Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article

[LRRPF52]

I will say that US 5.56 is on the edge of pressure limitations based on temp variables, and is at max for a mass-produced standpoint. Since the US ammo is oriented towards the DI gas system of the AR15 family, it wouldn't surprise me that the gas pressure curve wouldn't run the L85 well.

The guys in SAS and SBS use the Colt Commandos because it's the best assault rifle platform in the world right now. If anything better would come along, they would have it.

With assault rifles, the current trend is seeing higher capacity magazines being developed, such as the AK74 quad-column mag, the SF60, US Palm, and the as of yet unseen Magpul 60rd PMAG. I think it would be a mistake to reduce the rifleman's mag capacity from anything less than 30rds. I also feel that it IS possible to make a 30rd Grendel mag that is the same size as a 5.56 30rd mag, but I still think we need to be cautious about using the Afghanistan AOR as a major input for the next assault rifle design as a primary consideration.

Also, regarding the yaw performance percentages, what is the expectation? For a projectile to behave predictably 100% of the time in a mass-produced assault rifle load? We have to establish some expectation guidelines before citing percentages for how many times a certain projectile does X, Y, & Z in ballistic gelatin. 70% consistency seems pretty dang good to me, for a standard AR load. From a soldeir's perspective, I'm not waiting to see what just one round does to an enemy, regardless of what rifle or carbine I'm carrying. They will get at least one follow-up shot at distance, and 3-5 at CQ ranges, unless a head shot drops them like a sack of potatoes before I can make another at distance.

[Tony Williams]

Also, regarding the yaw performance percentages, what is the expectation? For a projectile to behave predictably 100% of the time in a mass-produced assault rifle load? We have to establish some expectation guidelines before citing percentages for how many times a certain projectile does X, Y, & Z in ballistic gelatin. 70% consistency seems pretty dang good to me, for a standard AR load. From a soldeir's perspective, I'm not waiting to see what just one round does to an enemy, regardless of what rifle or carbine I'm carrying. They will get at least one follow-up shot at distance, and 3-5 at CQ ranges, unless a head shot drops them like a sack of potatoes before I can make another at distance.

The perfect bullet for terminal effectiveness will begin to yaw as quickly as possible after impact (within 2 inches of penetration), will be travelling sideways through the zone of maximum damage (on average, say 4-8 inches) to create the biggest possible wound channel there, and will penetrate at least 12 inches but no more than 18 (or energy will be lost through overpenetration). Furthermore, it will perform like this every shot, regardless of impact velocity or striking angle.

Of course, no bullet will perform like this 100% of the time, but that provides a benchmark for judging what actually happens. So if 70% of M855 bullets don't even begin to yaw until they have penetrated 4.7 inches, that is bad news. That half of the remainder don't yaw at all is even worse. That leaves just 15% of bullets which do perform well.

I don't have equivalent figures for other bullets, but I do know that the performance of the M855 is considered to be poor. In particular, the need for it to be yawing in the air by at least 3 degrees at the point of impact before it will yaw quickly in a body is significantly worse than other military bullets tested.

[LRRPF52]

Yes, but another requirement for the M855 is for it to be armor-piercing, with the steel penetrator. My experiences over 3 different regions of the world, not counting several Stateside assignments, with M855 are admittedly anecdotal, and non-scientific. That said, every 5.56 injury/death I have seen had brutal wound characteristics unlike other rifle cartridges, and the guys who have been stacking people to the sky with them for decades don't complain about M855-to the contrary, they prefer it.

Asking a bullet to perform to the most damaging possible threshold on flesh, and then asking it to penetrate light armor is a tall order, which is why reducing the velocity and increasing the weight stretch it in both directions even further. LMG: I want penetration, high SD, and great terminal performance on hard targets. Assault rifle: Lightweight, high capacity, low recoil, flesh blaster.

Even if I were to interview a scientifically accepted baseline number of infantry soldiers who have actually been in fierce contact, the percentage of them that have actually cognitively aimed, fired, and knowingly hit an enemy will still be a small percentage of that total number. Any one of their impressions, preferences, and insight as to what a good assault rifle cartridge would be is almost useless, except for the fact that they all will want it to be lightweight and low-recoiling.

This is why I lean to the experience of guys in units who are involved in almost exclusively direct action encounters, where they have decided where, when, and how they will be, in-fact, killing enemy targets. Their perspective on small arms capabilities and limitations is much more practical, and they are much less affected by new, cool toys from enthusiastic contractors looking for a sell. Their response to this issue usually involves a suggestion to go to the range more often, with very high standards for marksmanship performance.

[LRRPF52]

I think the best solution to the future dismounted infantry small arms structure will involve the following weapon systems:

• A SCHV carbine like the M4A1 SOMPOD Block II (free-floated handguard, FDE color, CHF barrel)

• The Mult-Role LMG chambered in Grendel

• A DMR/SASS system in SCHV with special match ammunition or Match Grendel (A mid-sized LMT MRP would be a great platform for this, since the unit could configure it for the region or mission.)

It also could streamline the system if the carbines and DMR/SASS shared the same chassis, with a Grendel mag that allowed a COAL of 2.4". This could also accommodate newer 5.56 ammunition with longer ogive projectiles using solid alloys and sectional bullets for multi-purpose applications, since many armies are going that direction. The AR15 is handicapping the 5.56 anyway, since it was built around the .222 Remington cartridge, with no re-design after the .223 Remington/5.56 evolved from it. External visual differences and weight/feel would be imperceptible to the shooter.

• A multi-shot grenade launcher with precision guided warheads available

• A man-portable 60mm mortar with precision guided warheads, to include a thermobaric warhead option that would allow a quick-fire capability while the lead element in-contact with eyes-on can laze the target for some serious devastation from the thermobaric warhead. This would be a favorite with JoeTentpeg, trust me.

[JASmith]

Would the mortar remain a company-level asset with the others distributed at the squad/platoon level?

[Tony Williams]

Yes, but another requirement for the M855 is for it to be armor-piercing, with the steel penetrator. Asking a bullet to perform to the most damaging possible threshold on flesh, and then asking it to penetrate light armor is a tall order,

Well, it's what the US Army is claiming for the M855A1....

This is why I lean to the experience of guys in units who are involved in almost exclusively direct action encounters, where they have decided where, when, and how they will be, in-fact, killing enemy targets. Their perspective on small arms capabilities and limitations is much more practical, and they are much less affected by new, cool toys from enthusiastic contractors looking for a sell. Their response to this issue usually involves a suggestion to go to the range more often, with very high standards for marksmanship performance.

Talking of which, on my last visit to the US when I was giving a presentation on this subject, I was afterwards approached by a US special forces soldier fresh from Afghanistan who told me that he was happy with the 5.56mm within 200m but was very dissastisfied with it at longer ranges and wanted something much better for his rifle (he put it a lot more colourfully than that, but you get the picture!).

[JASmith]

...I was afterwards approached by a US special forces soldier fresh from Afghanistan who told me that he was happy with the 5.56mm within 200m but was very dissastisfied with it at longer ranges and wanted something much better for his rifle (he put it a lot more colourfully than that, but you get the picture!).

This observation is very close to the large body of both commentary and analysis we've seen over the last decade or longer.

The problem seems to be that the current issue weapons capable of good use in the hands of a properly trained shoulder at ranges of 300 meters and beyond tend to be heavy in both rifle and ammunition weight. These weapons include the 7.62 in DMR format, the MMG, grenade launches, and the company-level 60mm mortar.

My take is that LLRPF52 is on a good path with the notion of an intermediate-caliber cartridge in machine guns and DMR weapons for the squad and platoon. This keeps the heavier weapons in the picture, but at the company level where one could assert they would be more effectively employed.

Cheers!

[LRRPF52]

I think a unit needs to have the flexibility to Tailor the Force for the operational environment. For example, the Afghan AOR might justify a 50/50 mix of 5.56 and High Performance Intermediate Caliber carbines, but an urban environment would not, nor would a densely-wooded environment.

Additionally, riflemen would need to receive more training in engaging targets at distance, since every infantryman's weapon is equipped with an optical sighting system nowadays. Some of the new 1-6x Variables would make a great optic for a Grendel carbine that would be used from CQB out to 600m, but the Joes would need training on making hits at 600m.

I really think a new shorter 60mm martar/smart warhead system needs to be open to being used as a Platoon-level asset, since a Platoon in-contact could immediately bring that level of firepower to the front, without having to wait for the chain of custody radio gaggle that happens from the Platoon>>to the>>Company to the>>mortar section. The lightweight mortar would be a Weapon's Squad Asset, along with AT weapons like the Javelin, so they would be in the rear of a Platoon order of movement formation.

The major change in this TO&E concept is that the 7.62 NATO GPMG gun teams are gone, with the introduction of a Grendel LMG to replace the SAW's in every Fire Team. It would also require Teams to understand the importance of using the LMG as a crew-served weapon, where another experienced soldier spots for the LMG for distance engagement, but the constant recoil mechanism will allow the LMG gunner to do most of that himself.

If a Platoon Leader had that asset in his quiver, and could literally delegate indirect fires to his lead squad in-contact, with the mortar on Platoon-internal freq, there would be some serious suppression of enemy, allowing the lead squad to lay down a well-aimed base of fire, while the next squad actually maneuvers on the enemy, rather than engaging in a stand-off, which typically allows the enemy to either break contact, or hunker down as is the case currently.

For the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, where Muj/Taliban prefer to engage from far distances, this Platoon smart warhead mortar system would turn the tables quickly, as no shoulder-fired weapons can effectively engage enemy at 1.5-2km.

With the Land Warrior/Future Force/Objective Warrior concept, the lead element could laze the enemy, which would automatically send a polar plot to the mortar section's warhead management system, and they could literally drop a round immediately, with a GPS grid guiding the fins of the projectile to target.

In forested terrain, they could fire through a clearing, and drop a round through tree cover on the target with such a system, since the GPS coordinate would be 3 axes-based.

Introducing this type of small unit mortar system combined with a Grendel LMG with a slow cyclic rate and constant-recoil operating system would make much of the caliber debate go away, because units would just go to the mortar more often than not, and lay waste to any contact. The maneuver elements would arrive to clean up the mess really.

[stanc]

Regarding the subject of a constant-recoil 6.5 Grendel LMG:

Has anyone investigated feasibility of Grendelizing an Ultimax?

[LRRPF52]

Regarding the subject of a constant-recoil 6.5 Grendel LMG:

Since the Ultimax is magazine-fed, including drum mags, it isn't ideal. Drums suck to manage in the field. The Finns would often have an assistant gunner for the Kp31 SMG, and use it in the LMG role that way, where one guy just kep the drums loaded and handed them to the shooter as he burned through 72rds after another. Not a good system at all, especially in sub-zero temps. After the war, they made a plastic pre-loaded mag that you could have filled, then drop it into the open drum for a quick top-off, then wind the spring once closed.

Ultimax's are few and far between in the collector's market, and I doubt one of them would want any changes made, but since 3 of the Ultimax variants have quick-change barrels, it might be easier than one thinks using a bolt and barrel replacement. The KAC LMG would be the main platform I'd be interested in testing first, since it uses constant-recoil and is belt-fed.