Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer

Status
Not open for further replies.
LRS has the perfect solution and no one even comments on his post. The units all have 240 bravo machine guns so they are carrying the 7.62 round. Problem solved, one 7.62 rifle per squad for anything the m4 cannot handle. I do not think posters want to solve the problems with real world solutions but argue about it.
 
I've got to agree that the problem our military has is that it tries to make one tool work for a wide variety of jobs.

The M4 for example or the Humvee.

Whenever you try to get a "best of both worlds" tool you tend to get one that works equally bad for both jobs.

We need to find a happy medium between highly specialized tools and the generic, one size fits all approach.
 
I've got an idea. What if we were to issue the majority of troops a generic, one-size-fits-all solution, and then issue specialist solutions on a limited basis, or to meet mission requirements? We could split up a platoon into smaller sub-units, and issue things like grenade launchers and heavy machine guns to different people. Perhaps we could also redesign the ammunition currently used so that it's more effective.
 
Why do you suppose the powers that where, switched from the 7.62 to the 5.56 for the general issue rifle?
Click to expand...

Because they were:
1. Cheaper
2. Lowered the physical prerequisite of the infantry personnel
3. Went under the presumption that it took two men to assist the wounded one, effectively taking three belligerents off the battlefield (this was debunked by 1968 as the VC just left their wounded at best)

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.
Click to expand...

Well I did, both raising a rifle in combat and see the short comings of the 5.56. Yes, it more depends on environment and belligerent tactics and therefore if your primary distance is greater than 300 meters, I'll take the 7.62. Been there done that, we cleared a 250/300 meter swath around our FB which pretty much made the 7.62 X 39 darn ineffective, but our 5.56's were pretty much the same going the other way. I can personally attest that a 5.56 will NOT penetrate thru an 12" ebony, mangrove, or teak tree at 300 meters, the 7.62 will. Used to pick off the gooks into the tree line with the 7.62 and they could not do anything about it (except when a few showed up with a couple of old Mosins and a WWII captured K98k- which I have). For suppressive fire within the FZ, the 5.56 was great, but outside it's intended sweet spot, it is marginal at best. Maybe the 'gan has different needs than Iraq, we should go with what does the best within that environment, not what we can make do. Remember the Afgan's slaughtered an entire army (the British) that used the most modern field weapons of the day with antiquated long range weapons that were more effective in the Afgan environment.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
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
Click to expand...

I don't think that says much about our use of 5.56mm ammo. For one, the British Ministry of Defence intentionally uses a thicker jacketed SS109-type ammo that does not fragment when it yaws because they have a different interpretation of the Hague Conventions.

So already, there is a small; but very important difference between the British use of 5.56 and our use of 5.56. Even if the British did change from 5.56 to 6.8 they would still be saddled with a slightly fatter bullet that would yaw once and exit. While you can point to a measurable increase in performance past 100m when comparing 5.56 and 6.8 OTM rounds; I doubt you can do the same when comparing non-fragmenting 5.56 and 6.8 rounds.

And if you can't point out that difference, then there is little incentive for NATO to adopt 6.8, since many of our allies share the British MoD's view of the Hague Conventions. If our NATO allies, who are more cash strapped and have smaller budgets, are unlikely to switch to 6.8, then we are also unlikely to switch to 6.8.

I think a good case can be made for the advantages of 6.8; particularly past 100m, using the U.S. interpretation of the Hague Conventions. However, I think that argument falls apart if you have to stick to a non-fragmenting FMJ and I also think that if we can't get our allies on board with 6.8, you would have to demonstrate a more substantial improvement than 6.8 shows to get the U.S. to make the switch on its own.
 
I don't think that says much about our use of 5.56mm ammo. For one, the British Ministry of Defence intentionally uses a thicker jacketed SS109-type ammo that does not fragment when it yaws because they have a different interpretation of the Hague Conventions.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall that Radway Green 5.56 is also underpowered because of issues their pretty constant issues with L85 reliability. I don't know if they have upped to heat of their ammo after the HK rework of the rifle.

A more general issue with any debate about 500m lethality is that you've first got to prove to me that troops are actually making hits at 500 before you can begin to argue that there's a problem killing guys at 500. A good COM hit at 500 with 5.56 (or 7.62 or most anything else) will be a fight stopper. A peripheral, marginal hit won't be (or at least won't be reliably) with any practical man-portable caliber. And the terminal ballistics of misses are, of course, pretty shabby.

That said, I've seen sniper instructors make boringly routine hits with SPRs and Mk 262 on steel chest plates at 700 and 800 using iron sights. I've also seen a student, with an instructor as a spotter, make a hit first round hit at 1200 on steel using a 10.5" barrel upper, good optics, good ammo (262 again), and a hand held ballistic computer. Training is where we need to really focus $$$ at the moment -- if we start really owning 500 meters with carbines and rifles and then see an issue, then and only then do we need to fall back to the gear/tech solution which we're real fond of as Americans. Otherwise, we're likely to just wind up with the three round burst option instead of training guys how to use automatic fire from their rifles again.
 
I had posted that I thought this article was a hoax and not written by a actual officer. I was informed that this appeared on a military web site. That saddens me because some parts are clearly incorrect.
I should not be so shocked I guess because at Fort Eustice website there is an account of a batle I was in in 1969 near Phan Rang. Vietnam. About the only thing right was the date and location and that it was an attack on a convoy. That a officer would change things to fit his view isn't new and the Army would allow it is sad but a repeat of history for me.
 
Last edited:
I don't think that says much about our use of 5.56mm ammo. For one, the British Ministry of Defence intentionally uses a thicker jacketed SS109-type ammo that does not fragment when it yaws because they have a different interpretation of the Hague Conventions.

So already, there is a small; but very important difference between the British use of 5.56 and our use of 5.56. Even if the British did change from 5.56 to 6.8 they would still be saddled with a slightly fatter bullet that would yaw once and exit. While you can point to a measurable increase in performance past 100m when comparing 5.56 and 6.8 OTM rounds; I doubt you can do the same when comparing non-fragmenting 5.56 and 6.8 rounds.

And if you can't point out that difference, then there is little incentive for NATO to adopt 6.8, since many of our allies share the British MoD's view of the Hague Conventions. If our NATO allies, who are more cash strapped and have smaller budgets, are unlikely to switch to 6.8, then we are also unlikely to switch to 6.8.

I think a good case can be made for the advantages of 6.8; particularly past 100m, using the U.S. interpretation of the Hague Conventions. However, I think that argument falls apart if you have to stick to a non-fragmenting FMJ and I also think that if we can't get our allies on board with 6.8, you would have to demonstrate a more substantial improvement than 6.8 shows to get the U.S. to make the switch on its own.
Click to expand...

The ss109 is the nomenclature of the 62gr green tip bullet. When assembled into the actual cartridge it becomes the M855 round that I'm currently issued.

Whoever said that effective range for M16A2 is 800m is dead wrong. It is 800m for a area target such as a building. Point targets such as people is 500m for both M4A1/M16A2. And NO way will current 5.56mm ammo penetrate a Kevlar hemet at 800m get real. While I truly do like the M4A1 for CQB/CQM and out to about 300m, it does have serious drawbacks past 300m. That is exactly why we got rid of the M16A4 rifles for SDM purposes and went with modified M14's using M118LR just for that purpose. And no the various MODS such as the Mk262 were not adopted due to the combatants being of a non National entity, that is pure B.S.

The MK262 was picked up due to the fact that it is more accurate at extended ranges than the M855 cartridge using the SS109 62gr bullet. The manufacturing process leaves the Open Tip in the bullet of the 77gr Mk262, it was not ever designed to frament it was designed for match ammo. It just so happens to be more frangible due to the fact that Sierra uses a thinner jackets for match ammo as it is easier to control concentricity.I've been to Iraq multiple times so Iknow what the 5.56mm is capable of when put to the test, and what it is not capable of at the same time. On the flip side I had the privilage of being a Advanced Rifle Marksmanship (ARM) instructor where we shot out to 400yds regularly with issued M855, so I also know it intimately from that aspect as well. If you ain't been there and done it don't you dare tell me what I need and or don't need or even know. Does the infantry need a good all around cartridge yes, yes and yes. From everything that I've read and seen the 6.8 SPC would be the perfect candidate for it as well. It would be great for CQB/CQM and carry the mail more effectively out to 500m than the 5.56mm. Y'all have a good night stay safe and shoot straight.
 
"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."

And take a look at history, while German infantry were protecting their machinegunners and standing in place our American infantryman and English partners were advancing on them and killing them both with great sucess.
 
the problem in afghanistan i imagine is the poularity of bolt action battle rifles and x54 snipers taken from the soviets with the locals. in that open country i can see how a few guys with mosins and lee enfields could do a number on troops equiped with 5.56 weapons. especially considering these same locals tend to be rather good shots, especially the rural tribal types, being a good marksman is part of their life. Also i imagine a squad with a 7.62x54 PKM as its base of fire would have quite the advantage over a group with a SAW or 2.
 
"one 7.62 rifle per squad for anything the m4 cannot handle"
What do you suppose an M4 cannot handle? Im sorry but we arent fighting adult elephants, but humans, also Im sure with a well placed shot even an adult elephant cannot stand alive to a 5.56mm.
"a 5.56 will NOT penetrate thru an 12" ebony, mangrove, or teak tree at 300 meters, the 7.62 will."
No, but again, a human is not a 12" tree, a human with the best helmet to protect his head at 800 meters will have a hole straight through his helmet, and his head. Im sorry but apples to apples. Your comparison with the 7.62x39 was good, and its effective range is better than the 5.56 under 100 meters, beyond 100 meters and going way beyond the 5.56 will outperform it.
In Iraq the enemy did not have that many wounded by our 5.56, most of them did not survive, and we could shoot well beyond their AKs range, and kill them fast. Keep in mind many advances and differences between the vietnam era m16 and the m16a2/a3/a4 and m4 have been made.
"1. Cheaper
2. Lowered the physical prerequisite of the infantry personnel"
One I agree with, 2 I do not agree with, it did not lower the prerequisites of the infantry, in fact today the prerequisite for infantry (at least when I was in) were alot higher than back then.
But it did allow the infantry to carry FAR MORE rds, and be able to assist the unit, in carrying other needed ammo, and supplies, grenades, etc.
"And NO way will current 5.56mm ammo penetrate a Kevlar hemet at 800m get real"
Sorry but Ive seen that happen first hand, the 5.56 will go straight through a kevlar helmet at 800 meters. It will also go straight through a steel helmet at beyond 800 meters.
Using a 5.56 against an automobile to stop the vehicle in motion takes a bit more skill than using a more powerful rd, but using them against a human there isnt much that will allow that human to get back up.
 
The ss109 is the nomenclature of the 62gr green tip bullet. When assembled into the actual cartridge it becomes the M855 round that I'm currently issued.
Click to expand...

Actually, SS109 was what FN designated the 62gr cartridge it designed in conjunction with the M249 in order to meet the requirement that the 5.56mm bullet from the M249 penetrate a steel helmet at 600yds. All M855 is SS109; but not all SS109 meets the same standards as M855 (for example, British Radway Green ammo).

I used the phrase "SS109-type" to distinguish the fact that not all 5.56mm NATO 62gr ammo performs the same as our own M855 in ballistic gel.

SHvar said:
Sorry but Ive seen that happen first hand, the 5.56 will go straight through a kevlar helmet at 800 meters.
Click to expand...

O RLY? You understand that penetrating one side of the older M1 steel helmet at 600m was something that the 55gr ammo could not do and that the whole purpose of adding the 4.7gr steel penetrator to M855 was to enable it to meet that requirement and that even then, M855 could just barely meet the requirement to penetrate one side of the older steel helmet? On top of this, the Kevlar issue helmet is substantially tougher to penetrate than the older M1 steel helmet.

Now you are telling me that not only did you see someone hit a K-Pot at 800m with M855; but that it also penetrated the Kevlar? You realize that M855 with a starting velocity of 3,000fps goes subsonic at 750 YARDS and that at 872 yards (800m) it is moving at only 1,020 fps with 160 ft/lbs of energy. Yet you are telling me that you watched someone hit a Kevlar at that distance (despite the accuracy issues with a round going transsonic) and that the same round that will barely penetrate one side of the older M1 steel helmet at 600m managed to penetrate the Kevlar at 800m (872yds)?

When you say "i've seen that happen first hand" do you mean the same way you saw a brigade of the 82nd Airborne jumping into Desert Storm with Bushmaster M4s?
 
Last edited:
it is moving at only 1,020 fps with 160 ft/lbs of energy
Click to expand...

...which, BTW, makes it close to the ballistic equivalent of a .22LR at 50 yards, with a better bullet...
 
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.
Click to expand...

Ballisticians, inventors, designers, ordnance experts, and everyone in between have been saying that 6.5 or 7mm intermediate cartridge is the best general purpose caliber. SINCE 1915!!! But the closest that anyone came to this was the British EM2, which was killed by the morons at Springfield Armory.
 
"one 7.62 rifle per squad for anything the m4 cannot handle"
What do you suppose an M4 cannot handle? Im sorry but we arent fighting adult elephants, but humans, also Im sure with a well placed shot even an adult elephant cannot stand alive to a 5.56mm.
Click to expand...

SHavr, it is quite obvious you are talking out the side of your neck. I don't like to say that but sorry I'm calling it the way I see it. Go buy the book Black Hawk down and you will read first hand accounts about CAG (delta to you) operators having to engage mal-nurished Somali combatants multiple times in order to put them down with 5.56mm.

Sorry but Ive seen that happen first hand, the 5.56 will go straight through a kevlar helmet at 800 meters. It will also go straight through a steel helmet at beyond 800 meters.
Click to expand...

Again I have to throw out the B.S. flag on this one as well. Bartholomew said it perfectly, however once again doubtful. There is 3 MOA of error in the weapon and another 3 MOA of error in the issued ammo, we're not talking match grade stuff here. So to hit a steel pot or Kevlar at 800m which is the distance at which you engae an area target meaning a building, yeah keep dreaming there supply specialist. On top of that Kevlar helmets are much stronger than the old steel pots so no way. I personally witnessed a rifleman from another squad engage an insurgent at 500m from the roof top we were on. He got lucky hitting the weapon causing the insurgent to drop it. When we rolled up to the weapon there was no blood however there was a nice little dent in his magazine where the 5.56 hit it. Y'all have a good night stay safe and shoot straight.
 
First - my never having been in combat doesn't preclude me from having an informed opinion based on more than 35 years of shooting and hunting, and a good dose of common sense.

We're using a marginal round that has an effective envelope only up to 300 or so yards on humans. The initial twist rate of 14:1, high speed and light weight masked performance issues at the relatively short ranges encountered in Vietnam.

"Improvements" over the years - ever faster twist rate making a more stable / less lethal round; heavier rounds fired from a shorter barrel hence slower, so less apt to reach a target with the speed needed to be effective - all contributed to an evolution that's lead to where we are.

Unlike nature, where evolution is driven by survival of the fittest, 5.56 evolution was driven by considerations other than terminal effectiveness. This lead to band-aid solutions to perceived problems that may or may not have been legitimate concerns. Perhaps a national armory system staffed by knowledgeable arms experts would have effectively remedied this (like we used to have) but who knows.

It's no wonder to me that an over-stabilized varmint round is marginally effective on people and an unreliable fight-stopper much beyond 300 yards. IMO, there are better options for an "all-arounder" and were my old azz to be recalled for duty in the sand box, I'd be wanting one.

.276 Pedersen and 7mm X 41 were the answer and would work, as would 6.5 something - and I think that "something" needs to be more than a 110 grain 6.8 Grendel.

I personally would want something with enough "oomph" to allow me to be effective at any practical range. For me that's out to 500 yards and with a little training, that could be extended.
 
3. Went under the presumption that it took two men to assist the wounded one, effectively taking three belligerents off the battlefield (this was debunked by 1968 as the VC just left their wounded at best)
Click to expand...

Completely bogus urban legend. Please do us a favor by not repeating it any more.
 
d2wing said:
I had posted that I thought this article was a hoax and not written by a actual officer. I was informed that this appeared on a military web site. That saddens me because some parts are clearly incorrect.
I should not be so shocked I guess because at Fort Eustice website there is an account of a batle I was in in 1969 near Phan Rang. Vietnam. About the only thing right was the date and location and that it was an attack on a convoy. That a officer would change things to fit his view isn't new and the Army would allow it is sad but a repeat of history for me.
Click to expand...

Easy, killer. Keep in mind the context. This was an "official publication" in the sense that it was some Major's monograph at Command and General Staff College (CGSC), but isn't a policy making/breaking document. It's a term paper just like you wrote in high school or college. It's signed by his commander, which means he evidently passed the course, but keep in mind the requirements were (1) write a paper (2) that states your opinion (3) with some research to back it up.

That being said, I have some serious reservations regarding his methodology. Much of his "data" are anecdotes from his personal experience, stories he heard from his buddies, with a "Lt Col Patraeus was shot" thrown in the mix. While I agree with his general conclusion that an intermediate cartridge would be wise, his formulation is non-stochastic.

Bottom line: he wrote this in school. He has an opinion, and he stated it. If the requirement was "state your opinion," he passed. It doesn't mean the Army has devolved since 'Nam.

Thanks for your service. I -- like many others -- appreciate it.
 
I don't know, from what I have seen I wouldn't want to get shot with the 5.56. I have seen pictures were it went through a car, seat and still blew the inside of the guys head all over the windsheild, before exiting through the windsheild.

I think the modern 5.56 rounds are pretty good, they are loaded pretty hot, and are a far cry from the old M193.
 
I agree. I think a classic example of this is the 1986 Platt / FBI shootout in Miami. Platt killed or seriously wounded 9 of the 10 FBI agents with a Mini-14. While there are a lot of lessons learned from this incident, one that is often overlooked is the power of the .223 within its intended range. Personally, I'm a big fan of the 7.62x39, but I won't deride the 5.56x45 just because it isn't my first choice.
 
So I'm sitting on a ridge in Afghanistan. I'm scanning down in the valley and I see movement. I look through the glasses and I can barely distinguish three men with AK pattern rifles. Wow. Dang. If only I had a rifle that cou........wait. Radio. "Hi. Is this the mortar platoon?"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer: A critique.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
7K
d2wing
d2wing
C
  • Locked
Taking Back The Infantry Half-km: Britain’s L129A1
2
Replies
39
Views
3K
JShirley
JShirley
S
  • Locked
M16A1 vs M16A2
2
Replies
31
Views
14K
Treo
T
B
  • Locked
Survey of Marine Infantry Reveals Complaints About Rifle
Replies
5
Views
746
Eightball
E
C
  • Locked
Army Report: GIs Outgunned in Afghanistan
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
X-Rap
X-Rap
Back
Top