New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[JASmith]

...I see cheap laser-ranged, air-burst grenades as a game-changing technology, just as the rifled bore made mass troop formations in open country inadvisable and 50 years later the machine gun made them suicidal. Infantry tactics were forced to change to open formations using organic cover. Now ranged grenades help solve the problem of neutralizing infantry under cover...

Laser Guided and GPS/INS weapons have completely changed the aerial bombardment game. We went from an environment where multiple sorties, sometimes dozens, were required to take out a single point target. Today, a single aircraft can reliably service about as many targets as it carries bombs and missiles. We saw a variation of the point target defeat in opening Phases of Operation Enduring Freedom where several JDAM weapons were programmed to take out multiple points along a trench line.

So, I do concur that guided grenades will have a substantial impact on infantry tactics. If implementable with ranges exceeding 1000 meters in form factors that allow loadouts similar to those enjoyed by current 40mm grenadiers, then the need for an MMG may be diminished. I hesitate to predict that it would be eliminated, but that 1,000 meter grenade (or rocket) would, in my opinion, fulfill the MMG role with the added benefit of having an indirect fire capability.

What would the impact on the personal weapon be? A lot would depend on the minimum range for that Grenade/Rocket. If the minimum safe standoff is under 300 meters, the current 5.56 would likely be a good choice. If less than 100, then one could argue for a smaller cartridge than the 5.56.

Where would a Grendel fit into this picture? The DM and LMG both are used largely at longer ranges than the reach of personal weapons and this is an excellent role for it. I assert that it would be superior to either the 7.62 NATO or the 5.56 NATO in this role.

[stanc]

We're looking at 3lbs to worst case 5lbs added to the combat load.

Your calculations look good to me, but I ran my own using slightly different numbers. Plus, I expanded on it, to include a belt of machine gun ammo typically carried by riflemen.

The 30-rd, aluminum USGI 5.56 mag weighs 0.25 lb.

If the standard M4 mag well dimensions are retained, it's necessary to use stainless steel mags for 6.5 Grendel. I don't see the military regressing to 25 rounds in magazine capacity for general-issue carbines. IIRC, the 25-rd, SS Grendel mag weighs 5.5 oz, so I estimate 0.4 lb for a 30-rd mag.

300 rds 5.56 @ 190gr = 8.1 lbs
10 mags @ 0.25 lb -- = 2.5 lbs
Total --------------- = 10.6 lbs (+ 100 rds linked 7.62 @ 6.5 lbs = 17.1 lbs)

300 rds 6.5G @ 255gr = 10.9 lbs
10 mags @ 0.4 lb ---- = 4.0 lbs
Total --------------- = 14.9 lbs (+ 100 rds linked 6.5G @ 4.1 lbs = 19.0 lbs)

[stanc]

IMO, something like the Switchblade RPV is by far a much better solution to the long-range engagement problem than either a 40mm ABGL or a 6.5G LMG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dgvBb5ke-E

[Tony Williams]

And if it were not for the proven effectiveness of 5.56, I'd make my slippery slope argument, saying if ammo quantity is the prime consideration then why not .204 Ruger, or, to absurdity, why not .22LR?

Less absurdly, the 5.7x28 FM P90 or 4.6x30 HK MP7 are both designed to inflict disabling wounds after penetrating CRISAT body armour at out to 200m, and against soft targets are probably effective (in terms of being able to hit and - potentially - inflict disabling wounds) out to 300m - provided a crosswind isn't blowing. Since I have often been told that it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m, that would seem to meet the baseline minimum needs, and the weight saving would be huge.

I'm not recommending this, mind - just playing devil's advocate!

[Tony Williams]

P.S. It was Tony who noted the Chinese advances in shoulder-fired grenade launchers. But, AFAIK, none of them fire airburst rounds.

The Chinese have an XM29-like airburst grenade launcher, the ZH05, but that only has a 20mm launcher coupled with a 5.8mm carbine.

They also have the formidable QLB06 35mm shoulder-fired launcher (9.1 kg empty) which has a maximum ballistic range of 1,650m, effective against area targets to 1000m and point targets at 600m, but have not so far added timed airburst technology to that.

[BluntForceTrauma]

it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m

Again, it's a brave new world. With 4x combat optics a target 300m away now seems just 75m away. I suppose we can agree, however, that target acquisition doesn't necessarily equate to hits.

John

[stanc]

And if it were not for the proven effectiveness of 5.56, I'd make my slippery slope argument, saying if ammo quantity is the prime consideration then why not .204 Ruger, or, to absurdity, why not .22LR? Somewhere in the mix a baseline of "performance" needs to be specified, and a balance struck between quantity and performance.

I'm immensely relieved you're not going to make that argument, John. I think it's incredibly stupid whenever anybody attempts to ridicule 5.56 proponents with comments like, "Well, why not go to .22 Long Rifle?".

Ammo quantity is not the only consideration in selecting a military cartridge. As you rightly observe, there needs to be a balance between quantity and performance. But, there are honest differences of opinion as to where that balance point should be.

[stanc]

Less absurdly, the 5.7x28 FM P90 or 4.6x30 HK MP7 are both designed to inflict disabling wounds after penetrating CRISAT body armour at out to 200m, and against soft targets are probably effective (in terms of being able to hit and - potentially - inflict disabling wounds) out to 300m - provided a crosswind isn't blowing. Since I have often been told that it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m, that would seem to meet the baseline minimum needs, and the weight saving would be huge.

Indeed it would. Many years ago I contemplated the possibility of combining the guts of the P90 SMG with a 40mm grenade launcher. Very large magazine capacity (50 rounds!), with minimum recoil and maximum full-auto controllability for the close fight, together with high-explosive, fragmentation rounds for long range engagements where bullets have low hit probability.

But, that was when "long range" meant 500 meters or so. Even with improved 40mm grenade rounds having a maximum range of 600-800 meters,* that still wouldn't quite cut it for some of the engagement ranges seen in Afghanistan.

* http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/grenades.htm

[joker31]

The ABGL's were fielded in Afghanistan (Seen them myself) but I dont see them being issued Army wide until maybe the next generation when the costs get driven down. Today's game is Cheap and small, we are post War and our numbers will go down to the lowest numbers in history soon. This was mandated by the administration, there will be a huge reserve force but the Active duty will be largely cut because of the fact that reservists did very good in the previous two wars and they dont have to pay benefits to them. They are talking about a buy in for reservists to retire like a 401k but you have to declare your intention to retire from your first day in the Army to start accumulating retirement points. The ABGL is going to be a specialized system that will most likely either be cut or used only in Special Weapons Platoons, the Gustov is more likely to be issued to regular troops, now that they have made the right political allies and the production has been secured. The system has been around for 50 years+ but it was unpopular because of the companies dealings with other non-friendly nations, now we need a cheap system and its the go to system. On the SOCOM side of the house, its been used since Vietnam, hell my father fired one in Hue City, I fired one in Kuwait and in Kunar, its not a portable as the ABGL but it will do a similar duty and will cover the AT4 and LAW as well. Big Army is looking to upgrade its soldier systems right now, when they should be upgrading its integration of supply systems and Transportation, lets not forget that we are losing the AC-130, the A-10 and soon the Apache because they are thought of as antiquated by Congress. Never mind the fact that the systems like the Blackhawk were rushed into service when its still up for debate if they were needed. There is going to be a great purge of the systems, not because we need it, but because this generation of systems was battle tested so we can move on to the next greatest thing.

If I can say there are a few systems that do greatly impress me from my field experience:
1:CH-47 Chinook, cant say enough good, its the best thing in this country's Arsenal. Climbs higher, flys faster and have pulled me out of the fryer when the blackhawks couldnt dream of getting to us.

2:The MBITR Radio, worked a lot better than I thought it would, never mind the fact that most line units didn't use all the features it had, it still worked very well.

3:Thales throat mikes work great, They are the closest thing to thinking a word and getting someone to hear you.

4:Safariland Flexicuffs, I used the hell out of them for a million different things, from holding Countermeasures antennas on vehicles to detainees too small for handcuffs.

5: HIDE system: Biometrics are great but you need to implement it sooner in the war.

6: UAV's when used properly or in some cases improperly, save lives

7: 77gr SMK's do a good job of extending the life of an aging system (M4)

8: SAWs Suck, always have, always will, admit they were a mistake already......order the HK system and move on already, but order larger magazines.

[JASmith]

Joke,

Thanks for the great summary!

[BluntForceTrauma]

Joker, while you're here, would you be OK with troops armed only with 5.56 M4s, a belt-fed 5.56 LMG, and ABGLs? Would you miss the capability of 7.62N DMs and MMGs or would you be OK with ABGLs taking over the role of the MMG?

And finally, what are your thoughts on the same question but with 65G M4s and belt-fed LMGs, combined with ABGLs, all in the absence of 7.62N?

John

[stanc]

The ABGL is going to be a specialized system that will most likely either be cut or used only in Special Weapons Platoons, the Gustov is more likely to be issued to regular troops...its not a portable as the ABGL but it will do a similar duty...

Better, in some ways. The Carl Gustav fires an HE round, and the fuze can be set for airburst out to 1100 meters. That's over 50% greater than the ABGL, and outranges the RPG. I understand the overpressure created by the 84mm round is rather punishing on the shooters body, though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WrQ_I4Ewcs

Thales throat mikes work great, They are the closest thing to thinking a word and getting someone to hear you.

Heh, heh. That's almost the same thing a former Wehrmacht tank commander said about the throat mikes they used in WWII. It's good to hear that we caught on so fast.

SAWs Suck, always have, always will, admit they were a mistake already......order the HK system and move on already, but order larger magazines.

I take it you mean the M27 IAR? That's a big step backwards, from belt-fed machine gun to magazine-fed automatic rifle. I doubt the Army would do that, especially since the 60-rd and 100-rd magazines reportedly are unreliable.

[JASmith]

The Gustav might have the range and excellent lethality, but one suspects that it is too large to be a decent replacement for the 7.62 MMG.

The grenadier will need to be able to carry at six to a dozen rounds on his person with one or more others carrying a similar amount.

[stanc]

Joker, while you're here, would you be OK with troops armed only with 5.56 M4s, a belt-fed 5.56 LMG, and ABGLs? Would you miss the capability of 7.62N DMs and MMGs or would you be OK with ABGLs taking over the role of the MMG?

And finally, what are your thoughts on the same question but with 65G M4s and belt-fed LMGs, combined with ABGLs, all in the absence of 7.62N?

Forgive the intrusion, John, but since the maximum range of the ABGL is only ~700 meters, how can it reasonably be considered as a replacement for the MMG?

[stanc]

The Gustav might have the range and excellent lethality, but one suspects that it is too large to be a decent replacement for the 7.62 MMG.

I quite agree. Not only because of size, but also a number of other factors.

I don't know of any serious proposals to replace the MMG with the CG. The CG has capabilities the MMG doesn't, but vice versa is also true.