The Case for a General Purpose Cartridge

[stanc]

http://quarryhs.co.uk/TNG.pdf

[Lightning8]

Thanks for sharing. This is a very well done article discussing the issues facing the modern Infantryman and his weapons.

[jawbone]

full and comprehensive tome. many thanks for the link, stanc.

[Lightning8]

I will share this observation as a recently retired Infantry officer. The AR15/M4 (and Beretta M9) serve the majority of DOD very well. For the last 10 years, there has actually been very few Army and Marine Infantry at the point of the spear in close combat (the Special Ops teams already have all the top shelf weapons) at any one time. There is absolutely no reason that DOD cannot purchase say 50,000 of the best possible weapons and issue those to the troops at the point of the spear and let every other member DOD continue to use the M4/M9 series.

[stanc]

While that approach certainly could be taken, it seems unlikely to happen.

It has long been SOP to equip the entire force with any new rifle, not just the "tip of the spear" (although that's where any such replacement typically begins).

[BluntForceTrauma]

Jim Schatz mentions a U.S. Army study that states, "near-peer threats are moving towards a common, intermediate caliber to maximize fire-power and efficiencies for the squad in an attempt to increase lethality at close ranges and accuracy at long-range.”

[LRRPF52]

The most damning argument against a single caliber for most shoulder-fired small arms is one I have brought up many times before, yet remains unaddressed in that article.

Duty positions of actual operational combat arms units that go outside the wire, and the fact that at least half of them would be hindered with such a cartridge. Many combat arms soldiers do not fire their weapon, even while engaged in heavy fighting. If things get so bad to the point that they were being overrun, the 5.56 is what you want, not anything larger.

Many of these troops are normally responsible for more enemy casualties, even though they rarely if ever shoot.

Scout/Observer
Forward Observer
Assistant Machine Gunner
Ammo Bearer
Anti Armor Weapons Specialist

Then you have many direct support and key leader positions:

Platoon Leader
Platoon Sergeant
Combat Medic

Name me one of these soldiers who would be better served with larger, heavier ammunition. LSAT takes care of the range, while allowing much more ammo to be carried, so this GPC argument is really based on the premise that metallic cased ammunition will be the dominant technology into the future for cartridges.

LRF technology for newer aiming systems sounds like a great way to skip training solutions for distance engagements for Joe tentpeg, up until you run into this thing called haze and atmospheric interference, where LRF's are maybe good to 300m in a mild system, and often useless in fog, rain, or high dust.

Machineguns and mortars are what do the bulk of extended distance engagements. How about a machinegun that weighs less than the PKM with more reach, with less recoil, lighter ammo? LSAT is already on that, to include 6.5mm.

[stanc]

The most damning argument against a single caliber for most shoulder-fired small arms is one I have brought up many times before, yet remains unaddressed in that article.

He's obviously a one-caliber proponent. Surely you don't expect him to bring up a point that would detract from his stance?

LSAT takes care of the range, while allowing much more ammo to be carried, so this GPC argument is really based on the premise that metallic cased ammunition will be the dominant technology into the future for cartridges.

Actually, Tony considers the LSAT telescoped cartridges as an even better option for a GPC.

Machineguns and mortars are what do the bulk of extended distance engagements. How about a machinegun that weighs less than the PKM with more reach, with less recoil, lighter ammo? LSAT is already on that, to include 6.5mm.

Yup. It'll be interesting to see how that pans out. But, the priority reportedly is on developing a 7.62mm CTA machine gun, which doesn't make sense to me since 6.5mm is supposedly what they really want.

[stanc]

Jim Schatz mentions a U.S. Army study that states, "near-peer threats are moving towards a common, intermediate caliber to maximize fire-power and efficiencies for the squad in an attempt to increase lethality at close ranges and accuracy at long-range."

Yeah, I saw that. From what I've read about the Chinese 5.8mm round, its performance seems to be little better than 5.56 NATO. In any case, I'm not sure if it is anything to worry about. AFAIK, its use is limited to the PLA, and the probability of a ground war with China is near zero.

But if the Russians truly are working on a new 6mm "unified" cartridge, that could be an interesting development (not that there's much chance of a ground war with Russia, either). I've long wondered if a properly designed 6mm round might be able to deliver a substantial increase in range, without the significant weight penalty that concerns Paul so much. IIRC, the old 6mm SAW round was only a tad heavier than M855 Ball.

[Lightning8]

While that approach certainly could be taken, it seems unlikely to happen.

It has long been SOP to equip the entire force with any new rifle, not just the "tip of the spear" (although that's where any such replacement typically begins).

As someone who has spent most of his career in a Army National Guard Infantry Brigade - a better equipped "Enhanced ARNG Brigade" at that, I would argue that the SOP is NOT to equip the entire force with the best weapons. The SOP has been to issue the deploying units with upgraded weapons, uniforms, etc. as part of the "RFI - Rapid Fielding Initiative" so the concept of getting the best possible weapons to the deploying units is not unheard of and in fact what normally happens to the ARNG units (now 50+% of the ground combat forces). We had to give up our M4s and M240Bs to the next deploying ARNG BDE as there were not enough to go around. With the current Army downsizing there may now be enough M4s and M240Bs to go around but last time I checked there were many M16A2s in service. But that is probably a separate topic to itself.............

[stanc]

As someone who has spent most of his career in a Army National Guard Infantry Brigade - a better equipped "Enhanced ARNG Brigade" at that, I would argue that the SOP is NOT to equip the entire force with the best weapons. The SOP has been to issue the deploying units with upgraded weapons, uniforms, etc. as part of the "RFI - Rapid Fielding Initiative" so the concept of getting the best possible weapons to the deploying units is not unheard of and in fact what normally happens to the ARNG units (now 50+% of the ground combat forces). We had to give up our M4s and M240Bs to the next deploying ARNG BDE as there were not enough to go around. With the current Army downsizing there may now be enough M4s and M240Bs to go around but last time I checked there were many M16A2s in service.

No doubt there are still many A2s in service. Replacement doesn't happen overnight. When soldiers in Vietnam were using the M16A1, the ARNG was two generations behind with the M1 Garand.

Eventually "the best" does filter down, though. Of course, by then there usually is a new "best" at the top of the food chain, and the whole process begins again...

[cory]

The most damning argument against a single caliber for most shoulder-fired small arms is one I have brought up many times before, yet remains unaddressed in that article.

Duty positions of actual operational combat arms units that go outside the wire, and the fact that at least half of them would be hindered with such a cartridge. Many combat arms soldiers do not fire their weapon, even while engaged in heavy fighting. If things get so bad to the point that they were being overrun, the 5.56 is what you want, not anything larger.

The Army may need to be prepared to be over ran, but that isn't even in thought process of the Marines. This brings me back to the old saying, The most effective Soldier on the Battlefield is the one that keeps the Marines supplied with ammo. HAHA

But seriously, I did the calculations in one of these threads somewhere. The weight increase of a 5.56 combat load and a 6.5 Grendel is negligible. It's less than all of the extra flaps(armor) they've added to the flak jackets that hinder the movement of the Marine/Soldier.