Why Fewer Choices In Small Arms For Military Today?

[Cosmoline]

I was thinking about the small arms available to allied and axis soldiers during WWII, and it struck me that back then the soldiers of many military forces, from Finland to the US, had a greater selection of small arms and more flexibility in dealing with a variety of engagements. Each army had its own main war rifle, of course, from Garands to Mausers to Enfields. But beyond that units could include a mix of carbines, pistols, revolvers, SMG's, light machine guns, battle rifles and sniper rifles. The mix of firearms and catridges might have caused some confusion, but frankly I've never heard of any incidents from WWII where units were overrun or lost men because of such confusion. Nobody was trying to load .30 carbine cartridges into a Garand or Springfield, for example.

But now, our soldiers have a limited number of platforms almost exclusively in .223, from the carbine variants to the SAW. One cartridge of arguable utility is expected to carry the load that used to be carried by everything from .45 ACP to .30'06. I realize our military has been on a Quixotic quest for "one gun to rule them all" since WWII, but are there sufficient reasons to limit troops in this manner? Esp. in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they might need to switch from long range combat over 400 to 600 yards to close range house-to-house combat over the course of a single engagement.

The terrorists and insurgents do not seem to be limited at all, and are using an array of IED's, old WWII rifles, assault rifles, RPG's and whatever else they think will work best at the moment.

 

[Eightball]

I think this is due to the fact that that era was very "niche" specific--tank crews had their CZ 27s (Germans, at least), troops expected to fight in rural areas seemed to have their main battle rifle (whatever country it may have been), more urban areas tended to have SMG's issued (MP40, Tommy Gun), sniper rifles were old, time-honored designs (oh wait, that hasn't changed much), etc. Cartridges were becoming more into their own time, and propellants (sp?) were about to change (think .30-06 to .308). Everything had it's purpose, new mechanisms had recently been invented (da switch for SMGs, etc), and things had their own roles to fill.

But now, our soldiers have a limited number of platforms almost exclusively in .223

Politiking, anyone? Everyone knows the situations around the M16's adoption, I'm not going to rehash them. So, the military is stuck in it's old ways of thinking, and isn't looking to upset politicians by wanting a better rifle--hence, everyone has their .223 (called by some to be "adequate", called by others to be "varmit calibre", I'm not taking sides). As far as the higher-ups tend to think, if it ain't broke, don't replace it. That, and the soldiers of today aren't quite the shooters of yesteryear--modern troops ususally didn't grow up shooting, as many WWII soldiers did. More ammo=good, so a smaller cartridge that kicks less is the result. People aren't all sharpshooters, so an 8-shot M1 probably wouldn't suffice for most applications in urban environments today (which is where most things seem to happen), since it is large and heavy (awesome rifle though the M1 may be). IMHO, the reason for unilateral cartridges in our military is that politicians have had their fun, and now we're stuck with 9mm and .223, and the firearms that use them. Gone are the days of the useful Tommy, the hard-hitting M1, the accurate M1903, the revered .45. Now we have no subguns, use various-length M16s, use M24s, and the M9. People who aren't "in the know" of "niche-ability" seem to be the ones making the decisions, and would like to think a "one size fits all" cartridge exists--it doesn't (unless the 40mm HE is what you have in mind ). So, do we need to issue more stuff? I think so; would it complicate replacement parts and such? Probably. At least, that's my thoughts on the subject, YMMV. Now, excuse me while I try to construct a flame-proof barrier .

 

[Cosmoline]

Frankly, "greatest generation" hero worship aside, I think the people in our current volunteer forces are second to none. Look at it from a purely physical point of view. They are far stronger and several inches taller on average, with better teeth bigger brains and far better eyesight on average than WWII era draftees. There is absolutely no reason to assume they would wither and cry if their frankly massive shoulders were subjected to more recoil than the wee .223 puts out. Have you SEEN our guys in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're freaking huge! I just can't believe they'd run away from a little more recoil.

I know there were more draftees from rural backgrounds during WWII, but frankly there were plenty of urbanites who had never seen a firearm as well. Everyone was expected to know the various types of ball ammunition by the end of bootcamp, and there don't seem to have been too many problems in the field with mixups.

One solution I wouldn't mind seeing is the SPC and 5.56 NATO filling the role of SMG's and something else with more punch and more range taking the middle role between light machine gun and SMG.

 

[BryanP]

Logistics and cost. 5.56mm for rifles, carbines & SAW's. 9mm for sidearms. 7.62mm NATO for sniper rifles, Designated Marksman rifles, and some MG's. 50BMG for bigger MG's and a small number of specialty rifles. Keeping it down to 4 calibers which cover everything that isn't vehicle mounted or self-propelled greatly simplifies/reduces both logistics and costs. An army marches on it's supply chain.

 

[Eightball]

I was not implying that our troops were not still the best in their class; I think they are. Nor do I think that issuing heavier-hitting/more recoiling weapons would be a bad thing, I'm all for bringing the .308 back into the limelight (or something the equivalent thereof, maybe the SPC; maybe bring back the M14 with "da switch", or large amounts of issuing the SCAR-H?)

As for something in between the roles of SMG and LMG, wouldn't that be akin to the GPMG (a la M60)? Maybe start issuing SMGs (wonder why we don't? But maybe that's a topic for a different thread, IDK) in general, or in .223 (hate to be on the recieving end of that thing ), and replace any 5.56 LMGs with SPC LMGs? That, or start issuing .22LR miniguns to every so many people .

 

[Omaha-BeenGlockin]

Logistics----think: Leaner and Meaner

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The variety of weapons in major wars is due to demand outstripping supply.

For example, many of our troops in the War With Mexico carried flintlocks -- despite the fact that we had gone to percussion caps five years earlier.

In the Civil War at Gettysburg, there were regiments armed with smoothbores, some with rifled .69 caliber muskets, some with foreign weapons well below standard, and some with new Springfields and Enfields. Confederate cavalry often carried double-barrel shotguns.

In the Spanish-American War, many of our troops went into battle with single-shot blackpowder Trapdoor Springfields -- not enough Krags to go around.

In WWI, we fielded more M1917 Enfields than '03 Springfields, and took all the revolvers Colt and Smith&Wesson could make in .45 ACP because we couldn't produce M1911s fast enough. We had a lot of other weapons, too -- I have an M1905 Canadian Ross with US markings on it. Troops were trained with this rifle, and with M1891 Nagants, too (the latter being issued to American troops in Siberia, as well.)

In WWII the 1st Marine Division landed on Guadalcanal carrying '03 Springfields. The M1903A3 was manufactured as a Substitute Standard and not until 1943 were all combat units equipped with M1 Garands.

When you look back at this record, you have to conclude that weapons were often adopted because they were available, not because they were especially effective.

 

[Cosmoline]

It's true that the variety of small arms arose because of supply problems not because of any intention on the part of top brass or politicos. It's the unforseen upside to this rich small arms environment that interests me. The Finns, for example, had a massive number of home-produced and captured small arms and used them to great effect. A fellow like Simo Hayha would use his 28/30 for long range sniping, then switch to a suomi for close range work. Simo racked up over 500 kills with that combination over a few months of combat, and his countrymen did very well also. Whatever you want to say about the M-16 and the 5.56, there's no way it can cover that range of ground. It might be able to fill the SMG's shoes, but man it's hard to beat a suomi or PPsH for house clearing. And it certainly cannot top the power and range of a "white death" Civil Guard Mosin. We're just asking too much of it IMHO.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm not quite sure why people think a submachine gun is ideal for houseclearing. Certainly a semi- or full auto weapon would be better than a bolt action in many cases, but at Shugart-Gordon, the live fire village at the Joint Readinness Training Center, semi-auto fire beats full auto. In addition, weapons that reliably shoot through walls are an advantage in urban combat.

 

[Cosmoline]

Here's a Marine who liked the PPsH.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Here's a Marine who liked the PPsH.

Well, he's carrying a PPsH. We don't know if he LIKES it, or if he's actually used it in combat.

The people best able to evaluate the PPsH that I know were the VC and NVA. They abandoned it for the AK 47.

 

[Eightball]

Sweet picture. Where does he get the ammo for that thing, I wonder ? That should say something about the usefulness of a subgun in urban combat; if our troops (who are the best armed in the world in most respects) are stealing ancient Soviet SMG's (with da switch) to use over our modern M16 (without da FA switch) for house clearing, maybe that indicates a demand for FA weapons ? If hostages aren't an issue--only "clearing house" of terrorists, then why not have FA? Just some food for thought. And, I agree with Cosmo--5.56 isn't a good distance weapon, IMO. At least we still have M14s.

 

[Tony Williams]

I realize our military has been on a Quixotic quest for "one gun to rule them all" since WWII, but are there sufficient reasons to limit troops in this manner? Esp. in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they might need to switch from long range combat over 400 to 600 yards to close range house-to-house combat over the course of a single engagement.

Hey, I've had an idea - why doesn't someone invent a cartridge which will fit in an M16-sized gun and reach out to longer ranges? Say, in 6.5mm or 6.8mm calibre?

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum

 

[Number 6]

In WWII we fielded 4 calibers, 30-06, 30 Carbine, 45ACP, and 50 BMG. Today we field 4 calibers, 5.56x45, 7.62x51, 9x19, and 50 BMG. In WWII we had the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1928 Thompson, M3 Greasegun, M1911, M1918 BAR, M1919/M1917, and M1903. We did field other weapons. but not in any large quantities. Today we have the M16, M4, M9, M249, M240, M24, M82 and M14. Now by this count in WWII we fielded 8 weapon systems, 7 if you count the M3 as being a replacement for the M1928, 9 if you count the M1917 and M1919 as two different systems. Today we have 8 weapons systems. So in WWII there was 7-9 choices to the infantryman depending on how one counts, today there are 8. I don't see how there are significantly fewer choices for our infantry today, or how there is any less flexibility in what type of weapon is used.

 

[USSR]

One word - Logistics.

Don

 

[hillbilly]

During the American Civil war, the US Army turned down the Henry Rifle.

The lever-action Model 1860 was then the most reliable, advanced rapid fire weapon available to any foot soldier anywhere on planet earth.

Why did the US Army turn down the Henry rifle?

Because the head of supply for the US Army already had to provide ammo for something like 40 different calibers of various small arms, and quite simply could not add another caliber...especially a rapid fire arm that would require lots and lots and lots of ammo.

Individual officers and individual units who could aford to buy and supply their own Henrys did get them.

But the US Army never issued them nor issued ammo for them because of the logistical nightmare of adding yet another caliber of ammo.

hillbilly

 

[boofus]

I think it is simple economics and logistics. Weapons that use the same or interchangeable parts and ammunition lower the overall cost at the manufacturer. There is greater demand for the same parts that are already being produced and replacements can be easily found in the field.

 

[Art Eatman]

Less difference among countries because of alliances. NATO forces use the same ammo, even if rifles are different. Same for ComBlock.

As to style of rifle, military philosophy enters: The US idea is for Infantry to control a radius of some 200 meters and call in air or artillery. The Russian idea is to assault with the heavy stuff, and the Infantry enters the fray at close range--hence the AK.

US frontline troops (enliseted Infantry) in WW II and Korea mostly used the Garand, and some numbers of Carbines. Relatively few pistols. Not a lot of sniper-weapon usage. Seems to me that our frontline people in Iraq are using a much wider choice of weapons. Not only do more guys have pistols as well as rifles, there are more sniper weapons. And, there are the variants of what started as the M16. Add in the much closer coordination with air and arty enabled by today's communications and computers...

Art

 

[Sunray]

"...the soldiers of many military forces, from Finland to the US, had a greater selection of small arms..." No, they didn't. They used whatever was issued to them. Same as the troopies do now. Money, then as now, is/was the major consideration in weapons procurement. Followed by standardization and logistics. Then you get into over lap caused by manufacturing times for the number of firearms required and training time.

 

[Cosmoline]

Art, you're correct of course, but I'm wondering whether those reasons are outdated now. For one thing, NATO has degenerated into more of a European social and economic organization than a military pact. Other than conflicts in Europe's own lap we can expect ZERO help from them in the future. So standardization between our troops and their troops matters less and less.

I also question the reliance on artillery and airstrikes. I know that's been our MO for a long time, but when you look at some of the battles, particularly in Afghanistan, the weakness of this method really becomes apparent. In Operation Anaconda and several subsequent mountain battles, the troops on the line kept calling in air strikes, and the AQ/Talib forces kept hopping back into their holes whenever they heard the jets come. The troops lacked the firepower to extract them directly or break them down, since the ranges were often far beyond 100 or 200 meters. What should have been a short and one-sided battle stretched for days, allowing key hostile elements to run out the back door.

In the urban fighting in Iraq, air strikes and artillery have been risky because of the close proximity of our own troops and the difficulty distinguishing between hostile and civilian targets. Leftist agitprop aside, we did not simply bomb Fallujah into the ground for example. Troops had to move house to house to house in many cases.

 

[Art Eatman]

Cosmoline, I'll never argue for "always", but when you compare today's utility of the "smart" stuff with WW II and VietNam, the fundamental Infantry concept works.

What's going on in Afghanistan and Iraq is not at all the standardized sort of warfare upon which our basic equipment is predicated. Still, we're doing much better than if we just did a "drop and pray" with WW II-style bombs.

Since I'm dubious that we'll be in a fight with other NATO countries, I doubt it matters at all if we and they use the same ammo. I grant that I've never been even whelmed by the .223, but I don't make the decisions.

Thread drift: As I've said, I started centerfire stuff in 1950 with an '06. My uncle had a Varminter (now the .22-250) and my father used a Swift for jackrabbits and coyotes. When the .223 was annonced, with all the fanfare, I couldn't understand why a 75% cartridge was any big deal. Compared to "real" centerfire .22s, it's a pipsqueak, was my view at that time.

Art

 

[Eightball]

the US Army turned down the Henry Rifle

Wrong. The Army didn't turn it down, the head of the Ordnance dept. did. Ripley (I think that was his name, at least) was a total tightwad with money, and worried that a repeating rifle would "encourage soldiers to waste costly metallic cartridges in wild, rapid fire"--sounds kinda like modern anti's whining about anything that isn't a muzzleloader . He was made well aware of the superiority of the Henry, he just didn't care because he was stubborn. However, the money factor may have been complicated by the different ammo for small arms (such as the Burnside carbine), but if they Ripley had wanted to standardize the Henry, the production capacity was there to do so. That's it for my little rant, but other than that, hillbilly was correct.

 

[Crosshair]

The shortening of the M-16 to the M-4 then using the M4 as a subgun is just idiotic. We should have an Issue SMG that we can give to troops in urban combat. MP5 would be a good choice though there might be something better.

 

[c_yeager]

The variety of weapons available in WWII had more to do with inefeciency than anything else. Weapons were placed into the supply line to take up the slack when another weapon couldnt be produced in adequate supply. This isnt a good thing. It is harder on everyone when there is such a disparity of tools. Someone has to mantain all of those weapons, and the soldiers have to become profecient on them. The reason we have fewer choices today is simply because we are able to properly equip our military with standardized weapons.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Wrong. The Army didn't turn it down, the head of the Ordnance dept. did. Ripley (I think that was his name, at least) was a total tightwad with money, and worried that a repeating rifle would "encourage soldiers to waste costly metallic cartridges in wild, rapid fire"--sounds kinda like modern anti's whining about anything that isn't a muzzleloader

I recommend reading Edward Coddington's classic "The Gettysburg Campaign." In Chapter 10, "Arms and Men" he does a detailed analysis of "the breechloader question." He points out that at Milroy, Banks men had Henry rifles -- and made no showing. On the other hand, Wisconsin troops, armed with third-class Austrian muzzle loaders "fought like wildcats."

He points out that you cannot find a battle in the Civil War that was decided by superior armament, and thoroughly debunks the idea that underpowered repeaters offered any advantage at all.

Another recommendation is to watch "Gallipoli" with Mel Gibson. This shows the problem -- in a war that took place 50 years after the end of the American Civil War.

There is one scene that faithfully represents what actually happened. The Australians are in their trenches, preparing to attack. Lee-Enfield rifles, bayonets fixed are stacked against the paraphet. Scaling ladders are in place to climb over the top. Officers and NCOs are double-checking everything. The battalion commander comes down the trench and asks if one specific thing has been checked.

What did the battalion commander want checked? "Has anyone made sure these rifles are unloaded? This is supposed to be a bayonet attack, you know."

If you're not going to load your rifles, what difference does it make if you don't load them at the breech or at the muzzle?