+- 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: New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" (/showthread.php?tid=6789)
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - cory - 04-11-2014
LRRPF52 Wrote:Europe is going to be a big focal point for the next few decades, but Russia will play the chessboard very methodically, with patience.
We're basically at a stage where you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want, although direct US involvement may be dubious at this point, especially considering the role of Germany becoming more friendly with Russia in a chaotic Europe.
I'm completely in favor of pulling troops and supplies out of Europe and letting Russia have at it.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-11-2014
cory Wrote:We've seen the M240 issued at the Rifle Squad level in Afghanistan out of necessity, not as a Marine Corps SOP.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?
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Michael - 04-11-2014
JASmith – You are correct, there are a lot of conflicting pieces of data, and we in the military have historically tended to focus on the last war when designing our systems ant tactics. There have been some who looked ahead- or at the current situation- and went against the grain in their conduct of warfare (LGen ‘Brute’ Krulak and how Marines fought in I Corps in the mid-60s comes to mind, as does J-SOC forces in ‘01-‘02). We also have a tendency to focus on the enemies’, or perceived enemies’ Most Dangerous Course of Action (MDCOA) as opposed to the enemies’ Most Likely Course of Action (MLCOA). There is a growing group within the military and government that see the fallacy of fighting the last war – or preparing for the MDCOA at the expense of preparing for the MLCOA.
One of the classes I have taught over the last several years has been ‘Evolution of Warfare’. In that class we look at how warfare has evolved over the last 2000 years and where it is heading. I spent a lot of time doing research, reading and applying my own hard earned lessons learned in the process of educating the future officers. Based on a lot of reading, I have come to the following hypothesizes;
1) Full scale war – conventional or non-conventional - with an equal or near equal state competitor is unlikely. Global diplomacy, economies and information systems (three of the four areas of national power, the fourth being military) are too interconnected and interdependent. Again, it is unlikely, not impossible. I see this as the MDCOA. We still must be prepared for 3d generation warfare.
2) As of right now, no other nation state has the ability to project force to the extent of the U.S. . There are those who are trying, but it is not their focus of effort, and it is highly unlikely anyone will reach the potential to forward deploy a force of any size for at least 30 years. IE Invasion U.S.A. from a state actor doesn’t keep me up at night.
3) Unilateral action by a single nation state against a weaker state or non-state actor would have dramatic economic, diplomatic and military repercussions from the rest of the world. This is evident by current backlash against Russia.
4) Urban sprawl and discontent/poverty/class separation within the littoral regions of 3rd and 4th world nations (and it is encroaching into the traditional 1st world) will continue to impact global security, trade, travel and information sharing to the point a state actor – or group of state actors - will be forced to become involved (see the Arab Spring). As mentioned in point 2) we’re it when it comes to being able to project force, so it will most likely be a U.S. led/sponsored force.
5) Since the point of friction is the urban 3rd/4th world terrain, that is where we will most likely close with and fight the enemy. This terrain will be dominated by restricted maneuver and movement, and the enemy will most likely be non-state actors (may be funded/supported by agitator states) who hides among people who are neutral or non-participants. In order to maintain coalition and worldwide support, the state actors must be very judicious in the application of military power IOT avoid collateral damage, or turning a neutral party/person into an enemy by killing their family. This last scenario is, in the opinions of a lot of smart folks, the MLCOA for the future of our military operations and is considered 4th generation warfare.
So what does this mean? When you are talking MDCOA/3rd generation warfare, you are talking planes and missiles, with the possibility of large armored forces. When you are talking the MLCOA/4th generation warfare, you are talking about smaller lighter units on the ground – Reg/BN sized infantry units, SOF, maybe even some light armor.
In trying to sum up some stuff, and get this thread back on track, I would recommend everyone who wants to talk about the future small arms/individual weapons of the future; Consider what will be most applicable in a non-permissive urban environment with a lot of neutral civilians to hide the bad guys. Big calibers with the ability to over-penetrate a target may not be the answer.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - cory - 04-11-2014
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.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - cory - 04-11-2014
One possibility I think we're completely overlooking is having a platform designed around 1 caliber and having multiple loads. This is already done with the 50 cal ammunition. You have ~a dozen different loadings. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.50_BMG#Military_cartridge_types
Why can we not go with the 6.5 AR/LMG/DMR and .338 MMG/Sniper platforms with each having one or two loads (not counting tracers), with the production emphasis being whatever the MLCOA is at that time. For instance the 6.5mm could have a 95gr frangible round, a 115gr armor piercing round, and a 123gr HPBT DMR round. As long as all loads are relatively the same costs and can be adequately effective in all battlefields I don't see a problem with this.
Just a thought.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - JASmith - 04-11-2014
Michael Wrote:...In trying to sum up some stuff, and get this thread back on track, I would recommend everyone who wants to talk about the future small arms/individual weapons of the future; Consider what will be most applicable in a non-permissive urban environment with a lot of neutral civilians to hide the bad guys. Big calibers with the ability to over-penetrate a target may not be the answer.Many thanks for an informed and well-described summary of the major potential conflict scenarios.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - LRRPF52 - 04-11-2014
Soldier's load and logistics at the boot level will never justify going to a larger, heavier cartridge for most soldiers. Short story: 5.56 NATO and 5.45x39 are not going away anytime soon, especially considering what percentage of soldier's outside of combat units, as well as inside direct infantry units actually focus on closing with and destroying the enemy with small arms fire (not many of them).
The question then becomes, how do we increase the load-carrying capability of belt-fed weapons, to include vehicle-mounted ones, which do the most killing anyway.
Michael, thanks for your comments. They are an excellent summary of the concepts of force structuring and defense matters when taking a realistic view into account. The implications for dismounted and mounted blue force combatants turns away from 19th century regimentation structures, and really calls on organizational flexibility for mission types, ambiguities in regional, cultural, and political dynamics, with limited and precise application of violence in the events that call for it.
The underlying solutions to such a force structure really need to be addressed with organizational vision, training, and more training. I'm a supporter of a two-headed beast in terms of National and Expeditionary force structures:
* One is prepared to over match and defeat formal militaries anywhere in the world.
* 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.
It basically starts with a childhood training pipeline for those who know they are geared for the warrior and diplomatic class. It involves military-diplomatic schooling, including foreign language and cultural immersion programs, a constant program of studying geography, history, and martial subjects with half of the day focused on more cerebral modes, while the other half of the school day focuses on hands-on application of principles.
Our current military suffers from systemic leadership failures, and succeeds only because of a minority warrior class of professionals who have to fight the system to gain mission accomplishment, combined with the most powerful military industrial complex known to man.
It is hopeless to attempt to change the military from within using existing and outdated institutions, so you must start with the next generation of soldiers in the private sector, and build the leadership structure from outside before they enter. Give me half of the resources available to the initial entry, NCO development, Officer Training, and long-term professional development schools of the Army, and I will channel 10 times the soldier the government could ever hope to mentor and develop.
The standards that the Special Operations community demand from enlisted and officer candidates are what should be very baseline for entry-level combat arms enlisted, and officer duty positions, and the only way to accomplish that is in the private sector.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-11-2014
Michael Wrote:I spent a lot of time doing research, reading and applying my own hard earned lessons learned in the process of educating the future officers. Based on a lot of reading, I have come to the following hypothesizes...Excellent post, Michael. I agree with pretty much the entirety of your analysis.
Quote:In trying to sum up some stuff, and get this thread back on track, I would recommend everyone who wants to talk about the future small arms/individual weapons of the future; Consider what will be most applicable in a non-permissive urban environment with a lot of neutral civilians to hide the bad guys. Big calibers with the ability to over-penetrate a target may not be the answer.I doubt that a military rifle/MG ball round of any caliber won't pose an over-penetration hazard. Combat ammo needs to be capable of punching through barriers, with sufficient retained energy and momentum to be lethal. The requirement for barrier defeat capability is in direct opposition to the concern about over-penetration. IMO, it's unrealistic and pointless to be concerned about over-penetration.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-11-2014
cory Wrote:One possibility I think we're completely overlooking is having a platform designed around 1 caliber and having multiple loads. This is already done with the 50 cal ammunition. You have ~a dozen different loadings.It depends on what you have in mind. If a 6.5mm cartridge was adopted, you could count on many different loads being developed and adopted, just as with 7.62 NATO and every cartridge preceding it. At a minimum, there'd be:
Why can we not go with the 6.5 AR/LMG/DMR and .338 MMG/Sniper platforms with each having one or two loads (not counting tracers), with the production emphasis being whatever the MLCOA is at that time. For instance the 6.5mm could have a 95gr frangible round, a 115gr armor piercing round, and a 123gr HPBT DMR round. As long as all loads are relatively the same costs and can be adequately effective in all battlefields I don't see a problem with this.
- Ball
- Tracer
- AP
- HPBT
- Blank
- Dummy
If what you're getting at is issuing different loads for different areas -- for example, Frangible for house clearing, and HPBT for desert regions -- that is unlikely to happen. SOP is to issue one general purpose, standard ball round for rifles and machine guns, for use in all regions and operations.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - cory - 04-11-2014
stanc Wrote:It depends on what you have in mind. If a 6.5mm cartridge was adopted, you could count on many different loads being developed and adopted, just as with 7.62 NATO and every cartridge preceding it. At a minimum, there'd be:
- Ball
- Tracer
- AP
- HPBT
- Blank
- Dummy
If what you're getting at is issuing different loads for different areas -- for example, Frangible for house clearing, and HPBT for desert regions -- that is unlikely to happen. SOP is to issue one general purpose, standard ball round for rifles and machine guns, for use in all regions and operations.
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.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-11-2014
cory Wrote: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.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Michael - 04-11-2014
cory Wrote: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.
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 didnt mention (and the one that scares the *&^t out of me) is India and Pakistan. Those folks hate each other at a level I dont think most Americans can comprehend.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Michael - 04-11-2014
LRRPF52 Wrote:* 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.
Concur wholeheartedly. Problem is that costs money - money to train and more money to retain - Look at the bonuses the SOF guys get to re-enlist. Why? They have not only desirable skills, but also a desirable work ethic, high intelligence and incredible adaptability same things corporations pay 6 figures for. Apply these bonuses across the board in the DOD and the GOs in D.C. will really have a fit about pay and benefits being out of control.
Remind me to tell you over an adult beverage one day about my tour on a transition team and how underqualified I thought I was and how the senior members of the Corps told me I was committing career suicide by not punching my ticket in a more enhancing billet. Most important mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet the shakers and movers avoided it like the plague.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - cory - 04-11-2014
Michael Wrote: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?
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - joker31 - 04-11-2014
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!.
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - joker31 - 04-11-2014
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!
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-12-2014
cory Wrote: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?
![[Image: nuclear_explosion_by_theabp-d59sy3y.gif]](http://static6.therichestimages.com/cdn/1236/651/90/cw/wp-content/uploads/nuclear_explosion_by_theabp-d59sy3y.gif)
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - stanc - 04-12-2014
joker31 Wrote: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?
Quote:...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?
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - BluntForceTrauma - 04-12-2014
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
New Army "Caliber Configuration Study" - Tony Williams - 04-12-2014
stanc Wrote: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?