Section Infantry Weapons

[arfah]

Who me?

Yep.

Not you!

I lulz'd

[Tinman]

Who me?

Yep.

Not you!

I lulz'd

Yep that's the reaction I had when I read the ROE on my last tour.

[arfah]

Who me?

Yep.

Not you!

I lulz'd

Yep that's the reaction I had when I read the ROE on my last tour.

Thankfully, my last tour was on Op.Tosca.

Almost as arduous as decompression at tunnel beach.

[whitelancer]

While casualty statistics are very interesting and have their uses, most battles are not fought to cause casualties but to achieve a particular objective. What such stats don't tell you is which weapon system,(or combination of weapon systems) contributed most to achieving the objective.

[marktigger]

true, effective fire support pinning an enemy and denying him the freedom to properly react to what you are doing goes along way to achieving objectives and having the ability to do this from a distance where you have the advantage and you are restricting his ability to counter is always a bonus.

[Tony Williams]

Have you ever been in a contact?

No, I have never been in the services - but I listen to a lot of people who have. I recall one quote given at a conference by a senior British officer from around the peak of the Afghan fighting:

"The Taliban ignore 5.56mm fire, respect 7.62mm and fear .50 cal."

The US Army was saying something similar at about the same time. This is a quote from their PM Soldier Weapons Assessment Team, reporting on the results of interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan:

'The need for additional range for their carbines was one of the key requests from troops (want >500m). The 7.62 M14EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle) DMR is proving so popular that the troops want it as an organic part of squad equipment (i.e. permanently allocated). And while the 7.62 MK48 LMG was originally allocated as a temporary replacement for the M240 until the lightweight M240L was ready, the troops have kept the M240: the MK48 is being carried instead of the 5.56 M249: "lethality trumps weight reduction when extended ranges are required".'

The fact that the dismounted infantry in both armies were willing to lug 7.62mm weapons and ammo around on top of their already massive burdens says a lot for their opinion of 5.56mm vs 7.62mm when combat ranges lengthen.

[jimthelad]

Here endeth the lesson.

[marktigger]

interesting how fast the GPMG & LMG reappeared in Bricks after the introduction of SA80/LSW in the early 90's. And in the Army training and doctrine journal articles arguing for introduction of the Minimi or reintroduction of GPMG at section level began.

[Tinman]

Have you ever been in a contact?

No, I have never been in the services - but I listen to a lot of people who have. I recall one quote given at a conference by a senior British officer from around the peak of the Afghan fighting:

"The Taliban ignore 5.56mm fire, respect 7.62mm and fear .50 cal."

The US Army was saying something similar at about the same time. This is a quote from their PM Soldier Weapons Assessment Team, reporting on the results of interviews with soldiers in Afghanistan:

'The need for additional range for their carbines was one of the key requests from troops (want >500m). The 7.62 M14EBR (Enhanced Battle Rifle) DMR is proving so popular that the troops want it as an organic part of squad equipment (i.e. permanently allocated). And while the 7.62 MK48 LMG was originally allocated as a temporary replacement for the M240 until the lightweight M240L was ready, the troops have kept the M240: the MK48 is being carried instead of the 5.56 M249: "lethality trumps weight reduction when extended ranges are required".'

The fact that the dismounted infantry in both armies were willing to lug 7.62mm weapons and ammo around on top of their already massive burdens says a lot for their opinion of 5.56mm vs 7.62mm when combat ranges lengthen.

Ok, comming under contact is a very emotive, being in a patrol base surrounded by unfriendlies and some way off from a CLP.

Then on top of that having ROE that restrict the use of area denial weapons. PID, courageous restraint etc.

Then witnessing the sheer ammount of rounds used to suppress the un seen enemy.

My normal load out was 330 plus change, of 5.56mm.

I've carried link for the 'General' on top of that and a side arm.

On top of thy I had body armour water, ECM, walkiI talkies and more water and a few haribos

So to exchange the 5.56 for 7.62 with what I'm loaded with I would have to reduce the rounds carried.

[marktigger]

http://punch.photoshelter.com/image/I0000NmSOyuUHwj4

somethings don't change

[jimthelad]

I think both sides here have a point. I never begrudged carrying extra mike though. Our standard load was 361 rds 5.56 in mags, 100 in the bandolier for LSW, 100 gmpg link, Browning 9mm and 65 rds, 4 HE frag grenades, 2 green smoke, 2 willie pete, radio and battery, satphone, minflare, nbc gear, 4 51 mm mortar rds and up to 2 Milan rds. That and personal gear made for a fun carry (and jump for that matter).

That said i would have ditched my scants and a good deal of scoff to make sure we have enough wizzbang when the time came

And before anyone asks, yes i have.

[marktigger]

its funny how all the scales of ammunition drawn up in peacetime by the school of infantry are one of the first things not to survive first contact with the enemy! but give it 10 years or so of not being on the ground anywhere and it'll go back to 120 rounds of what ever calibre is in vogue......not much more than a ww1 and ww2 infantry soldier carried (at the start).

[Tony Williams]

Ok, comming under contact is a very emotive, being in a patrol base surrounded by unfriendlies and some way off from a CLP.

Then on top of that having ROE that restrict the use of area denial weapons. PID, courageous restraint etc.

Then witnessing the sheer ammount of rounds used to suppress the un seen enemy.

My normal load out was 330 plus change, of 5.56mm.

I've carried link for the 'General' on top of that and a side arm.

On top of thy I had body armour water, ECM, walkiI talkies and more water and a few haribos

So to exchange the 5.56 for 7.62 with what I'm loaded with I would have to reduce the rounds carried.

It seems to me that range is the issue here. At ranges of up to 200m the 5.56mm seems fine, at 300m it is OK, much beyond that and the troops start calling for 7.62mm.

Also, I suspect that at short ranges volume of fire is important to suppression, but as the range lengthens accuracy of fire becomes more important.

[arfah]

.............

[mr.fred]

It seems to me that range is the issue here. At ranges of up to 200m the 5.56mm seems fine, at 300m it is OK, much beyond that and the troops start calling for 7.62mm.

It would be interesting to determine why that is the case, although aiming errors, suppressive effect and susceptibility to atmospheric conditions might all have a part to play.

Also, I suspect that at short ranges volume of fire is important to suppression, but as the range lengthens accuracy of fire becomes more important.

I would look at that the other way around. Accuracy is always important but at short ranges volume of fire means that you still get shots close to the target despite aiming errors. As range increases, the shots disperse more (it's an angular error) so the volume of fire method does not hold up its effectiveness.
It is complicated by the fact that at close range it's easier to spot and target the opposition, so the exposure times for a given risk of being shot will go down, so the ability to take careful aim also drops.
Another effect that might be considered is that at shorter range the muzzle blast becomes more prominent and may affect the suppression effect.
Is part of the preference for shorter barrels because they are noisier?

[marktigger]

what is the difference in performance at the receiving end of projectiles? IE the terminal ballistics. which carries more energy? which dumps that energy more efficiently on impact to achieve the aim? What is the aim to kill or maim? is the acoustic signature important as part of the psychology of supression? Are you looking at engaging individual targets at longer ranges or creating a "Beaten zone"?

Back when i was trained on SA80 the argument was put forward by instructors (from a variety of units and cap badges) that the 5.56 rounds intention was to wound and create a logistics problem for an enemy to manage casualties. and the SS109 round the NATO standard round was designed to be stable on impact. But then the original American 5.56 lost is ability to tumble after the USAF cold weather trials changed the rifling in the barrels.

[Little J]

Back when i was trained on SA80 the argument was put forward by instructors (from a variety of units and cap badges) that the 5.56 rounds intention was to wound and create a logistics problem for an enemy to manage casualties. and the SS109 round the NATO standard round was designed to be stable on impact. But then the original American 5.56 lost is ability to tumble after the USAF cold weather trials changed the rifling in the barrels.

So with the recent fighting as a guide, does a future round carry on that tactic? As far as I have heard IS/Taliban doesn't tend to give a farthing about casualties.

[marktigger]

So with the recent fighting as a guide, does a future round carry on that tactic? As far as I have heard IS/Taliban doesn't tend to give a farthing about casualties.

Yeap and a wounded one by the sounds of it was bad news. I also suspect the warsaw pact would have had a similar outlook. I would suggest that very "western" outlook was very short sighted.

[mr.fred]

I think the "wounding intent" is post-event rationalising rather than anything to do with the original choice.

[Caribbean]

Back when i was trained on SA80 the argument was put forward by instructors (from a variety of units and cap badges) that the 5.56 rounds intention was to wound and create a logistics problem for an enemy to manage casualties.

Not my area of knowledge at all, but I do remember the point about wounded men causing a larger logistics issue being made in training films when I was a cadet back in the late 60's, which would pre-date the introduction of 5.56, IIRC

[arfah]

......,.,.,..,,

[whitelancer]

In theory it may be better to wound (assuming your enemy gives a damn about their wounded), but on the front line what soldiers want is to ensure the enemy cannot shoot back, if that can be done by hitting them once good, otherwise they will continue to hit them until they are sure they can't shoot back.

[marktigger]

am in agreement with that white lancer. which is why you need rounds with good terminal ballistics but that comply with international law.

[Tony Williams]

I think the "wounding intent" is post-event rationalising rather than anything to do with the original choice.

That is my feeling also.

As I understand it, British infantry are trained to keep pressing an attack, leaving the wounded to be dealt with by medics. Otherwise the attack will grind to a halt if every soldier hit means that two others drop out to look after him.

[GastonGlocker]

From a US perspective:
GWOT has benefitted 5.56 x 45. Despite it being what it is, it needed terminal improvement. We saw the MK 262 77 grain load used to good affect by SOCOM and the MK 318 adopted by the USMC.
It starts with the platform. As the US moved away from 20 inch M16A2 to the M4 and M4A1, the subsequent velocity drop from the 14.5inch M4 carbine barrel took away the advantage of the 62 grain NATO green tip load. The 62 grain is better for punching body armor but when velocity drops, so does the terminal effect.
The MK 262 was/is favored by our SOCOM and those who can get it for the SDM role. Naturally a good zero with load and proper twist rate is needed for the heavier 77 grain load but it does perform well.
Here’s some good backstory:
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2016 ... ts-headed/

If we could all “start over” and run a 6.5 mm 129 grain projectile in a somewhat tapered case (for easier extraction and better feeding for LMG’s) in length between the 7.62x51 and 5.56x45, then we may have the best of the system. As such, it would be a logistical mountain to hurdle to inject a new caliber into the supply lines of NATO. I believe that we will never see the “perfect” assault rifle caliber introduced for this fact. There simply isn’t the ROI. So, incremental improvements in platform and projectiles within the confines of the M16 magazine length will happen. I suppose it is much cheaper to add specialized roles for SDM and outfit them with the 7.62x51 using 168 or 175 grain bullets. Or, go to the fine .338 Lapua for the long range work.
I think that if GWOT wasn’t able to introduce a new caliber like Vietnam did in the form of the 5.56x45, then we really won’t see something better as a start point. Though we did see the 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC make some inroads due to GWOT.