Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

[scouterjoe]

I've just come across an interesting article forum members may enjoy reading: "Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" A Monograph By Major Thomas P. Ehrhart United States Army

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

It deals with the history of the American battle rifle, from a long range precision rifle to the shorter range supression rifle, with a view on the present M4 and it's percieved shortcomings in Afganistan. The shortcomings addressed are the 5.56 round's limited range and lethality and possible replacement cartridges. Lot's of interesting points are brought up.

 

[ArmedBear]

I've seen some WW II footage lately, and what I've noticed is a mix of M1 or M2 Carbines and M1 Garands in soldiers' hands. Presumably, they had reasons for their preferences.

Maybe the M4 is not a problem. Maybe the "one-size-fits-all" mentality is the problem. Clearly, SAWs and SDM are a deviation from that mentality -- as well as a confirmation that not every soldier has the same strengths or the same role, and even a versatile weapon may not fit every role very well. Obviously, training has to be matched to the weapon(s) to be used, whether the cartridge is 5.56 or .50 BMG.

Is the Humvee really fully capable of every mission that requires a 4-wheeled vehicle? It seems clear that it is not: up-armored versions are heavy and slow, standard ones are vulnerable. AFAIK the Brits have trucks that are designed from the ground up to resist mines/IEDs on the road, and do a better job than any other vehicle, but don't expect them to work for every possible application.

I wonder about the JSF, as well.

Clearly, we're starting to move in the other direction, but it seems to me that there's been way too much of a tendency to want to ship crates labeled TRUCK, AIRPLANE and RIFLE, with the same thing in each, for every possible mission.

Just MHO as a civilian who hunts and competes with multiple guns that are not at all interchangeable, drives vehicles that don't do the same things as each other, and wouldn't mind having a plane or two at some point...

 

[Big Bill]

From the paper:

The thesis of this paper is that while the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.

I agree 100%! They need to reestablish the Springfield M1A or something similar.

http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=22

 

[desidog]

Well said, ArmedBear.

You'd think that if the government could handle the logistics of multiple types of ammo 60+ years ago, they should darn well be able to do it today with the added benefit of computers and modern communications.

 

[ArmedBear]

Another interesting thing is that the caliber he recommends is essentially what John Pederson designed in the 1920s, and Elmer Keith recommended in the 1930s, for what look like the same reasons. (Elmer Keith is associated with bigger magnums, but for military use, he was a 6.5-7mm advocate, just like Major Ehrhart here.) Of course it's no secret that Jack O'Connor was a huge fan of the .270.

The .276 Pedersen was a 7x51, very similar to the 7mmm-08, BTW. It was a step back to shoehorn the .30-06 into the Garand, which was first chambered in .276 Pederson.

I like the .30-06, but that's for hunting.

It seems that military/rifle experts have been saying the same things for a very long time, and the military has been buying something different.

 

[Big Bill]

ArmedBear - I think the problem with your analysis is the logistics involved in making sure ever soldier has the ammo and gun parts for his/her particular weapon of choice. What you propose sounds reasonable, but in reality probably isn't practical. A platoon or company of soldiers need weapons that are interchangeable between themselves and that all use the same ammo. I can see some exceptions, but generally standardization is fundamental to success in war. Besides, what you propose is probably cost prohibitive.

 

[ArmedBear]

You're absolutely right on all counts. And of course, I'm not suggesting that every soldier has a different weapon. Not only would that be a logistical impossibility, it would also mean that every soldier might be holding the WRONG weapon at any given time.

I'm just not sure that "one size fits all" is the only solution. Right now, each platoon has a variety of small arms, right?

It would be easier to replace the 5.56 with a more powerful cartridge, and issue that to everyone. That probably makes the most sense. The M4 might be as good a platform as any.

Maybe the problem is that the 5.56 is the lowest common denominator, when, if you must have one-size-fits-all, at least go for a mid-range cartridge that can cover more bases, per Ehrhart.

 

[d2wing]

A good read. Some oddly incorrect information though. The author was totally
unaware of the M-60? He must not have any facts about several areas of training from the Vietnam era, Such as basic rifle training, skill tests and quick kill. Also any kind of optical sight is a hinderance in an ambush. Also illuminated sights kill night vision. I think he is correct about current marksmanship and equipment though. It's a good read but some parts are pretty fishy. I do not believe that it is an actual military document but a well researched rant or advertisement. But given what passes for education and the general stupidity today it could be real. Nah.

 

[LRS_Ranger]

Within it's design specs the M4 is a very lethal infantry weapon, an intermediate-range weapon that allows a lot of firepower out of a small package. (Lots of ammo, low recoil, large magazines) It covers a large majority of combat applications. Are there better specialized tools? Of course. I would rather clear a house with a Benelli, and to shoot 1000m+ the .338 is excellent. The M4 is a compromise and IMO does as well as anything out there. That being said, the 'gan requires a little different strategy. But still, issuing the M14 to one solder per fire team wouldn't require any different ammo be fielded than already issued. Put an ACOG on there (which a lot of soldiers are already using and familiar with) and you would have the long range capability that they need in every fire team.

 

[Quoheleth]

I've seen some WW II footage lately, and what I've noticed is a mix of M1 or M2 Carbines and M1 Garands in soldiers' hands. Presumably, they had reasons for their preferences.

The Garand was the main battle rifle and was issued to line troops.

From the CMP website:

The M1 Carbine was designed primarily to offer noncombat and line-of-communications troops a better defensive weapon than a pistol or submachinegun, with greater accuracy and range, but without the recoil, cost, or weight of a full-power infantry rifle. The carbine was also easier for less experienced soldiers and smaller-framed people to fire than the .30 caliber infantry rifles of the day. The carbine was more convenient to carry for officers, NCOs, or specialists encumbered with weapons, field glasses, radios, or other gear. Tankers, drivers, artillery crews, mortar crews, and other personnel were also issued the M1 Carbine in lieu of the larger, heavier M1 Garand. Belatedly, a folding-stock version of the M1 Carbine was developed, after a request was made for a compact and light infantry arm for airborne troops. The first M1 Carbines were delivered in mid-1942, with initial priority given to troops in the European theatre of war.

Each gun had a purpose - at least, theoretically. I imagine some officers scrounged Garands and some line soldiers found Carbines. Likewise, others found Tommy guns.

Q

 

[Shung]

good document. thank you !

Several upgrades are available to increase the reliability of the issued magazines. A company called Magpul makes the best upgrades the author has used. Their original product consisted of a slip-on rubber ring for the bottom of the magazine. It made it easier to grasp your magazines from your ammunition pouches but also protected the delicate floor plate tabs, which have a tendency to break after extended use. They also designed a new, anti-tilt follower that greatly increases feeding reliability of the standard issue magazine.
In 2007, the company came out with their own version of a magazine for the M16/M4 known as the PMAG. Constructed of resilient polymer, the magazine is nearly indestructible. (Figure 8) When the polymer cracks or breaks, it is easily recognizable, unlike with the standard issue magazines. These magazines represent the cutting edge of technology for making the rifle more reliable. Recently, the PMAG was assigned a national stock number, so units can now order these magazines through the supply system.87 All combat arms units should consider replacing their standard issue magazines with the much more reliable PMAG.

we, "civilians" knew that for at least a couple of years !

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Within it's design specs the M4 is a very lethal infantry weapon, an intermediate-range weapon that allows a lot of firepower out of a small package. (Lots of ammo, low recoil, large magazines) It covers a large majority of combat applications.

But is inadequate in others, specifically against light barrier materials frequently encountered in combat, which is why USMC has adopted Mk318 as a band-aid.

5.56x45mm IS an inadequate general-purpose infantry cartridge. It is the .380 ACP of infantry cartridges - marginal to inadequate.

 

[ArmedBear]

Within it's design specs the M4 is a very lethal infantry weapon

I think Ehrhart says exactly that. He just says that those design spec's don't match the combat conditions encountered in our current conflicts.

 

[Hatterasguy]

Everything is a trade off. The problem with going to a larger round is that they weigh more and you can't carry as many.


http://neveryetmelted.com/2010/02/16/marine-corps-using-new-rounds-in-afghanistan/

I think the new round will hurt pretty good at 500 meters.

 

[mechanic380]

never yet melted article

Interesting. It was my understanding that the Geneva Convention required the use of FMJ ammunition. If you read towards the bottom of the article the Pentagon approved their use because our enemies in Afghanistan are not fighting as nationals of a country and thus the Geneva convention does not apply. Oh the joys of being an enemy combatant and not a national soldier.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Interesting read on a number of levels, though his title is bogus -- as soon as the machinegun and indirect fire made advancing in open order and other Napoleonic silliness lethally obsolete, the rifle armed infantryman never, ever owned 500 meters of ground with a general service rifle. He owned about 100 meters reliably, and could argue with the other guy out to 300 or so.

A better title would be "Finally, Really Taking the Infantry Half-Kilometer (That Incompetent Generals and Procurement Types Have Insisted We Already Owned for 100 Years)" . . . though I suspect that might have been considered a bit improper for the level he was writing at.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Interesting. It was my understanding that the Geneva Convention required the use of FMJ ammunition. If you read towards the bottom of the article the Pentagon approved their use because our enemies in Afghanistan are not fighting as nationals of a country and thus the Geneva convention does not apply. Oh the joys of being an enemy combatant and not a national soldier.

???

We haven't adopted any new types of ammunition because our enemies aren't lawful combatants.

 

[MarineOne]

This is what I don't understand ...

The biggest issue noted here is different calibers.

I've seen Marines in Iraq carrying 5 different weapons and 4 different calibers. Why is it the Marine Corps has been doing this for the better part of 20 years and no one else can (for the issued 1911's its .45 ACP, Beretta's its the 9mm, for M4/M16 it's 5.56, and for the M14 SDM its 7.62)??

Obviously its not a matter of logistics because they're doing it and doing it well. What else could the problem be?

 

[C-grunt]

The 5.56 is a good cartridge but has its limitations. It is less of a perfromer at longer ranges than say a 7.62 Nato. But when he talks about 50 percent of firefights take place at long range, that means the other 50 percent happen closer in, where the 5.56 shines with it lower recoil and fast follow up.

Plus how are they so sure the 5.56 is horribly failing at 500 yards at putting the bad guys down? I somehow doubt our guys are making that many hits at 500 yards on guys hiding in the mountains. My unit practiced at 500 yards maybe a few times a year and that was more than most guys I talked to.

I do agree 100 percent that the training should be revamped with more distance and realistic shoot scenarios. Marines shoot to 500 meters and there is no reason why the Army, at least the combat MOS', shouldnt too.

 

[SHvar]

You dont need old out-dated, heavy slow, expensive to fix or use, battle rifle, or even to add them to whats being used.
Too many who have never raised a rifle in combat seem to talk about the short comings of the 5.56 round, they like to think that the bigger heavier 7.62 is a better, or that the 5.56mm doesnt stop enemies. Guess what, it does, it does a great job of killing humans, and does so in a hurry.
The problem is not the 5.56, or having less support weapons with 7.62rds, its about having the training, and skills to make use of the rifle we have and what we will be getting down the road.
Forget it, we will never ever go back to the 7.62 NATO, get it out of your head, it just wont happen. The 7.62 works for a support weapon, it works for a sniper rifle, but its just not that good of a round for a battle rifle.
The effective range of the M4 is out to 600 meters, the effective range of the M16 A2/A3/A4 is out to 800 meters. At these distances the 5.56 will punch a hole through the best helmets, and your head inside of those helmets.
People need to wake up and learn, the 556 is not a weak little .22 rimfire rd, reality check, its a deadly rd that can kill you at distances most do not realize its capable of doing.
Right now there are AR/M16 variants being used that are far better weapons than the M14/etc, that make use of the 7.62 for a specific purpose.

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

You dont need old out-dated, heavy slow, expensive to fix or use, battle rifle, or even to add them to whats being used.
Too many who have never raised a rifle in combat seem to talk about the short comings of the 5.56 round, they like to think that the bigger heavier 7.62 is a better, or that the 5.56mm doesnt stop enemies. Guess what, it does, it does a great job of killing humans, and does so in a hurry.
The problem is not the 5.56, or having less support weapons with 7.62rds, its about having the training, and skills to make use of the rifle we have and what we will be getting down the road.
Forget it, we will never ever go back to the 7.62 NATO, get it out of your head, it just wont happen. The 7.62 works for a support weapon, it works for a sniper rifle, but its just not that good of a round for a battle rifle.
The effective range of the M4 is out to 600 meters, the effective range of the M16 A2/A3/A4 is out to 800 meters. At these distances the 5.56 will punch a hole through the best helmets, and your head inside of those helmets.
People need to wake up and learn, the 556 is not a weak little .22 rimfire rd, reality check, its a deadly rd that can kill you at distances most do not realize its capable of doing.
Right now there are AR/M16 variants being used that are far better weapons than the M14/etc, that make use of the 7.62 for a specific purpose.

This. It never fails that the majority of people complaining the loudest about the 5.56 as a military round, have never seen the 5.56 used against another person. I can't yet speak to how well it does in Afghanistan. But the 5.56 did a GREAT job tearing the enemy apart in Iraq. And I for one am getting somewhat tired of hearing old Fudds talking about something they don't really know about. Just because it's a varmint round to you, doesn't mean it can't kill people with ease. And it does.

 

[Uncle Mike]

Why do you suppose the powers that where, switched from the 7.62 to the 5.56 for the general issue rifle?

 

[ArmedBear]

Those of you talking about the problems with 7.62x51 are responding to Big Bill, pretty much.

You sure aren't responding to anything in the article, which supports a modern round that would fit the AR platform, the 6.8 SPC. Yes, it's heavier per round than 5.56, but it's not like carrying around 7.62 NATO by any stretch - not the rounds, and not the rifles that shoot it.

Personally, I don't see that the 6.8 SPC's numbers live up to its promise. I just thought it was interesting that the author of the article was suggesting something that, ballistically, is pretty much what has been recommended since WW I postmortems were analyzed. I'm just not sure that the 6.8 lives up to the ballistics claimed for it.

 

[rocinante]

How are the small units organized in Afghanistan? I am not a soldier and don't even claim the distinction of being much of an armchair commando but what weapons that are used should be determined by the overall mission and structure of the unit and not the individual. IIRC WWII german doctrine was the machine gun was the core of the squad and the infantry man with the K98 was there to protect the machine guns. American doctrine saw the rifleman as supreme and the heavier weapons to protect them. To me if they are traveling in small squads on foot in a country with open vistas I would want something with more terminal oompff than the 223.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Plus how are they so sure the 5.56 is horribly failing at 500 yards at putting the bad guys down?

It never fails that the majority of people complaining the loudest about the 5.56 as a military round, have never seen the 5.56 used against another person.

Our allies are also beginning to realize the inadequacy of 5.56x45mm as a general-purpose infantry cartridge based on their own experiences on the battlefield:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf