Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

[Quentin]

Very interesting paper by Major Erhart and I'm still digesting it - thanks for the link to it! I was issued the M14 for most of my enlistment but did get to carry an M16 for a short time in Nam. Liked both and disliked both for many of the reasons already pointed out. Hope the military gets what it needs in Afganistan soon, we need to provide the best we can for our troops.

For myself now as a civilian sheepdog I find a 5.56 16" midlength AR with iron sights an excellent compromise but it's good to read so many different points of view.

 

[Coal Dragger]

Red Lion,

For some reason quoting on this forum and I don't get along...... so here goes to answer your questions.

Your first question was do I feel that we need something more effective beyond 300M than 5.56mm NATO but less effective than 7.62mm NATO. I can only say we need something more effective than 5.56mm at all distances, and while it would be nice if it were as effective as 7.62mm NATO while still being more compact (somewhere in between size and weight) that is not realistic to expect. In a perfect world the 5.56mm would be just as effective as a .338 Lapua, but we don't live in a perfect world.

Your second question had to do with the difference in effectiveness of suppressive fire between a 7.62mm NATO/6.8mm SPC/5.56mm NATO. Suppressive fire doesn't really mean spraying bullets around just to be doing it, suppressive fire is directing a steady stream of fire at areas where you know your opponent is even though they are not presenting a clear target. For example doorways, windows, ditches, corners, walls, or other covered or concealed positions are all likely targets of suppressive fire.

Again a heavier caliber is going to be more effective all things being equal. An M240G firing 7.62mm NATO can chew up a barrier like a mud brick wall a lot faster than a SAW firing 5.56mm rounds (in fact the SAW might not be able to get it done at all). You chew a hole in that barrier and start putting rounds through it and now your opponent really doesn't have that cover anymore and is forced to abandon his position, and he dare not show himself while he does it. Ask just about any grunt what they would rather have laying down a base of fire for them if their choice is a SAW or an M240 variant, and they will all pick the M240 every time all the time.

Does that mean that a prospective replacement for the 5.56mm NATO will equal the 7.62mm NATO for effectiveness against barriers and suppressive fire/base of fire? No probably not, but there could be enough of an improvement that it could work better in a pinch for accomplishing some tasks the 5.56mm just doesn't have the muscle to get done.

 

[RedLion]

@ Coal, those are perfectly logical arguments, but if someone was going to purpose using a new cartridge, they have to scientifically prove that it can penetrate barriers better at all the ranges they are planning on using it at (0 to 500 yards in this case) and prove that it is more effective on human targets than the .223 at all the ranges again. There's no doubt that the 5.56 has some shortcomings, but there hasn't been any sort of testing done to unequivocally prove that a new cartridge will be able to perform well enough to justify the cost of changing the entire weapon/logistical system, not to mention changing all of NATO's weapon/logistical systems.

I've never shot a 6.8 SPC or anything like that, so I'm very hesitant to take people's word, on the internet, that it performs "better", especially when most people use the recoil of a gun to determine performance. Right now, its relatively easy to compare pistol cartridges because there have been numerous tests done in ballistics gel at the ranges pistols are generally used at and real world data collected (although the authenticity is often brought into question). With rifle cartridges its much different. Some people use numerical ballistics data (like velocity and bullet mass) to compare cartridges when its been shown that those do not fully represent a bullets effectiveness or take into account a shooters ability to reacquire a target if they miss or use the weapon effectively. Others point to ballistics gel tests, like this author did, but fail to point out that those tests were done at short ranges, so no ballistics gel data exists for long ranges where these cartridges are said to perform better at.

 

[Coal Dragger]

I've never used the 6.8 SPC either, nor have I used the 6.5 Grendel. Honestly given the constraints of having to work within the confines of an AR magazine well and magazine I don't expect much more improvement.

 

[Hangingrock]

The WW1 aftermath study by Hatcher concluded that 300yds was the envelope that the average combatant could see, indentify, and hit an opposing enemy soldier.

My experience is limited to Vietnam 1965-1966 3rd Marine Div. The issue rifle of that period was the M-14. I was your basic 0300/0811/0846. As a member of an FO/AO team our primary responsibility was fire support artillery. I seem to recall a lite short tube 60mm mortar being employed by the infantry but not as a standard.

I’m amazed at the load that appears to be carried by today’s infantry.

Going back to a lite short tube 60mm mortar might be an alternative. I believe the 40mm grenade launcher range effective range is 400m. A specialized short tube 60mm mortar with an effective range of 1000-1200m might be a good tool to have in an infantry squad. This gives range and plunging fire with a more lethal fused VT round.

 

[cwolf88]

500m

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28166114


http://www.scribd.com/doc/28166129

Really several issues.

1. Army 5.56 ammo has no accuracy standard. FMJ can ice pick targets. The Mk 318 is accurate, lethal, low signature, and reliable. Penetrates barriers well. Works in short barrels. 5.56MM Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier
MK 318 MOD 0 DODIC: AB49 NSN: 1305-01-573-2229

2. 7.62 has better range and power. 7.62MM Cartridge, Caliber 7.62mm Ball, Rifle, Barrier MK 319 MOD 0 DODIC: AB50 NSN: 1305-01-572-8492.

3. Improved training is essential, but relatively small errors in range estimation, angle, and moving target lead can mean a miss at even 100 yards (name a service training folks to shoot uphill moving targets at 400m). The peep sight can't get you there from here. What is needed is a smart sight with integrated rangefinder, auto ballistics, auto uphill/downhill, and (ideally) predictive lead. Most of these features exist in devices today.

Quick test: where do you aim at a 500m target with a weapon sighted in at 250m? If you said Center of Mass you missed. Where do you aim at a walking target at 200m?

4. About 20-30% of the force does 80% of the killing. Therefore, only the infantry/CA folks need the expensive rifle, ammo, sight, etc. You could field the SCAR-H in 6-12 months in-country with NETT support by piggybacking on the Navy/SOCOM contract. No other weapon has gone through testing and passed.

5. Having said all that, the Army will not change. They spend their days worrying about the entire fleet issues for the entire force. The concept of a high-low mix or a unique METT-T solution is foreign.

 

[SHvar]

The use of an M203 grenade launcher, the saw, and m240 (m60 in my day) can fill that niche that is beyond the most effective range of the m4, allow the rifleman to close with and destroy the enemy at a closer range.
The m203 is very accurate if you know what your doing with one, and I found it easy enough to put rds through a small window at around 300 meters with leaf sights, not including the use of the quadrant sight (which allows for more accuracy, and up to 400 meters range). After having a 40mm grenade placed in your lap at 300 plus meters you arent to apt to fire your rifle very accurate, or defend your position to advancing enemies.

 

[4288]

ArmedBear - for his/her particular weapon of choice.

Not to change the thread topic, but I have to point out a minor correction to the media's misinformation of the public. There is no his/her regarding infantry - it's male only. If/when that changes, standby for serious problems and degraded standards. I am NOT a proponent of inequality or a chauvinistic jerk (combat arms is the one and only job I can think of that should remain male only), but there are several logical reasons for that statement. But that's for another topic. If anyone wants to respond and call me an a$$, please start a new topic.

-A Marine infantryman

 

[C-grunt]

Not to change the thread topic, but I have to point out a minor correction to the media's misinformation of the public. There is no his/her regarding infantry - it's male only. If/when that changes, standby for serious problems and degraded standards. I am NOT a proponent of inequality or a chauvinistic jerk (combat arms is the one and only job I can think of that should remain male only), but there are several logical reasons for that statement. But that's for another topic. If anyone wants to respond and call me an a$$, please start a new topic.

-A Marine infantryman

While I whole heartedly agree with you. Im an Army infantryman that got out in 06. This war we are fighting has no front lines and therefor non combat arms troops are seeing combat. Hell my last tour, the guy in our battalion with the highest kill count was a cook. was working the front gate when a SUV full of 5 guys tried to drive through. He shot up the truck with his M16 and killed 4 DRT and the 5th only survived because our medic was right there.

 

[JShirley]

HangingRock,

I hold an 11C (infantry mortarman) MOS in the Army. Mortars are integrated at the company level, at least in a Stryker Brigade. 3 platoons of riflemen, and headquarters platoon, which includes the tankers, FISTers, staff and supply, and your friendly Chuck squad.

Off the top of my head, mortar ranges break down like this:

60mm: 3600 meter range
81mm: 5600 meter range
120mm: 7200 meter range

60mm in man-portable mode, with the M8 baseplate (just the tube and a light, square baseplate) can be carried with a squad and fired by resting the base on the ground, holding the tube, and squeezing the firing mechanism (a "trigger" you squeeze with your whole hand). This does limit the range of the mortar, because you can only fire Charge 0 or Charge 1 from the M8 baseplate. Even with this light baseplate and just the tube, you're still looking at around 19 lbs for a weapon fired in an especially inaccurate way (holding the tube at the angle you want).

 

[Ragnar Danneskjold]

Not to change the thread topic, but I have to point out a minor correction to the media's misinformation of the public. There is no his/her regarding infantry - it's male only. If/when that changes, standby for serious problems and degraded standards. I am NOT a proponent of inequality or a chauvinistic jerk (combat arms is the one and only job I can think of that should remain male only), but there are several logical reasons for that statement. But that's for another topic. If anyone wants to respond and call me an a$$, please start a new topic.

-A Marine infantryman

Military Police is considered combat support, and thus we are a coed MOS. However, MPs generally see as much if not more combat than most combat MOSes. When our guard unit was in Mosul, it was missions outside the wire nearly every day doing training with the IPs. Going on raids, kicking down doors, QRF missions, even being the first to arrive at the site of a downed Kiowa. The days of combat being for guys only are over.

 

[Hangingrock]

Off the top of my head, mortar ranges break down like this:60mm: 3600 meter range81mm: 5600 meter range 120mm: 7200 meter range

The standard 60mm mortar of my day only had a range 1815 m if I’ve done my yards to meters conversion correctly. The 60mm of this age appears to be on steroids. The old 81mm range was 4517m.

We had the Howtar which was a 4.2in/107mm mortar tube mounted on a 75mm pack howitzer carriage. The 120mm mortar was not of my time periode.

 

[Jaws]

Back on topic.
In my opinion the best fix would come with a new cartridge that would blend the requirements for assault rifle and general purpose macine guns.
a true intermediate round that combines good terminal performance, with solid penetration capabilities to 700-800m. Something a bit larger than AR15 magwell, but smaller than .308.
I think something like the 7x46mm Murray would be a good balance:
The 7.62x39mm Russian case extended to 46mm and necked down to 7mm.
the cartridge pushes a 130gr. bullet, with a bc of .411, at 2650Ft/s out of a 16 inch barrel.









The 7x46mm is designed by the same person that designed the 6.8SPC, but is not limited by the AR15 magwell. This allows the loading of good BC bullets in a case design that helps feeding and extration reliability.
A rifle for this cartridge will be heavier than a 5.56 rifle but on the other hand a belt fed machine gun for this round, is going to be much lighter than the 35lbs M240.
This cartridge could be used in all rifles, carabines, designated marksman rifles and machine guns that have to be humped by the troops, dramaticly increasing the firepower in rifles and carabines, while maintaining almoast all the capabilities of the machine guns.
Every time people looked for the "ideal " universal combat cartridge they came up with something similar, but of course, everytime politics and too powerful generals, stoped them from becoming reality. Outstanding cartridges like .276 Pedersen, .280 british are two excelent examples.

 

[Jaws]

1. Army 5.56 ammo has no accuracy standard. FMJ can ice pick targets. The Mk 318 is accurate, lethal, low signature, and reliable. Penetrates barriers well. Works in short barrels. 5.56MM Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier
MK 318 MOD 0 DODIC: AB49 NSN: 1305-01-573-2229
1. Army 5.56 ammo has no accuracy standard. FMJ can ice pick targets. The Mk 318 is accurate, lethal, low signature, and reliable. Penetrates barriers well. Works in short barrels. 5.56MM Cartridge, Caliber 5.56mm Ball, Carbine, Barrier

BTW. Ihe army won't switch to Mk318 the marines just adopted. Big army is hell bent on saving the environment and want the lead free junk:

SOST is a good round, but SOST is not a lead-free slug,” said Lt. Col. Tom Henthorn, chief of the Small Arms Branch at the Soldier Requirements Division at Fort Benning, Ga.

The Army will continue to develop an environmentally friendly 5.56mm, as well as a lead-free 7.62mm bullet, Henthorn added, “because we care about the environment.”