New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[Tony Williams]

And if it were not for the proven effectiveness of 5.56, I'd make my slippery slope argument, saying if ammo quantity is the prime consideration then why not .204 Ruger, or, to absurdity, why not .22LR?

Less absurdly, the 5.7x28 FM P90 or 4.6x30 HK MP7 are both designed to inflict disabling wounds after penetrating CRISAT body armour at out to 200m, and against soft targets are probably effective (in terms of being able to hit and - potentially - inflict disabling wounds) out to 300m - provided a crosswind isn't blowing. Since I have often been told that it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m, that would seem to meet the baseline minimum needs, and the weight saving would be huge.

I'm not recommending this, mind - just playing devil's advocate!

[Tony Williams]

P.S. It was Tony who noted the Chinese advances in shoulder-fired grenade launchers. But, AFAIK, none of them fire airburst rounds.

The Chinese have an XM29-like airburst grenade launcher, the ZH05, but that only has a 20mm launcher coupled with a 5.8mm carbine.

They also have the formidable QLB06 35mm shoulder-fired launcher (9.1 kg empty) which has a maximum ballistic range of 1,650m, effective against area targets to 1000m and point targets at 600m, but have not so far added timed airburst technology to that.

[BluntForceTrauma]

it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m

Again, it's a brave new world. With 4x combat optics a target 300m away now seems just 75m away. I suppose we can agree, however, that target acquisition doesn't necessarily equate to hits.

John

[stanc]

And if it were not for the proven effectiveness of 5.56, I'd make my slippery slope argument, saying if ammo quantity is the prime consideration then why not .204 Ruger, or, to absurdity, why not .22LR? Somewhere in the mix a baseline of "performance" needs to be specified, and a balance struck between quantity and performance.

I'm immensely relieved you're not going to make that argument, John. I think it's incredibly stupid whenever anybody attempts to ridicule 5.56 proponents with comments like, "Well, why not go to .22 Long Rifle?".

Ammo quantity is not the only consideration in selecting a military cartridge. As you rightly observe, there needs to be a balance between quantity and performance. But, there are honest differences of opinion as to where that balance point should be.

[stanc]

Less absurdly, the 5.7x28 FM P90 or 4.6x30 HK MP7 are both designed to inflict disabling wounds after penetrating CRISAT body armour at out to 200m, and against soft targets are probably effective (in terms of being able to hit and - potentially - inflict disabling wounds) out to 300m - provided a crosswind isn't blowing. Since I have often been told that it is pointless to expect the average soldier to see or hit a target beyond 300m, that would seem to meet the baseline minimum needs, and the weight saving would be huge.

Indeed it would. Many years ago I contemplated the possibility of combining the guts of the P90 SMG with a 40mm grenade launcher. Very large magazine capacity (50 rounds!), with minimum recoil and maximum full-auto controllability for the close fight, together with high-explosive, fragmentation rounds for long range engagements where bullets have low hit probability.

But, that was when "long range" meant 500 meters or so. Even with improved 40mm grenade rounds having a maximum range of 600-800 meters,* that still wouldn't quite cut it for some of the engagement ranges seen in Afghanistan.

* http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/grenades.htm

[joker31]

The ABGL's were fielded in Afghanistan (Seen them myself) but I dont see them being issued Army wide until maybe the next generation when the costs get driven down. Today's game is Cheap and small, we are post War and our numbers will go down to the lowest numbers in history soon. This was mandated by the administration, there will be a huge reserve force but the Active duty will be largely cut because of the fact that reservists did very good in the previous two wars and they dont have to pay benefits to them. They are talking about a buy in for reservists to retire like a 401k but you have to declare your intention to retire from your first day in the Army to start accumulating retirement points. The ABGL is going to be a specialized system that will most likely either be cut or used only in Special Weapons Platoons, the Gustov is more likely to be issued to regular troops, now that they have made the right political allies and the production has been secured. The system has been around for 50 years+ but it was unpopular because of the companies dealings with other non-friendly nations, now we need a cheap system and its the go to system. On the SOCOM side of the house, its been used since Vietnam, hell my father fired one in Hue City, I fired one in Kuwait and in Kunar, its not a portable as the ABGL but it will do a similar duty and will cover the AT4 and LAW as well. Big Army is looking to upgrade its soldier systems right now, when they should be upgrading its integration of supply systems and Transportation, lets not forget that we are losing the AC-130, the A-10 and soon the Apache because they are thought of as antiquated by Congress. Never mind the fact that the systems like the Blackhawk were rushed into service when its still up for debate if they were needed. There is going to be a great purge of the systems, not because we need it, but because this generation of systems was battle tested so we can move on to the next greatest thing.

If I can say there are a few systems that do greatly impress me from my field experience:
1:CH-47 Chinook, cant say enough good, its the best thing in this country's Arsenal. Climbs higher, flys faster and have pulled me out of the fryer when the blackhawks couldnt dream of getting to us.

2:The MBITR Radio, worked a lot better than I thought it would, never mind the fact that most line units didn't use all the features it had, it still worked very well.

3:Thales throat mikes work great, They are the closest thing to thinking a word and getting someone to hear you.

4:Safariland Flexicuffs, I used the hell out of them for a million different things, from holding Countermeasures antennas on vehicles to detainees too small for handcuffs.

5: HIDE system: Biometrics are great but you need to implement it sooner in the war.

6: UAV's when used properly or in some cases improperly, save lives

7: 77gr SMK's do a good job of extending the life of an aging system (M4)

8: SAWs Suck, always have, always will, admit they were a mistake already......order the HK system and move on already, but order larger magazines.

[JASmith]

Joke,

Thanks for the great summary!

[BluntForceTrauma]

Joker, while you're here, would you be OK with troops armed only with 5.56 M4s, a belt-fed 5.56 LMG, and ABGLs? Would you miss the capability of 7.62N DMs and MMGs or would you be OK with ABGLs taking over the role of the MMG?

And finally, what are your thoughts on the same question but with 65G M4s and belt-fed LMGs, combined with ABGLs, all in the absence of 7.62N?

John

[stanc]

The ABGL is going to be a specialized system that will most likely either be cut or used only in Special Weapons Platoons, the Gustov is more likely to be issued to regular troops...its not a portable as the ABGL but it will do a similar duty...

Better, in some ways. The Carl Gustav fires an HE round, and the fuze can be set for airburst out to 1100 meters. That's over 50% greater than the ABGL, and outranges the RPG. I understand the overpressure created by the 84mm round is rather punishing on the shooters body, though.

[video=youtube;5WrQ_I4Ewcs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WrQ_I4Ewcs[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5WrQ_I4Ewcs

Thales throat mikes work great, They are the closest thing to thinking a word and getting someone to hear you.

Heh, heh. That's almost the same thing a former Wehrmacht tank commander said about the throat mikes they used in WWII. It's good to hear that we caught on so fast.

SAWs Suck, always have, always will, admit they were a mistake already......order the HK system and move on already, but order larger magazines.

I take it you mean the M27 IAR? That's a big step backwards, from belt-fed machine gun to magazine-fed automatic rifle. I doubt the Army would do that, especially since the 60-rd and 100-rd magazines reportedly are unreliable.

[JASmith]

The Gustav might have the range and excellent lethality, but one suspects that it is too large to be a decent replacement for the 7.62 MMG.

The grenadier will need to be able to carry at six to a dozen rounds on his person with one or more others carrying a similar amount.

[stanc]

Joker, while you're here, would you be OK with troops armed only with 5.56 M4s, a belt-fed 5.56 LMG, and ABGLs? Would you miss the capability of 7.62N DMs and MMGs or would you be OK with ABGLs taking over the role of the MMG?

And finally, what are your thoughts on the same question but with 65G M4s and belt-fed LMGs, combined with ABGLs, all in the absence of 7.62N?

Forgive the intrusion, John, but since the maximum range of the ABGL is only ~700 meters, how can it reasonably be considered as a replacement for the MMG?

[stanc]

The Gustav might have the range and excellent lethality, but one suspects that it is too large to be a decent replacement for the 7.62 MMG.

I quite agree. Not only because of size, but also a number of other factors.

I don't know of any serious proposals to replace the MMG with the CG. The CG has capabilities the MMG doesn't, but vice versa is also true.

[BluntForceTrauma]

Don't get me wrong, Stan, I'm not advocating a machine gun-free world. My vision is dismounted squads and platoons rife with 65G belt-fed LMGs; I'm only foregoing the 7.62Ns because I believe 65G capability encroaches its performance envelope from the one end and ABGLs encroach from the other.

I just wanted to get perspective from a combat vet with recent experience.

The thing about the 84mm CGs is what you really want is their tank- and bunker-busting capabilities. Maybe what we need is a "mini-CG" in 60mm or 40mm? With recoilless, you could up the velocity of a 40mm and increase the range.

John

[stanc]

Don't get me wrong, Stan, I'm not advocating a machine gun-free world. My vision is dismounted squads and platoons rife with 65G belt-fed LMGs; I'm only foregoing the 7.62Ns because I believe 65G capability encroaches its performance envelope from the one end and ABGLs encroach from the other.

Ah, I think I misunderstood. I thought you were advocating the ABGL to replace the MMG, which isn't feasible due to the substantial differences in effective range.

I would note that, if 65G ballistics do actually match 7.62, then your 65G LMG is replacing the 7.62 MMG throughout its performance envelope. The ABGL would just be augmenting the LMG/MMG within the 500-meter max effective range/700-meter max range envelope.

The thing about the 84mm CGs is what you really want is their tank- and bunker-busting capabilities.

Uh, not exactly. At least, not in Afghanistan, where the enemy has no tanks. The HE airburst, anti-personnel round is more needed than HEAT (anti-tank) ammo.

[BluntForceTrauma]

if 65G ballistics do actually match 7.62, then your 65G LMG is replacing the 7.62 MMG throughout its performance envelope.

As we know, the jury is still out whether a 123gr 65G that meets or exceeds M80 and M118LR external ballistics can also match their terminal ballistics. Even if we assume that it doesn't match their terminal ballistics one-for-one, I'm willing to forego that because I believe the other advantages of a 65G system balance that out. (And if one-for-one match of 7.62N terminal ballistics were an ABSOLUTE requirement, then 5.56 would not exist in our inventory! Having thought about this and argued it for ten years, I've come to the conclusion that performance parameters are, basically, arbitrary and sometimes politically driven. Should we require helmet penetration at 500m or 600m? What about 550m? Should we require 10" or 12" of concrete penetration? What about 11"? Should a temporary cavity in ballistic gel be 6" or 8"? All somewhat arbitrary.)

Uh, not exactly. At least, not in Afghanistan, where the enemy has no tanks. The HE airburst, anti-personnel round is more needed than HEAT (anti-tank) ammo.

I'm fighting all wars, particularly with an eye toward China or North Korea, not just Afghanistan, wanting general-purpose capability against fully equipped modern armies, as well as guerrillas.

John

[stanc]

As we know, the jury is still out whether a 123gr 65G that meets or exceeds M80 and M118LR external ballistics can also match their terminal ballistics.

I don't need to remind you that I've been calling for appropriate testing for close to a decade.

But, the gel tests that AA had done, and which were posted on the old forum, showed that wound profile of the Norma 120gr FMJ is roughly the same as for 147gr M80, and the prototype 123gr SMK was much better, having early yaw and fairly impressive wound cavity. So, I'm not terribly concerned about performance in soft tissue with lead-core bullets.

However, the military is getting away from lead-core bullets for general-issue ball ammo. This means we really should be looking at performance of a lead-free ball projectile, which will necessarily be much lighter than 123gr. Can a 100-110gr, steel (or steel/copper) core bullet provide exterior ballistics and terminal effects that would make 65G an acceptable replacement for 7.62 NATO?

Even if we assume that it doesn't match their terminal ballistics one-for-one, I'm willing to forego that because I believe the other advantages of a 65G system balance that out.

I'm inclined to agree, although I'd prefer to make such a decision on the basis of valid test data, rather than belief.

I'm fighting all wars, particularly with an eye toward China or North Korea, not just Afghanistan, wanting general-purpose capability against fully equipped modern armies, as well as guerrillas.

Well, that's why the Carl Gustav is a MAAWS: Multi-purpose, Anti-armor, Anti-personnel, Weapon System.

And BTW, if you're really concerned about tanks, the 84mm HEAT rounds are far more capable of defeating armor, than the 25mm and 40mm grenades can ever hope of being, so you may wish to re-evaluate.

[JASmith]

Don't get me wrong, Stan, I'm not advocating a machine gun-free world. My vision is dismounted squads and platoons rife with 65G belt-fed LMGs; I'm only foregoing the 7.62Ns because I believe 65G capability encroaches its performance envelope from the one end and ABGLs encroach from the other.

I just wanted to get perspective from a combat vet with recent experience.

The thing about the 84mm CGs is what you really want is their tank- and bunker-busting capabilities. Maybe what we need is a "mini-CG" in 60mm or 40mm? With recoilless, you could up the velocity of a 40mm and increase the range.

John

John, thanks for the clarification.

Looking forward to their responses!

[LRRPF52]

You can't take away suppressive fire capability from dismounts or even mounted vehicles and replace it with HE warheads from mortars or recoilless rifles. They work together well. There needs to be return fire capability from belt-feds while tube-based HE warhead weapons are dialed in if appropriate.

RPG's are very hard on the user and anyone around them if we're talking about over pressure. When you light off an RPG, it sounds like a grenade went off at the firer's position. It is nothing like the movies. Once the trigger is pulled, there is a piercing explosion and impact happens almost immediately. The fins are very large as well, and a near miss can equal a hit on anyone within the radius of the fins. A guy in my Battalion lost his legs that way in OIF1, and the warhead killed another.

[stanc]

RPG's are very hard on the user and anyone around them if we're talking about over pressure. When you light off an RPG, it sounds like a grenade went off at the firer's position.

Something like this?

[video=youtube;q8_NF7cY4uY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8_NF7cY4uY[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8_NF7cY4uY

It is nothing like the movies. Once the trigger is pulled, there is a piercing explosion and impact happens almost immediately.

Sounds like you watched MythBusters!

[video=youtube;y6KdHfP_0x8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6KdHfP_0x8[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6KdHfP_0x8

[joker31]

The CG is not very rough on the body when firing, its about like firing a law but not as bad as a Javelin (Changes your hairstyle forever when you shoot it) or the AT-4, the big downside of the Goose is the fact that its rounds are heavy and its hard to carry more than one type of round.

Id be perfectly comfortable having a Team with the 6.5G M4's and a CG and a M27 IAR in 6.5G with the 100rnd drums I seen in Afghanistan (Not Beta mags, think they were Xmags) in the Iraq type terrain, I'd have to see in Afghanistan because I like the capability of the M27 being used as a DMR. Thats the real use of the M27, it wasn't in the budget to build a DMR for the marines but there was a budget for a Squad level Automatic Rifle. The Money was used for that rifle because it shoots just as good as a MK12 (Or close enough for its role) and can be used by anyone who picks it up. The Army needs the same thing because of the reduction in size. Whatever the Army does, it needs to stay AR/M16 Platform without any doubts. Its natural and its unobtrusive in vehicles, it versatile and any American can operate it. (My 8year old daughter has been for 3 years, my 2 year old will start in 2 years)

I have also seen problems with the 416's we were issued at first, the magazines would cause jams when you were using suppressors, switch to pmags and all was good but the HK mags have this gasket thing under the follower that caused jams, some took them apart and ripped the gasket off, I had Pmags and troy mags with me. I later traded for Lancer mags and loved them because the troy mags get beat up, they worked but looked pretty bad. I took a hit in a sideplate that damaged 2 Pmags and they kept working one was low near the floorplate, the other near the lips. (I kept my next to last mag upside down to tell me mentally that I'm almost out, it was also half full of Tracers) My guys all were loaded the same way, that way the team knew someone's rifle was getting ready to go down. I was given a SAW at first because of my size and ability, since I was the ATL I got to tell them it was stupid to give the Warrant Officer the SAW when my training was 2 million dollars plus for my basic courses. so it went to a Staff Sgt, I could never get it to run to my liking but he got it to run pretty well (He had carried one since he was a PFC) He knew how to bend the parts in the feed tray correctly and to stone certain parts and to dremel certain others (Was Brand new)

The RPG's go 1200m+ in the real world btw.... seen them used nearly 1600 as mortars on a FOB in Kunar and 1300 on Baghram, they know how to disconnect the range fuse on them but leave the impact fuse. They also have ones that punch holes in an MRAP like its plywood but only seen them in highly populated areas and one was used to kill a good friend of mine in an MRAP but they hit the suspension of the vehicle and it wiped out the whole front of the vehicle. Dont read the books about the limitations of the RPG, they are incredible and I hate them more than anything, IED's included because IED's dont take down helos (Except the one that landed on one in Paktikka, talk about bad luck)

We need to have a MMG that can out distance a DSHK but I dont see it happening but one that will out shoot a 7.62x54 is possible, that is what we need. in the low tech world against enemies using Soviet cast offs thats our worst threat, against the Chinese its all electronic unless we invade or they do.

If we meet them in Korea I think it will be interesting and we will have to start evaluating their (Oddball rounds..etc) Capabilities. I have not really looked at them to be a big enemy because they are bigger capitalists than we are, I think in the next 50 years there will be a war that they start because they are slashing and burning their environment so they will have no choice but to move into places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, India or even South America or Africa where the defense is at the WW1 level. Africa will be very interesting because its very wide open in some places but the people are not afraid to get very bloody for a cause. The people have a very strong will to survive because thats all they have ever had.

The Army is looking at a Blimp that carries munitions right now, The Transportation corps is using them for the withdrawal in Afghanistan if they can get the State dept to talk to Pakistan. The Army is looking into some crazy ideas now so until the Ray guns come forward they will stay with the 5.56. I did read that the budget for the MULE project was approved. It would be good in flat areas like the desert but I'm not sure it will work in the mountains. Maybe we will go all UAV/UGV's and we wont have to worry about it until they are used against us by our own government.... Hows that for a nightmare.