You say so. It's thirty years old and is a little dated. The gist of it is that long ranged rifle fire is less important in mechanized, combined-arms, mobility warfare, and due to the nature of suppression fire most shots are misses, so more ammo comes in handy. Well, yeah.
It also references S.L.A. Marshall; see Vern's quote from the first page:
That's SLA Marshall, who has been shown a fake. He faked his famous "study" about firing in combat, he lied -- repeatedly -- about his own combat experience and as long as he lived, his story kept changing.
Furthermore, on one page, it insists that there's "no tactical difference" between 5.56 and 7.62, but on another page talks about superior 7.62mm range and penetration. That sounds like a
tactical difference to me! Everything is a trade-off; you don't get reduced weight and recoil without giving something up.
Sure, it doesn't concern you but it does concern the military. They operate as a team and need the best weapons for todays battle doctrines. What are the percentages? Like 90% assault rifles and 10% battle rifles used in the Armed Forces around the world? Everybody is switching, whether it's to 5.56mm, 7.62x39mm, 5.45mm, or 5.8mm Chinese.
The Russians and Chinese aren't "switching" from battle rifles; they never issued them in the first place. The Russians went to an intermediate cartridge in 1945 with the SKS; the Chinese adopted it in the 50s.
What else it doesn't apply to is whether the US should've gone with the M14 or the FAL.
Using the 308 as a general issue cartridge again would be very stupid.
Eh. I doubt it'd make much difference either way in modern warfare. In "traditional" warfare, say, Gulf War 1, small arms are pretty far down the list as far as importance of things goes. How much ammunition you have doesn't matter when you're up against a tank, muchless an attack helicopter or a cruise missile. Our Army could've been carrying M1 Garands and Single Action Army revolvers and the outcome wouldn't have been different in the least for the Iraqi Army.
In operations like Iraq, the individual weapon becomes more important, as the conflict is limited in nature and the heaviest weapons aren't unleashed. Again, though, with near constant resupply available and operations usually being short duration missions, I don't think the increased load of 5.56 would make a decisive advantage in the end. Nor do I think the 7.62's increased range and penetration would make much difference.
Wars haven't been won or lost by what rifles are used since the century before last.
General Eisenhower was once asked which innovations had the greatest impact in the European Theater. He replied the 2.5 ton truck, the C-47, and the Bazooka.
it would have been replaced at approximately the same time the M14 did by the M16.
Too many variables to say for sure. There was a LOT of politics involved in the adoption of the M16; the Army didn't want it, and the Marines
really didn't want it. The Air Force loved it. If the Army would've had a squad automatic weapon (the FAL-O), I think the M16 would've been a much tougher sell (on the other hand, the Powers that Were, like SecDef MacNamara, wanted the M16 regardless, so it probably wouldn't have been much different. The M16, as
originally issued, was completely inadequate for combat, and even that didn't stop them). As was, the squad was lacking in base-of-fire weapons and it was hoped that the M16, being full auto, would ameliorate that problem.
It didn't; all it did was waste ammunition. Eventually we got the SAW. In any case, 7.62x51 "battle rifles" can't be completely useless; USSOCOM specifically requested that a "heavy" variant be devloped for their new weapon system, complete with "CQB", "STANDARD" and "MARKSMAN" barrels. Thus we've got the SCAR-L and the SCAR-H, as each type has a niche to fill.
