New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[Michael]

JASmith - agreed concerning the grenade aspect...I seem to remember before it was killed off the OICW had a 20mm grenade launcher that had a greater range than the M203s 400m (800m maybe?), and I think H&K was messing around with a 25mmm version that had a max range of about 1000m.

[bwaites]

As I said, I have no experience here to rely on. I do know that grunts die when people without eyes on the scene make decisions about indirect fire, so maybe the answer lies with a completely new system.

Maybe the action commander needs to lead from the front, so he can call in appropriate assets!

[cory]

As long as we're talking about a system, I believe we need to be discussing the replacement of the M9 and 9mm round with another pistol directed towards the CQB environment. If the 5.56 NATO is arguably an effective round at 300m, then I think we can assume something like the 5.7mm will be effective at <10m.

In my dream world....

The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO would go away as far as combat troops are concerned. Grunts would be issued a sidearm designed for CQB and a 6.5 Grendel x45mm (stretched Gendel) chambered AR12. Most Grunts would be issued a 14.5" Version DMRs would get a 18"-20" Rifle. The M249 design would be erased from any and all Military databases. A LMG would be designed around the Grendel. A MMG designed around the .338 would replace the M240 and 50 as the vehicle mounted MMG. In turn 300 win mags and .308 Sniper rifles would be converted to the .338.

Each squad would have an ATV integrated with a Mortar System that would require a Grunt with a pad, telling it where to go and where to fire, utilizing GPS. This system would talk with all other vehicles on battlefield, which would prevent most friendly fire.

The 5.56 NATO won't completely go away. Just give it to the Air Force. Maybe in 100 years they'll use up the stockpile of ammunition we have. HAHA jk

[cory]

As I said, I have no experience here to rely on. I do know that grunts die when people without eyes on the scene make decisions about indirect fire, so maybe the answer lies with a completely new system.

Maybe the action commander needs to lead from the front, so he can call in appropriate assets!

That's ideally how it works. You have a Forward Observer attached to the lead element calling for fire and directing the Mortars and Artillery onto the target.

[stanc]

As I said, I have no experience here to rely on. I do know that grunts die when people without eyes on the scene make decisions about indirect fire, so maybe the answer lies with a completely new system.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4

Data sheet - https://www.avinc.com/downloads/Swit...eet_032712.pdf

[bwaites]

That's ideally how it works. You have a Forward Observer attached to the lead element calling for fire and directing the Mortars and Artillery onto the target.

Yeah, but that only works if the FO can actually get someone to pull the trigger on the mortars and artillery!

From all too many circumstances in Iraq and 'stan, that gets into override by "plug and play" REMF's who make decisions based on ROE's that don't reflect what is happening RIGHT NOW on the battlefield.

[bwaites]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdRjYkEU-N4

Data sheet - https://www.avinc.com/downloads/Swit...eet_032712.pdf

Interesting option, but I'm guessing a LOT more expensive per kill than a mortar or grenade launcher!

[cory]

Yeah, but that only works if the FO can actually get someone to pull the trigger on the mortars and artillery!

From all too many circumstances in Iraq and 'stan, that gets into override by "plug and play" REMF's who make decisions based on ROE's that don't reflect what is happening RIGHT NOW on the battlefield.

I agree, which is why I said theoretically. I read that Dakota Meyer story when he was being considered for the MoH. I still can't read back through the details of that day without getting livid to the point that finding a punching bag is a necessity.

The problem here is the more advanced technology becomes, the closer to the battlefield the politicians can get without every getting their $10,000 shoes dirty. Politicians have got to be removed from the war zone!

[bwaites]

I agree, which is why I said theoretically. I read that Dakota Meyer story when he was being considered for the MoH. I still can't read back through the details of that day without getting livid to the point that finding a punching bag is a necessity.

The problem here is the more advanced technology becomes, the closer to the battlefield the politicians can get without every getting their $10,000 shoes dirty. Politicians have got to be removed from the war zone!

Roger that. Give out guys a mission, then let them do it. Quit the second guessing. Quit the micromanagement.

[stanc]

Interesting option, but I'm guessing a LOT more expensive per kill than a mortar or grenade launcher!

That sorta depends on how many mortar rounds or grenades you have to fire to achieve a kill.

You can have cheap, or you can have effective. Don't count on having both.

[bwaites]

That sorta depends on how many mortar rounds or grenades you have to fire to achieve a kill.

You can have cheap, or you can have effective. Don't count on having both.

That is a good point!

[JASmith]

"Cheap" is a relative term.

Loitering is best done on the ground with no fuel expended so the asset lifetime can be comfortably long.

A rocket-assisted grenade or a straight rocket launched system could get the range. The technology exists for making the guidance doable, and the costs are low enough that the weapon would be considered cheap compared to the number of unguided munitions needed to do the same job.

[Tony Williams]

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

You could use the same argument for any support weapons: Carl Gustav, ATGW, 60mm mortar, .50 cal Barrett, even MANPADS.....you never know when they might be needed (well, OK, you probably won't need MANPADS in most scenarios) but I presume that you can't carry all of them unless you're patrolling in something like company strength, which seems unlikely.

In the case of the MMG, I suspect that it might be a matter of "we're expecting to be attacked and recent attacks in this terrain have been from very long range, so we'd better assign an MMG to that patrol" but I defer to those of you with combat experience about how this works.

[Tony Williams]

JASmith - agreed concerning the grenade aspect...I seem to remember before it was killed off the OICW had a 20mm grenade launcher that had a greater range than the M203s 400m (800m maybe?), and I think H&K was messing around with a 25mmm version that had a max range of about 1000m.

HK developed the gun element of the US 25mm XM25 shoulder-fired grenade launcher, of which five prototypes have been made and tested in Afghanistan (the Army want's another 36 for more extensive trials). Max range c.700m.

The best we can do in the West at the moment is to step up in performance to 40mm Medium Velocity, which doubles the range of the usual Low Velocity UBGL fodder (to 700-800m maximum ballistic, rather less than that in effective range).

China (of all places) has the lead in portable grenade launchers at the moment. Google for the 35mm QLB-06: 9.1 kg (20 lb) semi-auto, with effective ranges of 600m against point targets and 1000m against area targets (maximum ballistic range 1,650m). These things (and the slightly heavier 12 kg automatic QLZ-87 firing the same ammo) are spreading all over the place - Africa, South America, the Middle East...

[stanc]

In the case of the MMG, I suspect that it might be a matter of "we're expecting to be attacked and recent attacks in this terrain have been from very long range, so we'd better assign an MMG to that patrol"...

That, as well as other missions where an MMG is typically attached. In which case we're back to having two different calibers, and two different machine guns, which negates one of the fundamental premises of the GPC concept.