Grendel as a Universal Infantry Cartridge

[LR1955]

LR 1955 you would of been on of the many in the 1930s screaming, show me the proof that the nazis are slaughtering their own people.

Cory:

I also lived through two RIF's. The biggest one was after Desert Storm.

Do you think that just maybe -- maybe -- if this was happening to the military that Fox News would probably be reporting it? Just maybe? Or that just maybe MSNBC would be reporting it as a positive step forward to a more 'progressive' military?

So, I take it you have evidence that boards are convening with a list of things that make an officer 'Compliant' and that they are going through every Officer's record and throwing out anyone who doesn't meet the criteria of being 'compliant' with the whims of the Obama Administration?

Please do link us to your findings but the link needs to have '.mil' at the end of it.

LR1955

[cory]

So am I, which is what leads me to my conclusions. Far to many occurrences at suspect times that leave you scratching your head.
Take all of them and the demasculating of the military that's going on, then step back look at it all as a whole, there's only one conclusion that makes sense.
When a dictator is accumulating power at some point they have to stack the top level military brass. It's a text book move.
If you think it's that far fetched, listen to Obama talk about the military in '08.

[cory]

I don't think for one second there are any boards or anything on record that certain officers are being purged because they aren't willing to go along with the administration.

[LR1955]

I don't think for one second there are any boards or anything on record that certain officers are being purged because they aren't willing to go along with the administration.

Cory / Guys:

Then where are these Officers who were so unjustly cashiered from the military? I have heard General ranking Officers say they retired because of Obama but so far not one has said he was thrown out of the Army because he disagreed with Obama policies and faced Courts Martial over such a disagreement. Yes, a Courts Martial. Why do I say this? Because a purge is involuntary. Being thrown out with prejudice via Courts Martial is also involuntary. G.O.'s, Officers, NCO's or EM's who decide to retire, resign their commissions, or ETS over Obama do so voluntarily. And that doesn't even come close to a 'purge' in historical terms (Stalin).

There is a huge difference between RIF boards and Stalinist purges. The last bunch of RIFs (although they weren't called that) happened around 93 and 94. Officers with 14 - 16 years had their records reviewed and if the board determined they were not competitive for promotion, they were told they could get out then with about a year's base pay as a separation pay or to stay in and see if they would be promoted -- and if they lost out -- they would leave with nothing. It sucked but compare that to any Stalinist purge of his Officer Corps where they were judged by politics, race, and religion, and if found 'guilty' of being an enemy of the Revolution or some such BS, were shot, hung, or sent to the Gulag and worked to death.

So, all I ask is that folks think real clearly before implying our military would conduct a 'purge' of its ranks. It demeans the military and diverts attention away from the main point trying to be made. A point that I am not sure exists because a bunch of guys got out due to Carter and Clinton as well. I am sure some did because of Regan and both Bushes.

Finally, G.O.s are approved by Congress individually. A Democrat Senate and President will select G.O.'s based on their competence but also based on how well they think that General will abide by their vision of the military. Sorry but that is how it goes, and has gone for over 200 years. BTW -- Truman relieved McArthur because McArthur disagreed with Truman's vision of the Korean war and Communist China. McArthur was retired and seen as a hero. What do you think happened to Generals who Stalin purged?

So, all have a good Thanksgiving!

LR1955

[Michael]

Kinda off the topic of the original thread, but I will try to weigh in a bit. I can only speak for myself as a prior enlisted officer. My decision to stay in for the last 26 years (and 5 Presidents) has not been influenced in any way shape or form by who sits in the President’s office. My driving force has been whether or not I can still serve those junior to me by being good at my job. My recent decision to retire has also been made with how well I can continue to ‘serve’ as my driving force…nothing about POLITICS influenced my decision. This is how most - not all, but most - of the officers I know base their decisions on.

Having some experience with promotion boards, who agrees or who does not agree with the policies of the current administration is not even a factor. It is all based on performance as evaluated by others in uniform and how well an individual meets individual standards. If you don’t perform, you don’t stay. Not a perfect system, but show me one that is.

Like others (LR1955 included), I saw the drawdowns of the early ‘90s and I am seeing them again. It is a cyclic procedure that has repeated itself over and over again in our history. It is not a ‘purge’. The recent spate of GOs and other senior officer who have been relieved for cause seems a little high, but the head of each service is the final determining factor in the continuation of the careers of those officers…not the President. And in most cases, those reliefs were justified – remember, we will only get about half the story.

When you reach the GO level, there is a huge amount of politics involved with the job…there has to be. Those guys are working with the CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military and nation to ensure that the troops receive the gear, training and support they need to accomplish the mission. Tell me how a GO can sway a politician about the justification of a program costing billions of dollars (like a new GP cartridge) without playing politician himself. How well the GOs do their jobs are dependent on their ability to navigate that political warren in D.C.. Some are better than others, and some forget where they came from. That is human nature and as I understand it, forgetting where you come from happens outside of the military.

One last note – the Senate reviews/approves promotion lists for officers - lists provided to them by the individual services . To my knowledge, the President doesn’t even get involved with promotions until you reach the GO level. Even at that level, my understanding is the President defers to the Joint Chiefs and the Secretaries of the departments as he receives recommendations from them.

Enough of a rant. Hope I didn’t bore or insult anyone.

[LR1955]

Kinda off the topic of the original thread, but I will try to weigh in a bit. I can only speak for myself as a prior enlisted officer. My decision to stay in for the last 26 years (and 5 Presidents) has not been influenced in any way shape or form by who sits in the President’s office. My driving force has been whether or not I can still serve those junior to me by being good at my job. My recent decision to retire has also been made with how well I can continue to ‘serve’ as my driving force…nothing about POLITICS influenced my decision. This is how most - not all, but most - of the officers I know base their decisions on.

Having some experience with promotion boards, who agrees or who does not agree with the policies of the current administration is not even a factor. It is all based on performance as evaluated by others in uniform and how well an individual meets individual standards. If you don’t perform, you don’t stay. Not a perfect system, but show me one that is.

Like others (LR1955 included), I saw the drawdowns of the early ‘90s and I am seeing them again. It is a cyclic procedure that has repeated itself over and over again in our history. It is not a ‘purge’. The recent spate of GOs and other senior officer who have been relieved for cause seems a little high, but the head of each service is the final determining factor in the continuation of the careers of those officers…not the President. And in most cases, those reliefs were justified – remember, we will only get about half the story.

When you reach the GO level, there is a huge amount of politics involved with the job…there has to be. Those guys are working with the CIVILIAN LEADERSHIP of the military and nation to ensure that the troops receive the gear, training and support they need to accomplish the mission. Tell me how a GO can sway a politician about the justification of a program costing billions of dollars (like a new GP cartridge) without playing politician himself. How well the GOs do their jobs are dependent on their ability to navigate that political warren in D.C.. Some are better than others, and some forget where they came from. That is human nature and as I understand it, forgetting where you come from happens outside of the military.

One last note – the Senate reviews/approves promotion lists for officers - lists provided to them by the individual services . To my knowledge, the President doesn’t even get involved with promotions until you reach the GO level. Even at that level, my understanding is the President defers to the Joint Chiefs and the Secretaries of the departments as he receives recommendations from them.

Enough of a rant. Hope I didn’t bore or insult anyone.

Mike:

I don't view that as a rant. I view it as a clear statement of reality.

Yes, thats how promotion lists for Officers go, with GO promotions given a bit more scrutiny by the politicians. Generally the President goes along with what ever is recommended. He doesn't have to but normally does.

And, the only reason I got involved was because the notion that some political entity was 'purging' the officer ranks drifted too far in the direction of tin foil hats.

There you go guys. Mike said it better than I did.

LR55

[bwaites]

Now that we have the politics of General Officers clear, can we put this thread back on topic? Thanks to all who contributed!

[Michael]

Now that we have the politics of General Officers clear, can we put this thread back on topic? Thanks to all who contributed!

Sorry Bill, back in the box.

Re change to ANY new cartridge - as a few of us have said, it is going to take a lot more than a couple hundred more yds of range or 10% weight reduction to get a new program off the ground. If someone is serious about it, a cost/benefit analysis will need to be done that looks at the following -

1) Cost to upgrade existing training facilities/ranges to support increased range. (FYI – friend of mine is involved in the ranges for the Marine Corps – asked him how much it would cost to upgrade KD/training ranges to go from 500yds to 600 or 700. He laughed and said it would be close to a billion – many would have to be moved due to other encroachment. Think what the Army would need to spend)

2) Cost to replace existing weapons and IX block (replacement parts/tools…Current replacement cost of an M16A4/M4 is just under $600 per. There are by my guestimation at least 2 million of these in the US military inventory. As to that replacement for all the LMG/SAW/MMG)

3) Cost to replace existing stockpiled ammunition. (Billions of rounds at what, .10 apiece? I don't have that many fingers or toes)

This is the tack that the military would have to use with the politicians…and we would need to show a lot more than incremental improvements to current weapons/ammo to get it approved.

[LRRPF52]

Add to that that well over 92% of soldiers and Marines would not be capable of exploiting the added capabilities without significant changes to the training programs, and the fact that most marksmanship instructors are pretty clueless about wind drift, let alone trajectory.

On the other hand, everything is already in-place if a Grendel-like cartridge was introduced for belt-fed machinegun training. The gun and ammo would just be lighter, with less recoil, and less wind drift.

[woohoo]

Add to that that well over 92% of soldiers and Marines would not be capable of exploiting the added capabilities without significant changes to the training programs, and the fact that most marksmanship instructors are pretty clueless about wind drift, let alone trajectory.

On the other hand, everything is already in-place if a Grendel-like cartridge was introduced for belt-fed machinegun training. The gun and ammo would just be lighter, with less recoil, and less wind drift.

So after 5 years of saying they should adopt the Grendel to replace the M4 are you now saying they shouldn't but they should use it in a MG?

[LRRPF52]

If you look through my posts over the years, I've never been a proponent for replacing 5.56. I have been a proponent for replacing 7.62 NATO, by displacing it to the vehicle-mounted weapons as a new proper LMG cartridge is phased in. (Check my post #72 in this thread, which is the first I addressed 5.56 vs. something else, appropriate platforms, AR12.5, etc.)

This LMG cartridge would also be used in Semi-Auto Sniper and DM systems.

Having managed men, weapons, and equipment in PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM on real-world deployments in airborne and light infantry units, I know what a bad thing it would be to have my Joe tentpeg riflemen slinging 120-130gr projectiles in close quarters. It would be beautiful in true Lightweight Squad-support belt-fed weapons, and precision Semi-Auto Systems, which have not received the same attention that carbines have.

5.56 carbines are almost perfect in their current state, especially with SOPMOD Block II and 70gr Barnes, although the bolt geometry is not up to the task in the long-term at 5.56 pressures reaching 62,000 psi.

The industry has jumped all over carbines, when they need to really improve our light machine gun systems. The SAW and M240 are way too heavy, bulky, and could have a better cartridge that would replace both systems. I've beaten this horse to death on the forum for years. You won't find me posting how every swinging Joe needs a high performance intermediate cartridge in his carbine here-quite the opposite.

[cory]

...Having managed men, weapons, and equipment in PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM on real-world deployments in airborne and light infantry units, I know what a bad thing it would be to have my Joe tentpeg riflemen slinging 120-130gr projectiles in close quarters. It would be beautiful in true Lightweight Squad-support belt-fed weapons, and precision Semi-Auto Systems, which have not received the same attention that carbines have...

That would be no worse than Joe slinging 62gr projectiles in CQB situation, with poor tactics and inadequate battlefield awareness.

The more I think about the more I'm a proponent of Joe slinging a 200-230gr projectile in CQB environments. A 10mm or 45acp. Adequate energy at the muzzle and it sheds that energy relatively quickly. This is assuming we use "Open Tip Projectiles".

[LRRPF52]

That would be no worse than Joe slinging 62gr projectiles in CQB situation, with poor tactics and inadequate battlefield awareness.

The more I think about the more I'm a proponent of Joe slinging a 200-230gr projectile in CQB environments. A 10mm or 45acp. Adequate energy at the muzzle and it sheds that energy relatively quickly. This is assuming we use "Open Tip Projectiles".

A 120-130gr pill retains a lot of energy, but also requires a lot of energy to be spit forth, so shot recovery suffers above certain pressures. With 5.56, shot recovery is excellent. Anything pistol caliber is out of the question, since I need my guys to be able to reach out to 300-400yds once we pass through the buildings, or even set-up overwatch in the buildings. 5.56 also does significantly more damage than .45 or 10mm HP's, not even close. 5.56 will fillet legs and arms, canoe heads, and pulverize lungs and hearts. Pistol calibers pretty much suck equally at causing damage to people. I've seen several examples of both, including being shot personally by 9mm, and I'm infinitely glad that I wasn't shot with 5.56 NATO.

Then get back to the soldier's load issues, resupply after contact, combat endurance...it's hard to argue with 5.56 and 5.45 Russian for riflemen.

[woohoo]

If you look through my posts over the years, I've never been a proponent for replacing 5.56. I have been a proponent for replacing 7.62 NATO, by displacing it to the vehicle-mounted weapons as a new proper LMG cartridge is phased in. (Check my post #72 in this thread, which is the first I addressed 5.56 vs. something else, appropriate platforms, AR12.5, etc.)

This LMG cartridge would also be used in Semi-Auto Sniper and DM systems.

Having managed men, weapons, and equipment in PACOM, SOUTHCOM, and CENTCOM on real-world deployments in airborne and light infantry units, I know what a bad thing it would be to have my Joe tentpeg riflemen slinging 120-130gr projectiles in close quarters. It would be beautiful in true Lightweight Squad-support belt-fed weapons, and precision Semi-Auto Systems, which have not received the same attention that carbines have.

5.56 carbines are almost perfect in their current state, especially with SOPMOD Block II and 70gr Barnes, although the bolt geometry is not up to the task in the long-term at 5.56 pressures reaching 62,000 psi.

The industry has jumped all over carbines, when they need to really improve our light machine gun systems. The SAW and M240 are way too heavy, bulky, and could have a better cartridge that would replace both systems. I've beaten this horse to death on the forum for years. You won't find me posting how every swinging Joe needs a high performance intermediate cartridge in his carbine here-quite the opposite.

I agree with you it shouldn't be used as a replacement for the M4 but I don't think it has enough case capacity/power for use in a LMG either.

[cory]

Oh I'm under the delusion that the 10mm or 45acp offers nearly the killing power the 5.56 does. And you notice I didn't suggest the 9mm FMJ.

So you're telling me 2 200gr projectiles to the chest at 1100fps wouldn't have taken you out of the fight, or 1 wouldn't take you out of the fight long enough for another guy to fill in the room behind me and put another 1 or 2 200gr projectiles in you?

A pistol requires me to expose significantly less of myself around a barrier to put down effective fire in a CQB environment.