New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[JASmith]

Dont you mean 7.62x 51 Nato as the 7.62x54 was a former Soviet now Russian Federation round

LRRPF52 meant what he said: Weapons designers are most concerned about overmatching the adversary's weapons. The 7.62x54 is therefore the model based on history and existing inventories.

BTW -- using the 7.62x51 NATO would lead to a similar conclusion about need, but our acquisition community does not accept "better than our own" as justification for R&D dollars. Got to identify a 'capability gap' and answer the issue raised by it.

[Michael]

And since when isn't the .338 LWMMG a portable machine gun?

All MGs are portable - even the M2 .50 and the Mk19. I think the question is what class it is in - light, medium or heavy and whether or not it's tactically feasible/a good idea to man pack it around; based on situation, terrain, ammo requirements, size of gun team etc. When you talk about light/medium/heavy weapons, the weight and bulk are considered more so than the caliber. I seem to remember Light Weight were less than about 25lbs total, Medium were 25ish to 45ish, and anything over about 45lbs was considered a Heavy weapon.

I would love to see a .338MG, but have my doubts it would be a 'medium' machine gun.

[Tony Williams]

I would love to see a .338MG, but have my doubts it would be a 'medium' machine gun.

The problem is not so much the gun but the weight of ammo. 7.62x51 MG ammo is already considered undesirably heavy for man-packing, but .338 ammo weighs about twice as much. That's the main reason why any MG in this class is highly unlikely to be routinely carried on foot patrol, but will be held back in the fire support role, to be brought out when really needed.

[stanc]

The Army Caliber Configuration study seems to be addressing the weight penalties of the larger calibers, and finding lighter weight solutions to them.

The next logical step is replacement calibers for .50 BMG, and possibly 7.62 NATO. 5.56 NATO is one of the strengths in the system, not a weakness.

I know you (and many other knowledgeable individuals) like 5.56 NATO, but the CCS, together with the CLAWS and LDAM programs, seems clearly aimed at a replacement not only for 7.62 NATO, but also the smaller NATO round.

Like it or not, everything I've seen to date indicates a quest to replace 5.56 NATO with a new cartridge that (in conventional form) will necessarily be bigger, heavier, and more powerful.

[stanc]

I would love to see a .338MG, but have my doubts it would be a 'medium' machine gun.

At 24 lbs, the GD weapon is lighter than the 7.62mm M240B MMG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNB7khjOSXc

[stanc]

The problem is not so much the gun but the weight of ammo. 7.62x51 MG ammo is already considered undesirably heavy for man-packing, but .338 ammo weighs about twice as much. That's the main reason why any MG in this class is highly unlikely to be routinely carried on foot patrol, but will be held back in the fire support role, to be brought out when really needed.

How do you expect it to be brought into action "when really needed" if it isn't with the patrolling unit???

The greater cartridge weight only means that fewer rounds could be carried by the patrol. It should be fairly obvious that if a 27-lb M240B and (for example) 1200 rounds of 7.62 ammo can be carried on patrol, it would be just as easy to carry a 24-lb LWMMG and 650 rounds of .338 ammo.

[LRRPF52]

How do you expect it to be brought into action "when really needed" if it isn't with the patrolling unit???

The greater cartridge weight only means that fewer rounds could be carried by the patrol. It should be fairly obvious that if a 27-lb M240B and (for example) 1200 rounds of 7.62 ammo can be carried on patrol, it would be just as easy to carry a 24-lb LWMMG and 650 rounds of .338 ammo.

I spent literally years humping weapons that are heavier than 24lbs. The SAW with paratrooper stock, optics, and OTN configuration is heavier than 24lbs. The M60 with PVS-4 and mount was heavier than 24lbs. The M240B empty is 27.6lbs, no optics, no OTN accessories, no rail system.

The PKM is ~17lbs, and getting lighter. The KAC LMG is ~ 11lbs. For dismounted movements, 11H's used to break down the M2 .50 BMG, and strap it to ALICE Pack frames, then assemble it before emplacing on a SBF position. The GD .338 MMG would allow you to bring in a lot more firepower on foot, without disassembling the gun.

I've mentioned it before, but I would really like to see more 60mm mortars with PGM warheads linked at the local level, with integrated terminal guidance in a Land Warrior format that we could manage at the Company, Platoon, and Squad. That would be a game-changer. 5.56 carbines are just for local security, and close quarters clearance most of the time anyway. The intermediate fight is usually dealt with using LMG's, MMG's, and DM's if you have well-trained DM's.

[Michael]

the CCS, together with the CLAWS and LDAM programs, seems clearly aimed at a replacement not only for 7.62 NATO, but also the smaller NATO round.

I wouldn't count on this being true...it could very well be a GOBI (General Officer Bright Idea). These GOBIs will occasionally gain traction and seem to be more important/game changing than they really are.

[cory]

A few years back there was a program developing an 60mm mortar system that was integrated with a 6 wheeled autonomous/remote controlled vehicle. The system was completely hands off, other than giving it the coordinates and telling it to fire. I looked for a video and couldn't find it. I was really hoping to see that program succeed. Having that in the company's arsenal especially with these new precision guided mortars, would have been game changing.

[stanc]

"Game changer" is a vastly over-used term. Usually, the game goes on pretty much unchanged...

[JASmith]

That post by LRRPF52 reminds me that we need to take step back and look at the squads, platoons, and companies as systems more than what an individual soldier needs to carry the full burden himself.

The technology for making 60 mm PGM warheads exists for both GPS and Laser-guidance.

If they are incorporated in the manner suggested by LRRPF52, we would see significant changes in tactics and a possible move toward an even smaller caliber and cartridge for the close-defense role. That would also make a cartridge like the Grendel an excellent candidate for the DM, LMG & MMG roles with the .338 filling in at the heavier, longer range end.

Just remember, a 60 mm mortar round may seem puny, but if you are in the open and one lands 5 ft from you, you just had a very bad day. Precision guidance will make that happen a lot more.

Did someone say game changer?

[bwaites]

Never having served, I can't offer much, but I can say, after having just finished "Into the fire: A Firsthand Account of the Most Extraordinary Battle in the Afghan War" which detail Dakota Meyers experience in Ganjigal, Afghanistan, that MORE ordinance that is actually controlled by people on the field would be a good thing, particularly in todays highly mechanized military.

Even though Joes still have to patrol on foot, they generally get in and out mounted, and having those mounted vehicles available allows a lot more hurt, IF the brass allow them to actually have the weapons that they need. a small 60mm mortar would seem ideal, and I wonder what the outcome in Ganjigal would have been if they had been available.

If you haven't read this book, you should. Meyers was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions, and to this day feels like he was a failure because he couldn't rescue his fire team.


For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving with Marine Embedded Training Team 2-8, Regional Corps Advisory Command 3-7, in Kunar Province, Afghanistan, on 8 September 2009. Corporal Meyer maintained security at a patrol rally point while other members of his team moved on foot with two platoons of Afghan National Army and Border Police into the village of Ganjgal for a pre-dawn meeting with village elders. Moving into the village, the patrol was ambushed by more than 50 enemy fighters firing rocket propelled grenades, mortars, and machine guns from houses and fortified positions on the slopes above. Hearing over the radio that four U.S. team members were cut off, Corporal Meyer seized the initiative. With a fellow Marine driving, Corporal Meyer took the exposed gunner’s position in a gun-truck as they drove down the steeply terraced terrain in a daring attempt to disrupt the enemy attack and locate the trapped U.S. team. Disregarding intense enemy fire now concentrated on their lone vehicle, Corporal Meyer killed a number of enemy fighters with the mounted machine guns and his rifle, some at near point blank range, as he and his driver made three solo trips into the ambush area. During the first two trips, he and his driver evacuated two dozen Afghan soldiers, many of whom were wounded. When one machine gun became inoperable, he directed a return to the rally point to switch to another gun-truck for a third trip into the ambush area where his accurate fire directly supported the remaining U.S. personnel and Afghan soldiers fighting their way out of the ambush. Despite a shrapnel wound to his arm, Corporal Meyer made two more trips into the ambush area in a third gun-truck accompanied by four other Afghan vehicles to recover more wounded Afghan soldiers and search for the missing U.S. team members. Still under heavy enemy fire, he dismounted the vehicle on the fifth trip and moved on foot to locate and recover the bodies of his team members. Corporal Meyer’s daring initiative and bold fighting spirit throughout the 6-hour battle significantly disrupted the enemy’s attack and inspired the members of the combined force to fight on. His unwavering courage and steadfast devotion to his U.S. and Afghan comrades in the face of almost certain death reflected great credit upon himself and upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and the United States Naval Service.

[Michael]

[stanc]

Even though Joes still have to patrol on foot, they generally get in and out mounted, and having those mounted vehicles available allows a lot more hurt, IF the brass allow them to actually have the weapons that they need. a small 60mm mortar would seem ideal, and I wonder what the outcome in Ganjigal would have been if they had been available.

USMC (and US Army) units do use 60mm mortars in Afghanistan.

4:50-6:30 The long time of flight that Michael mentions is readily apparent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmcdy-_8p6Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGh0QHyzGW0

[JASmith]

Michael,

Not boring at all -- instead very informative!

My introduction to PGM's was in 1970 when I was handed a pair of fighters with 2000 lb Paveway bombs. The first bomb went through the tank turret, indicating both precision and accuracy, and with spectacular effects. The effects from a 2,000 lb bomb aren't particularly precise. That's part of the reason the USAF now has a 250lb-class JDAM. A lot more hits per sortie and much less collateral effects.

What you have done is to nicely point out that one needs to ensure the capability upgrade is done the right way.

The first step might be simply to include guidance within the current structure -- that will result in significant improvement in effectiveness, and the added precision may make the mortar easier to employ in this world of ever-tightening ROE.

Weight of the system is another reason a 60 mm mortar might not be the direct solution.

Nonetheless, the notion of a precision guided grenade reaching out to at least 1500 meters is both intriguing and doable. The 40mm grenade is problematic because the shoulder-launched version doesn't have the reach, and the automatic grenade launcher version has too much recoil except in a tripod mount. Nonetheless, this might be a good starting point in working out a system to fulfill the vision.