New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

No I meant more of an Area of Operation. i.e. the HPBT would likely be the ideal round for Afghanistan. The Frangible or AP would be more of Gen III warfare AOs.

Yeah, I kinda figured that's what you meant. I don't see it happening, though. Armies just aren't that flexible. Even the Marines only adopted the 5.56 Mk318 hollowpoint load (for use in Afghanistan) because of production delays with M855A1 Ball.

[Michael]

Michael first question how do we sign up for your class??? Very enlightening posts and good read thanks.

There's one scenario I think you left out or I'm just not connecting some dots. Our allies being attack/invaded by a neighboring country. i.e Israel by one of many neighbors, Japan by China, or South Korea by North Korea. Where do these scenarios fall into your hypothesis.

[Michael]

* The other is structured with a very long-term regional orientation, with highly-trained personnel who know the languages, cultures, and underlying currents of their assigned Areas of Operations at the Theater and Regional Levels.

[cory]

Thank you for your kind words cory. Class is required at all NROTCs for future Marine officers. Not sure if everyone teaches it the way I do, but the basics should be there.

As to the scenarios you asked about, a combination of point 1 and 3. Countries you described are peers/near peers and all are members of various strategic treaties or mutual defense agreements. The belligerent country would face repercussions from the world. The one potential flash point you didn’t mention (and the one that scares the *&^t out of me) is India and Pakistan. Those folks hate each other at a level I don’t think most Americans can comprehend.

I didn't leave it out. I for one look forward to the day India wipes Pakistan of the face of the planet. (I say half in jest.) It seems I'm missing something if that scares you. Would you care to elaborate on why, please?

[joker31]

I have been in protracted firefights (longest was 8.5hours), I'll tell you from my experience, the weight isnt on your mind, its the edge your focused on, how can I get them to stop shooting, how can I keep my buddies safe, when was the last time that guy has scanned his sector.... a million other things immediately after the world shrinks and closes in on you (anyone who has been in the situation will know what I mean) It feels like being in a cage, I have been trapped on 3 sides in the Ganjagal Valley 4 months after Dakota Meyer and the rest of the ETT was trapped, I met them and they had Vodka and Cigars with me right after that happened (I was part of follow up debriefing team) We didnt learn crap from them because we did the same stupid crap 4 months later. The taliban commander learned something because we got hit by 250+ the next time and our dumb a$$es only brought 32 guys including terps. I was almost throwing fists with the commander over it the day before because he decided to go when I told him that if he took his guys in there, they would all die... I told him if he went anyway, he had to take me because I would have Air setup ahead of time (Which I did, 7 layers of it) My team alone expended 3200 Rounds in 8.5 hours, all small arms including a 240B, 4 M4's and my M14. Its a day I'll never forget for the rest of my life because I took a round through my right arm that left a foot long channel and the commander took a through and through in the thigh. In the Evac hospital, I looked over at him and got his attention and told him, I told you so, A$$hole!.

[joker31]

So, Caliber wont matter, squad makeup will, we need to add a LMG to the squad makeup and go bigger, make them 10-14 man squads instead of 7-10 man squads, add a DM and a LMG to each squad (Self contained like the marines) put the stuff in the supply system and let the commanders have more flexibility with the MTOE. Our MTOE had 2 DM's and 1 Rangefinder in each platoon for christ's sake, were we supposed to share when we were 3 fobs away from each other? And expand the field Collection requirements for intelligence. adding duties to Infantry guys is just stupid, the field changes everyday and they need to concentrate on that, dont make them sit in classes when they should do battle drills. I saw a CSM come down and try to pull my Support team from a sand table I was giving to do a sexual harassment class, the day before a mission because he didnt want one of them to get hurt which would have made them uncerted!

[stanc]

I didn't leave it out. I for one look forward to the day India wipes Pakistan of the face of the planet. (I say half in jest.) It seems I'm missing something if that scares you. Would you care to elaborate on why, please?

[stanc]

Caliber wont matter...

You said that in one fight, "My team alone expended 3200 Rounds in 8.5 hours..."

Doesn't that argue for the smallest, lightest cartridge feasible, so as to maximize the number of rounds carried?

...we need to add a LMG to the squad...

Since the infantry squad currently has two M249 LMG's, I presume you mean add one in a larger caliber? Doesn't that contradict your statement above?

[BluntForceTrauma]

Very cool discussion, am learning things, and I'm glad to see we've improved the tone a bit. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

John

[Tony Williams]

So, since the 7.62 MMG is being used routinely, and not being restricted to specialized missions, why should we think it would necessarily be any different if the 7.62 MMG is replaced by a .338 MMG?

It wouldn't be different if the 5.56mm remains the standard infantry weapon calibre. It would be different if the 5.56mm were replaced by a GPC. The only reason that 7.62mm weapons are carried by dismounted squads now is because of the inadequate range of 5.56mm. A GPC capable of matching the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm would mean that 7.62mm weapons would no longer need to be carried - so why should .338 be, in normal circumstances?

[Tony Williams]

I have struggled with the 'last war' syndrome since 1975 when I first got seriously involved in weapons R&D.

Indeed. From my own amateur readings of military history up to recent times, I have come across far more criticism of militaries for failing to remember and apply the lessons of previous conflicts.

If we're not careful, we could see the same thing happening again: I have read that as the British and US armies are pulled out of more than a decade of irregular warfare (or whatever term is popular at the moment), they are rapidly switching the training emphasis back to the conventional warfare which was what they used to train for pre-Iraq/Afghanistan. How long will it take before the bitterly-won experience of recent conflicts begins to fade from the collective military memory? Sadly, there seems to be only one way of ensuring that such knowledge and skills remain polished....keep using them in action!

The 7.62x54 is an excellent example. It has been around for longer than the 30-06 but still is used by a large number of our actual and potential adversaries.

Exactly, and the combination of this cartridge with the lightweight and widely used PKM LMG is a fact that is not going to go away. If our troops do not always carry weapons which can match its long-range performance, they will find themselves being outranged again whenever the opportunity presents itself to our enemies. So there is no choice at present but to keep the 7.62mm weapons in the squad. A GPC LMG would retain the ability to match the PKM and might (if we are lucky) not weigh any more...

While most people live in urban areas meaning that CQB will always have to be trained for, and in many places (especially Europe) the scope for long-range fire is limited by vegetation as well as buildings (not to mention weather conditions), there are still many parts of the world in which this is not the case, and where opportunities to engage at long range will occur.

These aren't just desert areas - the British found the same in the Falklands, where they learned a great deal of respect for the .50 BMG being used by the Argentinians. Fortunately they still had 7.62mm rifles and MGs at the time - if that conflict had occurred after the switch to 5.56mm, we might have heard a lot more about the limitations of that cartridge a lot sooner.

[Tony Williams]

Very cool discussion, am learning things, and I'm glad to see we've improved the tone a bit. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Seconded! It's great to have such input from professionals involved in this area.

[BjornF16]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/sf214.pdf

I submit the above in response to the comments concerning fighting the last war. Also, if so motivated, pick up 'War Made New' by Max Boot.

Interesting read...but IMHO they neglected to point out one of the most important mistakes of post "combat operations" in Iraq: the de-Baath'ification of the civilian infrastructure leadership. Same mistake we made in Germany...

While leaving former Baath Party members in place to run utilities, etc would not have stopped the insurgency, it likely would have decreased the support of the insurgency.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Baathification

I'm completely in favor of pulling troops and supplies out of Europe and letting Russia have at it.

After serving 3 years on NATO staff, I'm completely in favor of pulling US military out of Western Europe and stationing them in Eastern Europe...

[montana]

Indeed. From my own amateur readings of military history up to recent times, I have come across far more criticism of militaries for failing to remember and apply the lessons of previous conflicts.

If we're not careful, we could see the same thing happening again: I have read that as the British and US armies are pulled out of more than a decade of irregular warfare (or whatever term is popular at the moment), they are rapidly switching the training emphasis back to the conventional warfare which was what they used to train for pre-Iraq/Afghanistan. How long will it take before the bitterly-won experience of recent conflicts begins to fade from the collective military memory? Sadly, there seems to be only one way of ensuring that such knowledge and skills remain polished....keep using them in action!



Exactly, and the combination of this cartridge with the lightweight and widely used PKM LMG is a fact that is not going to go away. If our troops do not always carry weapons which can match its long-range performance, they will find themselves being outranged again whenever the opportunity presents itself to our enemies. So there is no choice at present but to keep the 7.62mm weapons in the squad. A GPC LMG would retain the ability to match the PKM and might (if we are lucky) not weigh any more...

While most people live in urban areas meaning that CQB will always have to be trained for, and in many places (especially Europe) the scope for long-range fire is limited by vegetation as well as buildings (not to mention weather conditions), there are still many parts of the world in which this is not the case, and where opportunities to engage at long range will occur.

These aren't just desert areas - the British found the same in the Falklands, where they learned a great deal of respect for the .50 BMG being used by the Argentinians. Fortunately they still had 7.62mm rifles and MGs at the time - if that conflict had occurred after the switch to 5.56mm, we might have heard a lot more about the limitations of that cartridge a lot sooner.

I thought you might be interested in this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Falkl.../dp/B00739VQHC

In the book "The Winter War The Falklands" by Patrick Bishop and John Witherow, I will quote from the book page 108 ; Unlike the rest of the Army the SAS was allowed to choose its own weapons and equipment. At the start of the war it carried, like the SBS, American Armalites which weigh considerably less than the ten pound standard self loading rifle, Later in the campaign some SAS men swopped back to the SLRs following an incident where an Argentine soldier was still firing back after being hit seven times by the round from the Armalite.

[stanc]

The only reason that 7.62mm weapons are carried by dismounted squads now is because of the inadequate range of 5.56mm. A GPC capable of matching the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm would mean that 7.62mm weapons would no longer need to be carried - so why should .338 be, in normal circumstances?

In normal circumstances when the platoon goes out, would not the machine gunners of the weapons squad be carrying their .338 MMG's?