193 or M855 loaded to the pressures that we're used to in the AR15 family, so the UK manufactures a lower power load, that supposedly only reaches between 2700 and 2800fps, even from the 20" L85. This was done to increase the service life of the weapons to an acceptable level. That's 100-200fps slower than a 14.5" M4 carbine.

I think this is an urban myth. I have heard many complaints about the SA80, but a weak action is not one of them. RG do make two lines of 5.56mm ammo, one for SA80 and one for AR-15, but the quoted muzzle velocities are identical. The difference is to do with the pressure characteristics, not the maximum pressure. Despite NATO "standardisation" it is clear that nations tend to fine-tune their ammo to perform best in their guns, and it may not work so well in other guns. This is revealed by a first-hand account I received from a soldier involved in testing the improved SA80A2, as follows:

"The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines."

Another statement we commonly hear about 5.56 is that it relies on yaw to cause the tissue damage that the Small Caliber High Velocity concept called for and delivered with the AR15. The tissue damage is really more of a factor of a thin jacketed projectile impacting at over 2600fps on the target. At those speeds, it doesn't really matter how a thin-jacketed, light bullet is oriented, because it will shed its jacket and come apart violently.

The main US criticism of the terminal effectiveness of 5.56mm M855 is that unless it is yawing by 3+ degrees on impact, it will not upset rapidly in a body but will punch a neat hole straight through. On testing in ballistic gel, it was found that 70% of bullets did not start to yaw until at least 4.7 inches after impact, and 15% didn't yaw at all.

When it comes to the individual service rifle, I think the UK made a huge and costly mistake that they're continuing to pay for to this day with the L85 fiasco, and the fact that the SAS & SBS use Colt Commando variants as their main service weapon screams volumes to that assertion.

Yes, they did indeed make a big mistake, although the A2 version of the gun is now reliable - rather more so than the M4, as shown not just by British tests. I was just reading some comments by experienced MARSOC NCOs who have returned from combat and are now involved in training, and they were critical of the M4's reliability in adverse conditions. The British should have adopted the Steyr AUG (as some of those involved at the time wanted, but nationalism won out).

As far as British special forces are concerned, there are several reasons why they didn't adopt the L85 (although they did acquire some L86A2). First, they were using members of the AR-15 family in the mid-1960s, 20 years before the SA80 was available, so they became totally familiar with the system. Second, the L85A1 was unreliable. Third, the L85A1 (and initially the L85A2 as well) had no provision for adding accessories - no P-rails etc. Fourth, even with the latest L85A2 fitted with P-rails, the ergonomics are poor and the gun is very heavy - not what the high-speed low-drag folks want.

I would like to see some citations for sources of complaints from British Infantry Units, to get a better idea if this is a solution looking for a problem, a widespread feeling among infantrymen, or a few anecdotal comments from guys looking to be important.

My colleague, a former infantry officer, interviewed several hundred British soldiers to discover their views about their small arms and ammunition. There was also a similar recent study (not publically available) by the Royal Marines. The conclusions are that the soldiers are primarily concerned about the lack of effective range of the 5.56mm (whatever it's fired in) and also by the lack of barrier penetration and unreliable terminal effectiveness. At least half the Marines said that if they had to choose between 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles, they'd choose 7.62mm (although they'd prefer something in between).

If the UK does adopt a larger cartridge, the Bullpup will have to go, unless they find a reliable way to pack 30rds into a smaller space.

Why 30 rounds? 25 seems reasonable. However, since it is clear that the British are going to buy-in their next rifle, and are likely to favour something off-the-shelf from HK, FN or Colt, it will almost inevitably not be a bullpup (they don't like the control system of the FN F2000).

The LMT 7.62 MRP would be much better in Grendel, as would the LMG's.

Agreed!