+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article (/showthread.php?tid=2735)
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - stanc - 05-07-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:Whoever is writing this is obviously out-of-touch with what it takes to achieve hits at 800m...I will only say that achieving hits at 800 meters is not quite the same as being able to engage the target.
Quote:...and how a cartridge/rifle system capable of that is a liability at the 8m range.It would certainly not be ideal for such close distances, but the fact that it's been done in the past, with bigger, heavier, more powerful cartridge/rifle systems, indicates to me it's not a great liability.
Quote:Even among the infantry squad, there are weapons capable of reaching out to 800m, where a rifleman can't even see a target unless he's using optics.Other than Javelin, which is carried in very small numbers (one? two?) by a dismounted infantry squad, what is there?
Quote:The statements are made as if riflemen are the only soldiers on the battlefield.I'd say it's made in recognition of riflemen being the most numerous soldiers on the battlefield.
It would be interesting to poll riflemen to find out if they would prefer to stick with 5.56 for its CQB superiority, or switch to a somewhat more powerful cartridge like 6.5 Grendel.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - JASmith - 05-07-2012
So, going to the platoon adds the M240 and the AT weapons.
I've heard that folks frequently have to get permission from "higher" to use the AT weapons. Is this because they cost so much, or because the ROE are getting sensitive to collateral damage as Tony has indicated?
Thanks!
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - stanc - 05-07-2012
JASmith Wrote:Air and artillery are always there...Tell that to the Marines. If you watch this video of the battle for Marjah, you'll see the majority of their requests for artillery and air strikes were either denied by higher, or cancelled by the unit for lack of timely approval.
[video=youtube;X1zBZWGKJJY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zBZWGKJJY[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zBZWGKJJY
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-07-2012
The SAW is an 800m weapon for area targets, as are DM weapons for suppression. A 7.62 DMR with a well-trained shooter in lower winds can be an effective 800m weapon if he uses someone to spot for him with capable optics.
As far as riflemen go, many will be awe-stricken at the thought of something new or cool, until they have to carry it. (Surveying 1st-term riflemen is not a good way to determine caliber appropriateness, as they have a very limited understanding of their role in the big picture.) Then anything heavier than 5.56 will become an albatross real quick, and buyer's remorse will occur within the 1st few minutes of a field exercise with it if it is adopted for all riflemen. The bean-counters will see quickly how dismounted and even mounted units are requiring re-supplies more often, and have significantly reduced combat endurance compared to what we have now with 5.56, and it will be back to the M60/M14 fiasco all over again.
The 5.56 is not just superior at CQB distances, but out to 150m, where most riflemen engagements will occur. For the 300m-800m distances, it would be an advantage to have DMR's and LMG's with something roughly equating 7.62 NATO capabilities, with less weight and recoil, from lighter platforms than the SAW and M14EBR or M110 SASS. An 18" Grendel SPR/DMR would weigh less than even a 5.56 SPR with the same barrel length/profile, so we just need a new LMG that weighs half of what a SAW does. That is the main code to crack, as I would lean towards a 5.56 SPR with the 77gr or maybe even a different projectile suited to better performance at 700yds, and still cross-compatible with the riflemen in the squad carrying M4A1 SOPMOD Block II's.
I would also like to see lightweight barrel M4 Mk18 CQBR-type blasters for the FO, RTO, PL, PSG, SL, Combat Medic, and others who are in leadership or direct support duty positions that only require them to engage targets with their carbine in a worst-case, getting overrun type scenario. An 11.5" barrel would be better in that regard, but a smaller, lighter carbine without the leftovers from the M16A2, like the heavy forend barrel.
Either way, the new LMG needs to be the primary focus, as that is the weak point right now.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-07-2012
After Obama took office, indirect and CAS requests took on a whole new ROE sequence, which was politically structured to result in "DENIED" more than not. Soldiers can expect to see thses types of rulings from the CinC when a new President takes over, like when Nixon came in for 1969, and restrictions were lifted in many cases, and there was more of a full court press from the White House regarding bombing the North, which Johnson's admin had severly restricted with all types of crazy ROE.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - stanc - 05-07-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:As far as riflemen go, many will be awe-stricken at the thought of something new or cool, until they have to carry it. (Surveying 1st-term riflemen is not a good way to determine caliber appropriateness, as they have a very limited understanding of their role in the big picture.)Simple solution: omit 1st-termers from the survey.
Quote:Then anything heavier than 5.56 will become an albatross real quick, and buyer's remorse will occur within the 1st few minutes of a field exercise with it if it is adopted for all riflemen.That depends on how much heavier. You have 5.56 and 6.5 carbines -- do you consider the Grendel carbine to be so much heavier (if it is heavier) as to be an albatross?
Quote:The bean-counters will see quickly how dismounted and even mounted units are requiring re-supplies more often, and have significantly reduced combat endurance compared to what we have now with 5.56...That assumes intermediate-caliber ammo would be expended at the same rate, which may not hold true.
Quote:The 5.56 is not just superior at CQB distances, but out to 150m, where most riflemen engagements will occur. For the 300m-800m distances, it would be an advantage to have DMR's and LMG's with something roughly equating 7.62 NATO capabilities, with less weight and recoil, from lighter platforms than the SAW and M14EBR or M110 SASS.So the choice is:
a. Have the rifle cartridge optimized for the close fight, which makes only the two SAW gunners (and the DM, if there is one) adequately armed for long range engagements.
b. Have a rifle/SAW cartridge that makes all squad members adequately armed for both the close fight and long range engagements.
Quote:Either way, the new LMG needs to be the primary focus, as that is the weak point right now.I agree. The question is, what's the best option?
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-07-2012
Grendel carbines themselves would be lighter slightly, due to bore diameter. It's the ammo I'm talking about.
The choices are:
a. Keep the 5.56 NATO, which is optimized for 0-400m from mag-fed carbines, AND adopting a high performance belt-fed LMG/cartridge system that increases the LMG penetration capability in the close fight, while extending the effective range of the Squad-level gunners further for point target and distance penetration. The new DMR or SASS could also be chambered in the LMG cartridge as well, but they would have different packaging and loads, with an accurate match load for the precision guns. The new TO&E includes a DMR in the B Fire Team, so that is 3 out of 9 guys who can provide longer-range fire, which is plenty for a unit that small.
b. Going with a universal caliber: This will hinder maneuverability, shot recovery for Joe tentpeg, reduce marksmanship qualification scores and proficiency-especially in CQM, and reduce combat endurance of the Infantry Squad, Platoon, & Company...assuming soldiers will pull the trigger as soldiers do under combat conditions. Even if Joe Tentpeg had an 800m capable weapon, he would need considerable training on compensating for wind to make a hit under those conditions, and that's with a perfect elevation figure already plugged into the optic. It basically solves a problem that doesn't exist.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - stanc - 05-08-2012
What about the assertion that "it is bad for morale when troops are unable to respond effectively with their [5.56] rifles on half the occasions when they come under fire"?
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-08-2012
stanc Wrote:What about the assertion that "it is bad for morale when troops are unable to respond effectively with their [5.56] rifles on half the occasions when they come under fire"?
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf
One of the problems with the British perspective is that they don't really use 5.56 NATO as we understand it, unless something has changed with the logistics chain. What I mean by that is that they found out early on with the L85 being the substandard weapon that it is, simply can't take the pressures of M193 or M855 loaded to the pressures that we're used to in the AR15 family, so the UK manufactures a lower power load, that supposedly only reaches between 2700 and 2800fps, even from the 20" L85. This was done to increase the service life of the weapons to an acceptable level. That's 100-200fps slower than a 14.5" M4 carbine.
Another statement we commonly hear about 5.56 is that it relies on yaw to cause the tissue damage that the Small Caliber High Velocity concept called for and delivered with the AR15. The tissue damage is really more of a factor of a thin jacketed projectile impacting at over 2600fps on the target. At those speeds, it doesn't really matter how a thin-jacketed, light bullet is oriented, because it will shed its jacket and come apart violently.
Looking at these clarifications, you can start to see how there might be a perfect storm for UK soldiers to see significantly-reduced performance from their 5.56 weapons. If they're only getting 2700fps mv, what is the impact velocity on a person at 200m? It certainly isn't 2600fps, which is often cited at the fragementation threshold of M193 and M855.
When it comes to the individual service rifle, I think the UK made a huge and costly mistake that they're continuing to pay for to this day with the L85 fiasco, and the fact that the SAS & SBS use Colt Commando variants as their main service weapon screams volumes to that assertion.
I am in total agreement that 5.56 does not make an ideal LMG cartridge for the Infantry Squad.
I am also in agreement that 5.56 isn't ideal for engaging targets out past 400m, and is marginal in the hands of untrained soldiers from 200-400m.
We already know that 7.62 NATO is not the answer, but neither is getting rid of 5.56, which is why I have been advocating the 2-caliber system of 5.56, a 6.5 grendel LMG, and a 6.5 Grendel DMR/SASS.
That said, we can't blame the extended distance limitations on low-powered 5.56 and crappy weapons alone.
I would like to see some citations for sources of complaints from British Infantry Units, to get a better idea if this is a solution looking for a problem, a widespread feeling among infantrymen, or a few anecdotal comments from guys looking to be important.
If the UK does adopt a larger cartridge, the Bullpup will have to go, unless they find a reliable way to pack 30rds into a smaller space. The LMT 7.62 MRP would be much better in Grendel, as would the LMG's.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - Tony Williams - 05-09-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:What I mean by that is that they found out early on with the L85 being the substandard weapon that it is, simply can't take the pressures of M193 or M855 loaded to the pressures that we're used to in the AR15 family, so the UK manufactures a lower power load, that supposedly only reaches between 2700 and 2800fps, even from the 20" L85. This was done to increase the service life of the weapons to an acceptable level. That's 100-200fps slower than a 14.5" M4 carbine.
I think this is an urban myth. I have heard many complaints about the SA80, but a weak action is not one of them. RG do make two lines of 5.56mm ammo, one for SA80 and one for AR-15, but the quoted muzzle velocities are identical. The difference is to do with the pressure characteristics, not the maximum pressure. Despite NATO "standardisation" it is clear that nations tend to fine-tune their ammo to perform best in their guns, and it may not work so well in other guns. This is revealed by a first-hand account I received from a soldier involved in testing the improved SA80A2, as follows:
"The trials were conducted using British ammo, but some German and American types were tried. It was found that the German ammo fouled the gas ports very quickly, whereas the US ammo sometimes didn't seem to produce enough pressure to cock the gun reliably, with a stoppage occurring once every one or two magazines."
Quote:Another statement we commonly hear about 5.56 is that it relies on yaw to cause the tissue damage that the Small Caliber High Velocity concept called for and delivered with the AR15. The tissue damage is really more of a factor of a thin jacketed projectile impacting at over 2600fps on the target. At those speeds, it doesn't really matter how a thin-jacketed, light bullet is oriented, because it will shed its jacket and come apart violently.
The main US criticism of the terminal effectiveness of 5.56mm M855 is that unless it is yawing by 3+ degrees on impact, it will not upset rapidly in a body but will punch a neat hole straight through. On testing in ballistic gel, it was found that 70% of bullets did not start to yaw until at least 4.7 inches after impact, and 15% didn't yaw at all.
Quote:When it comes to the individual service rifle, I think the UK made a huge and costly mistake that they're continuing to pay for to this day with the L85 fiasco, and the fact that the SAS & SBS use Colt Commando variants as their main service weapon screams volumes to that assertion.
Yes, they did indeed make a big mistake, although the A2 version of the gun is now reliable - rather more so than the M4, as shown not just by British tests. I was just reading some comments by experienced MARSOC NCOs who have returned from combat and are now involved in training, and they were critical of the M4's reliability in adverse conditions. The British should have adopted the Steyr AUG (as some of those involved at the time wanted, but nationalism won out).
As far as British special forces are concerned, there are several reasons why they didn't adopt the L85 (although they did acquire some L86A2). First, they were using members of the AR-15 family in the mid-1960s, 20 years before the SA80 was available, so they became totally familiar with the system. Second, the L85A1 was unreliable. Third, the L85A1 (and initially the L85A2 as well) had no provision for adding accessories - no P-rails etc. Fourth, even with the latest L85A2 fitted with P-rails, the ergonomics are poor and the gun is very heavy - not what the high-speed low-drag folks want.
Quote:I would like to see some citations for sources of complaints from British Infantry Units, to get a better idea if this is a solution looking for a problem, a widespread feeling among infantrymen, or a few anecdotal comments from guys looking to be important.
My colleague, a former infantry officer, interviewed several hundred British soldiers to discover their views about their small arms and ammunition. There was also a similar recent study (not publically available) by the Royal Marines. The conclusions are that the soldiers are primarily concerned about the lack of effective range of the 5.56mm (whatever it's fired in) and also by the lack of barrier penetration and unreliable terminal effectiveness. At least half the Marines said that if they had to choose between 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles, they'd choose 7.62mm (although they'd prefer something in between).
Quote:If the UK does adopt a larger cartridge, the Bullpup will have to go, unless they find a reliable way to pack 30rds into a smaller space.
Why 30 rounds? 25 seems reasonable. However, since it is clear that the British are going to buy-in their next rifle, and are likely to favour something off-the-shelf from HK, FN or Colt, it will almost inevitably not be a bullpup (they don't like the control system of the FN F2000).
Quote:The LMT 7.62 MRP would be much better in Grendel, as would the LMG's.
Agreed!
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-09-2012
I will say that US 5.56 is on the edge of pressure limitations based on temp variables, and is at max for a mass-produced standpoint. Since the US ammo is oriented towards the DI gas system of the AR15 family, it wouldn't surprise me that the gas pressure curve wouldn't run the L85 well.
The guys in SAS and SBS use the Colt Commandos because it's the best assault rifle platform in the world right now. If anything better would come along, they would have it.
With assault rifles, the current trend is seeing higher capacity magazines being developed, such as the AK74 quad-column mag, the SF60, US Palm, and the as of yet unseen Magpul 60rd PMAG. I think it would be a mistake to reduce the rifleman's mag capacity from anything less than 30rds. I also feel that it IS possible to make a 30rd Grendel mag that is the same size as a 5.56 30rd mag, but I still think we need to be cautious about using the Afghanistan AOR as a major input for the next assault rifle design as a primary consideration.
Also, regarding the yaw performance percentages, what is the expectation? For a projectile to behave predictably 100% of the time in a mass-produced assault rifle load? We have to establish some expectation guidelines before citing percentages for how many times a certain projectile does X, Y, & Z in ballistic gelatin. 70% consistency seems pretty dang good to me, for a standard AR load. From a soldeir's perspective, I'm not waiting to see what just one round does to an enemy, regardless of what rifle or carbine I'm carrying. They will get at least one follow-up shot at distance, and 3-5 at CQ ranges, unless a head shot drops them like a sack of potatoes before I can make another at distance.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - Tony Williams - 05-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:Also, regarding the yaw performance percentages, what is the expectation? For a projectile to behave predictably 100% of the time in a mass-produced assault rifle load? We have to establish some expectation guidelines before citing percentages for how many times a certain projectile does X, Y, & Z in ballistic gelatin. 70% consistency seems pretty dang good to me, for a standard AR load. From a soldeir's perspective, I'm not waiting to see what just one round does to an enemy, regardless of what rifle or carbine I'm carrying. They will get at least one follow-up shot at distance, and 3-5 at CQ ranges, unless a head shot drops them like a sack of potatoes before I can make another at distance.
The perfect bullet for terminal effectiveness will begin to yaw as quickly as possible after impact (within 2 inches of penetration), will be travelling sideways through the zone of maximum damage (on average, say 4-8 inches) to create the biggest possible wound channel there, and will penetrate at least 12 inches but no more than 18 (or energy will be lost through overpenetration). Furthermore, it will perform like this every shot, regardless of impact velocity or striking angle.
Of course, no bullet will perform like this 100% of the time, but that provides a benchmark for judging what actually happens. So if 70% of M855 bullets don't even begin to yaw until they have penetrated 4.7 inches, that is bad news. That half of the remainder don't yaw at all is even worse. That leaves just 15% of bullets which do perform well.
I don't have equivalent figures for other bullets, but I do know that the performance of the M855 is considered to be poor. In particular, the need for it to be yawing in the air by at least 3 degrees at the point of impact before it will yaw quickly in a body is significantly worse than other military bullets tested.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-10-2012
Yes, but another requirement for the M855 is for it to be armor-piercing, with the steel penetrator. My experiences over 3 different regions of the world, not counting several Stateside assignments, with M855 are admittedly anecdotal, and non-scientific. That said, every 5.56 injury/death I have seen had brutal wound characteristics unlike other rifle cartridges, and the guys who have been stacking people to the sky with them for decades don't complain about M855-to the contrary, they prefer it.
Asking a bullet to perform to the most damaging possible threshold on flesh, and then asking it to penetrate light armor is a tall order, which is why reducing the velocity and increasing the weight stretch it in both directions even further. LMG: I want penetration, high SD, and great terminal performance on hard targets. Assault rifle: Lightweight, high capacity, low recoil, flesh blaster.
Even if I were to interview a scientifically accepted baseline number of infantry soldiers who have actually been in fierce contact, the percentage of them that have actually cognitively aimed, fired, and knowingly hit an enemy will still be a small percentage of that total number. Any one of their impressions, preferences, and insight as to what a good assault rifle cartridge would be is almost useless, except for the fact that they all will want it to be lightweight and low-recoiling.
This is why I lean to the experience of guys in units who are involved in almost exclusively direct action encounters, where they have decided where, when, and how they will be, in-fact, killing enemy targets. Their perspective on small arms capabilities and limitations is much more practical, and they are much less affected by new, cool toys from enthusiastic contractors looking for a sell. Their response to this issue usually involves a suggestion to go to the range more often, with very high standards for marksmanship performance.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-10-2012
I think the best solution to the future dismounted infantry small arms structure will involve the following weapon systems:
- A SCHV carbine like the M4A1 SOMPOD Block II (free-floated handguard, FDE color, CHF barrel)
- The Mult-Role LMG chambered in Grendel
- A DMR/SASS system in SCHV with special match ammunition or Match Grendel (A mid-sized LMT MRP would be a great platform for this, since the unit could configure it for the region or mission.)
It also could streamline the system if the carbines and DMR/SASS shared the same chassis, with a Grendel mag that allowed a COAL of 2.4". This could also accommodate newer 5.56 ammunition with longer ogive projectiles using solid alloys and sectional bullets for multi-purpose applications, since many armies are going that direction. The AR15 is handicapping the 5.56 anyway, since it was built around the .222 Remington cartridge, with no re-design after the .223 Remington/5.56 evolved from it. External visual differences and weight/feel would be imperceptible to the shooter.
- A multi-shot grenade launcher with precision guided warheads available
- A man-portable 60mm mortar with precision guided warheads, to include a thermobaric warhead option that would allow a quick-fire capability while the lead element in-contact with eyes-on can laze the target for some serious devastation from the thermobaric warhead. This would be a favorite with JoeTentpeg, trust me.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - JASmith - 05-10-2012
Would the mortar remain a company-level asset with the others distributed at the squad/platoon level?
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - Tony Williams - 05-10-2012
LRRPF52 Wrote:Yes, but another requirement for the M855 is for it to be armor-piercing, with the steel penetrator. Asking a bullet to perform to the most damaging possible threshold on flesh, and then asking it to penetrate light armor is a tall order,
Well, it's what the US Army is claiming for the M855A1....
Quote:This is why I lean to the experience of guys in units who are involved in almost exclusively direct action encounters, where they have decided where, when, and how they will be, in-fact, killing enemy targets. Their perspective on small arms capabilities and limitations is much more practical, and they are much less affected by new, cool toys from enthusiastic contractors looking for a sell. Their response to this issue usually involves a suggestion to go to the range more often, with very high standards for marksmanship performance.
Talking of which, on my last visit to the US when I was giving a presentation on this subject, I was afterwards approached by a US special forces soldier fresh from Afghanistan who told me that he was happy with the 5.56mm within 200m but was very dissastisfied with it at longer ranges and wanted something much better for his rifle (he put it a lot more colourfully than that, but you get the picture!).
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - JASmith - 05-10-2012
Tony Williams Wrote:...I was afterwards approached by a US special forces soldier fresh from Afghanistan who told me that he was happy with the 5.56mm within 200m but was very dissastisfied with it at longer ranges and wanted something much better for his rifle (he put it a lot more colourfully than that, but you get the picture!).This observation is very close to the large body of both commentary and analysis we've seen over the last decade or longer.
The problem seems to be that the current issue weapons capable of good use in the hands of a properly trained shoulder at ranges of 300 meters and beyond tend to be heavy in both rifle and ammunition weight. These weapons include the 7.62 in DMR format, the MMG, grenade launches, and the company-level 60mm mortar.
My take is that LLRPF52 is on a good path with the notion of an intermediate-caliber cartridge in machine guns and DMR weapons for the squad and platoon. This keeps the heavier weapons in the picture, but at the company level where one could assert they would be more effectively employed.
Cheers!
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-10-2012
I think a unit needs to have the flexibility to Tailor the Force for the operational environment. For example, the Afghan AOR might justify a 50/50 mix of 5.56 and High Performance Intermediate Caliber carbines, but an urban environment would not, nor would a densely-wooded environment.
Additionally, riflemen would need to receive more training in engaging targets at distance, since every infantryman's weapon is equipped with an optical sighting system nowadays. Some of the new 1-6x Variables would make a great optic for a Grendel carbine that would be used from CQB out to 600m, but the Joes would need training on making hits at 600m.
I really think a new shorter 60mm martar/smart warhead system needs to be open to being used as a Platoon-level asset, since a Platoon in-contact could immediately bring that level of firepower to the front, without having to wait for the chain of custody radio gaggle that happens from the Platoon>>to the>>Company to the>>mortar section. The lightweight mortar would be a Weapon's Squad Asset, along with AT weapons like the Javelin, so they would be in the rear of a Platoon order of movement formation.
The major change in this TO&E concept is that the 7.62 NATO GPMG gun teams are gone, with the introduction of a Grendel LMG to replace the SAW's in every Fire Team. It would also require Teams to understand the importance of using the LMG as a crew-served weapon, where another experienced soldier spots for the LMG for distance engagement, but the constant recoil mechanism will allow the LMG gunner to do most of that himself.
If a Platoon Leader had that asset in his quiver, and could literally delegate indirect fires to his lead squad in-contact, with the mortar on Platoon-internal freq, there would be some serious suppression of enemy, allowing the lead squad to lay down a well-aimed base of fire, while the next squad actually maneuvers on the enemy, rather than engaging in a stand-off, which typically allows the enemy to either break contact, or hunker down as is the case currently.
For the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan, where Muj/Taliban prefer to engage from far distances, this Platoon smart warhead mortar system would turn the tables quickly, as no shoulder-fired weapons can effectively engage enemy at 1.5-2km.
With the Land Warrior/Future Force/Objective Warrior concept, the lead element could laze the enemy, which would automatically send a polar plot to the mortar section's warhead management system, and they could literally drop a round immediately, with a GPS grid guiding the fins of the projectile to target.
In forested terrain, they could fire through a clearing, and drop a round through tree cover on the target with such a system, since the GPS coordinate would be 3 axes-based.
Introducing this type of small unit mortar system combined with a Grendel LMG with a slow cyclic rate and constant-recoil operating system would make much of the caliber debate go away, because units would just go to the mortar more often than not, and lay waste to any contact. The maneuver elements would arrive to clean up the mess really.
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - stanc - 05-10-2012
Regarding the subject of a constant-recoil 6.5 Grendel LMG:
stanc Wrote:Has anyone investigated feasibility of Grendelizing an Ultimax?
Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article - LRRPF52 - 05-10-2012
stanc Wrote:Regarding the subject of a constant-recoil 6.5 Grendel LMG:
Since the Ultimax is magazine-fed, including drum mags, it isn't ideal. Drums suck to manage in the field. The Finns would often have an assistant gunner for the Kp31 SMG, and use it in the LMG role that way, where one guy just kep the drums loaded and handed them to the shooter as he burned through 72rds after another. Not a good system at all, especially in sub-zero temps. After the war, they made a plastic pre-loaded mag that you could have filled, then drop it into the open drum for a quick top-off, then wind the spring once closed.
Ultimax's are few and far between in the collector's market, and I doubt one of them would want any changes made, but since 3 of the Ultimax variants have quick-change barrels, it might be easier than one thinks using a bolt and barrel replacement. The KAC LMG would be the main platform I'd be interested in testing first, since it uses constant-recoil and is belt-fed.