Would it make a difference?

[Evil Monkey]

I understand that the machine gun is the biggest killer on the battle field because of how much firepower you can out on a target somewhat accurately.

I also understand that at least in the US military, the rifleman is primarily taught to use his service rifle as a semi automatic weapon. He utilizes rapid aimed fire to put rounds into the enemy fast and accurately.

Since high volume of fire is the most lethal in the battle field and is accredited to the MG or SAW, would a squads fighting capability be decreased to a point of unsatisfactory efficiency, if the 5.56mm SAW's were kept in the squads but the 5.56mm rifle was replaced with a 7.62x51mm battle rifle?

Seeing that a 5.56mm SAW can put alot of firepower downrange and is the higher casualty producer, does it really matter what caliber the rifle is if the doctrine calls for semi auto fire?

I'm not looking at negative results regarding logistics and such, I'm just trying to figure out if such an armed infantry would be left at a serious disadvantage in the middle of combat, whether the combat is on a large scale or a small one.

 

[Javelin]

The Soldier is actually being equipped with a M14A1 and the 12 Gauge. In fact they are kind of sought after in the Company for those who have a knowledge of firepower.

I would equip the Soldier with AR-10s if I had a vote. So I feel the Soldier would benefit from an upgrade in firepower.

And as far as the SAW M249, I dont care for those as I have had too many close calls with the things as they have a tendancy to become "run away guns". Close calls meaning >3 feet. And training Soldiers to actually shoot accurately with them is miserable and time consuming.
+1 to dropping the 5.56 for the 7.62.

 

[mustanger98]

The Soldier is actually being equipped with a M14A1 and the 12 Gauge. In fact they are kind of sought after in the Company for those who have a knowledge of firepower.

Don't you mean "M16A1"?

I would equip the Soldier with AR-10s if I had a vote.

The AR-10 was never USGI. You'd have to add GI parts, mags, accessories to the supply chain, but that's not the OP's point.

If I were a soldier, and I had a choice (which they usually don't), I'd pick either an M-14 or a 12guage... preferably both depending on the mission. But again, that's probably beside the OP's point.

I recall an episode of, IIRC, American Rifleman TV where they were showing varients of Eugene Stoners rifles... on varient of M-16 they shot had a 200rd drum magazine and that guy just held the trigger down and shot up the whole 200rds at once. Me and Daddy, we talked about that and it seems like that'd be good to make 'em keep their heads down till somebody can get into position to do something. So, if I had a couple of guys backing me up, and I had my M1 Garand, those other guys could make 'em get their heads down while I get ready to engage with the .30caliber weapon. That's my opinion. That don't make it gospel for every situation.

 

[K3]

I understand that the machine gun is the biggest killer on the battle field because of how much firepower you can out on a target somewhat accurately.

I've read in many sources, German, Soviet, and American, that artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, but that's perhaps another story.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I've read in many sources, German, Soviet, and American, that artillery is the biggest killer on the battlefield, but that's perhaps another story

I should have been more specific. I meant the highest casualty producer from a hand held bullet firing weapon is the squads machine gun.

 

[Rifleman 173]

AHEMMM! The semi-automatic or bolt-action SNIPER rifle is the most effective enemy shooter available. Viet Nam taught us that machineguns take 10,000 to 15,000 rounds to kill one enemy soldier on average. A good sniper uses about 1.5 bullets, on average, to kill an enemy soldier. But the thing to remember is that a machinegun is considered to be an AREA weapon. A sniper rifle is a PINPOINT fire weapon. Comparing any machinegun to any set of rifles isn't really right. It's just how you consider your data or what you want to do in the long run with your different guns. You need a variety of guns in an infantry outfit to meet a variety of tasks. The idea of "one rifle for everything" came out of the 1960s and Robert McNamara's stupidity. There is no such thing as one ideal firearm.

 

[TimboKhan]

As a former machinegunner, I have to stand up for my platform. The Sniper rifle is more efficient, but it is not more effective, as WWI proved. It may take a gazillion bullets to kill the enemy, but you can expend those gazillion bullets much, much quicker with a MG than you can a sniper weapon. I will even concede that along with it's efficiency, the sniper is probably more feared on the battlefield than is the the machinegunner, but fear and efficiency don't equal overall effectiveness. A well-trained machinegunner can bring down considerably more enemy in a short period of time than the even finest sniper can. I would also add that IF you have defined field of fire and IF you have a gunner than knows how to use his T&E effectively, the machine gun is capable of surprising precision. Hey, even Carlos Hathcock scored a kill with a Ma Deuce, man...

That being said, I would think that the standard old infantry rifle of whatever war you happen to be talking about is responsible for more enemy dead than anything else.

 

[kir_kenix]

for the war we are fighting now, the m16/m4 platform is doing its job. most of the shooting occurs in urban areas, so the ability to reach out there and touch someone at 500 yds doesnt really play a key role to the standard infantryman. the machine guns (m2, 249, 240b, m60's etc...) do the grunt of the work on the open roads however.

having said that, in a WWII style war where long range precision shooting was commonplace, i would feel better off w/ a .30 cal weapon.

 

[Evil Monkey]

in a WWII style war where long range precision shooting was commonplace

I don't agree with that. WW2 and beyond were the reason smaller intermediate rounds were becoming more popular because the vast majority of small arms fire never really was effective beyond 300-500meters or so.

 

[goon]

I doubt that it would make a difference. If anything, it would decrease the effectiveness of the machine gun. The MG is supposed to have more range and power or at least as much.

I agree with TimboKhan - Machine guns are capable of remarkable accuracy. I used to get in trouble at ranges for ignoring the close targets and not shooting at anything less than 400 yards or so.
Squad leader: "Hey Moron! Shoot the closer ones because they're the biggest threat !"
Me : "But Sergeant, they're too easy to hit !" As I squeezed off a single round from a 240B and popped yet another far off target.

If it were me there is no way I would give up the 7.62 in an MG. The power and range are just too useful.

 

[1911RjB]

hmmm... mispost

 

[Slugless]

the machine gun is the biggest killer on the battle field because of how much firepower

Ignoring indirect fire platforms, put it this way:

The tank was originally designed specifically to destroy machine gun emplacements. That is still a primary role.

Says something about machine guns, eh?

 

[outofbattery]

having said that, in a WWII style war where long range precision shooting was commonplace, i would feel better off w/ a .30 cal weapon.

It doesn't get more wide open than the Eastern Front and both sides decided to go with an intermediate power cartridge.

In Iraq and Afghanistan,IED's are far more of a concern than any caliber weapon the jihadis have.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The tank was originally designed specifically to destroy machine gun emplacements. That is still a primary role.

No. The idea that the proper role of the tank is to destroy machine gun nests was the reason that the Sherman tank was so under-armored and under-gunned compared to German tanks -- because it wasn't really designed to fight other tanks. That role was reserved for "tank destroyers" -- which really weren't up to the job, either.

Modern doctrine is that the tank is primarily designed to fight other tanks and armored vehicles -- that's why the primary ammunition is the hypervelocity long-rod penetrator, not HE.

 

[kBob]

out of battery,

You might note that the Germans were building their squads around the 7.92x57 caliber MGs, preferibly the MG-42, but also the MG-34 or ZB-26 or 30 when the -42 was not available. I recall once speaking to a former StG-44 armed trooper that commented to me that yes the StG-44 could indeed shoot out to 400 meters with the right sight setting.....but that was what the squads machine gun was for. He held that the StG did not change the squads primary job of hauling around the MG and supporting and protecting it.

As the Russians were starting to crank out the SKS and play with AK prototypes and early models their squads were built around the DPM 7.62x54 round. These would later be replaced by SAWs firing the same rounds as the squad rifles, but from a heavier and longer platform with a bipod, the RPD, RPK and RPK-74.

OP,

The biggest killer on the battle field is the lack of immediate medical care for otherwise survivable wounds, fortunately the US has gotten VERY good at providing immediate care as in First Responder (squad buddy) injury site commander (Platoon Medic) and transport with in minutes to the best field and theator hospitals in the world.

THe big casualty producer (wounds of all types) on the battle field since atleast 1914 has been the effects of explosions to include fragmentation and over pressure wounds to include the victim being slammed against a hard object.

DUring the VN war US casualties of all types were primarily fragmentation related.....but the leading cause of death was gunshot wound to the head. Whether that wound got there from an RP-46 or RPD Or AK or SKS or Mosin Nagant or a French MAS36 missing its floor plate mag spring and follower and so a single shot was not a factor. US medical response had gotten good enough that most wounds that did not destroy a major organ, especially the brain were survived. Yes a hit on the aorta or the Liver with a rifle would be a pretty sure thing, but head wounds from firearms really stood out.

A Squad must have flexability. Currently US planners seem to think that with most soldiers can only shoot and expect to hit even on a range to 300 meters and score just at 50 percent hits. That percentage goes down even further under combat conditions. Does it really make sense to saddle the 90 percent of troops that will not benifit from a heavier rifle and ammunition with such? Maybe that carrying that weight difference in extra ammo.....or water or whatever, might be of greater benifit than having one guy in the squad that can actually use the big and heavy.

I have long been a 7.62 NATO fan over the 5.56. As an individual that could use a "real rifle" out beyound Ft. Mudge I was dissapointed with the AR-15 in all its forms. As a former light weapons Infantryman that had experience with the M-14 and XM-16E1 and later I was conficent I was being short changed with a Poodle Shooter.

On the other hand only hits count, a miss with a 7.62 NATO is no more distructive than a Miss with a 5.56 NATO. Carrying the smaller ammo give the soldier a better chance to not meiis with his entire load AT RANGES LESS THAN DANGER CLOSE where he can not call down the Gohds of indirect fire and Gohds of the sky.

I also spent some time as a Grenadier, a -60 gunner, and a 90mm gunner. Weight is not your friend.....unless it is something you can realy use like extra ammo or water.

Having both the SAW and the rifle be of the same caliber has some advantages, especially if the SAW can sort of maybe use the riflemans magazine and if the rifleman can take ammo from a disfunctional SAW and us it in his rifle.

This arguement goes to the same place as the 5.56NATO will not stop vehicles reliably so a bigger SAW is needed. Well the squad also caries a couple of M203s and I'll wager that a round of 40mm Dual Purpose will stop an unarmerd vehicle pretty well and there are those in a squad as well.

Have fun with this and give yourself a point for sucking me in to waste time.

-Bob Hollingsworth

 

[Nolo]

7.62 NATO is too big. I'd go with a 6.5mm cartridge with a speed around the same as the 6.5 Swede.

 

[rero360]

heres an idea, the tool really doesn't matter, its the mentality, discipline, training and competence of the soldier using the weapon.

Our combat troops today are the best in the world, we could be using 1903s over in Iraq and Afghanistan and would still be taking care of business.

While I was in Iraq I used the MK19, M2, 240B, M249 SAW, M4 with 203, M9, M500 (mossburg 12guage) I never felt undergunner or stuck with substandard weapons.

 

[HorseSoldier]

7.62x51 is too over-powered for general service rifle kind of use. If a heavier round were to be fielded than 5.56mm, we'd be much better off with something in the 6.5 Grendel/6.8 Rem SPC realm than a return to full-power battle rifle rounds, for a variety of reasons.

 

[SilentArmy]

While the 6.5 mm projectile has a ballistic coefficient that trumps nearly everything for flat, long range shooting, I have spoken to several individuals who have discovered that it won't kill critters! Of course that is not thin skinned two legged types but it has a fair translation in my opinion.

 

[Timthinker]

Evil Monkey, what specific 7.62mm rifle do you have in mind? I am surprised no one has asked that question yet. Regarding your initial inquiry, a different rifle would not change the course of the current conflict. Although I am a fan of the 6.5 Grendel/6.8 Rem SPC instead of the current service round, the 5.56 NATO is adequate for the job. Yes, I favor a larger round for the military, but that is not going to occur for a variety of reasons that have been discussed in various threads on this topic.

For what it is worth, both the Russians and Chinese have adopted small caliber rifles to equip their militaries. Unless we believe this is a "Commie trick", and I love that expression, then it seems the world's major military powers have followed the caliber trend set by the U.S. four decades ago. Consider this food for thought.

I hope something I have written is of some use. Have a Merry Christmas.


Timthinker

 

[Evil Monkey]

Evil Monkey, what specific 7.62mm rifle do you have in mind?

Well I was thinking of a traditional "battle rifle", such as FAL, G3 M14.

I wasn't trying to make an argument for 7.62mm NATO to replace an intermediate cartridge like the 5.56mm. Instead, I was trying to figure out if the SAW/LMG was so effective because of its firepower, that the rifle doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if it's 5.56mm, 6.5mm, or 7.62mm, the infantry rifle will never achieve effectiveness like the SAW/LMG.

So this brings me to this question.....get ready for this as it is totally out of the box thinking.

Since the MG, for example the m249, is most responsible for casualties produced by direct fire from individual weapons, why don't armed forces get rid of the rifle and give everybody an M249? Maybe even the Mk46 SAW which is a 12.5lb version of the M249 Para?

Of course there will always be exceptions for a squad marksman, dedicated grenadier, etc.

 

[dispatch55126]

The Germans had that basic doctrine in WWII.

Our doctrine was that a light/medium automatic would support the basic rifleman.

German doctrine was for a rifleman to support the automatic weapon.

On an open plain in the trenches, more autos make sense.

In the case of close combat "happen upon" engagements, a smaller, lighter rifle is better as it can be brought to bear far quicker than a belt fed. The M249 can keep the enemy heads down long enough for the rifleman to advance and knock out the emplacement.

Also, the weight of the ammo to feed a whole squad of M249's would reduce the available combat load for everything else (radios, med kits, water, frags, ect.)

Finally to the ammo choice: If we would ever have another "european style" war, the 7.62x51 may be the way to go. Every war from Korea on has shown that smaller caliber is better.

In korea, it was found most soldiers held their fire until the enemy was within 100-200 yards. There is no need to have a 500 yard round when most modern engagements (1950-Present) have been within the 100-200 yards range except maybe some Afgan engagements.

 

[vmfrantz]

It dosent matter how much fire power goes down range if it dosent hit the enemy. I'd rather have a whole belt from a 60 go by me, than one round from a m-16 in me.