We have discussed small arms calibres, dismounted close combat and soldier burdens a couple of times and one of the issues that seems to be receiving a great deal of interest is, regardless of calibre, reducing the weight of ammunition. Everything from lightweight materials and modifying the design of the bullet have been tried but one that shows much promise is cased telescoping and plastic cased rounds.
Caseless ammunition has been subject to a lot of research but the fundamental role of the case in removing heat from the weapon never seems to have been properly resolved.
Will lightweight case designs and telescoped cases offer a meaningful weight reduction without impacting reliability and performance?
An interesting video update
Textron Systems’ Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun Performs Well During U.S. Army Military Utility Assessment.
Weapon System’s Weight, Ergonomics and Handling Advantages Showcased during Three-Week Evaluation at Fort Benning.
HUNT VALLEY, Md. – October 10, 2011 -Textron Systems Advanced Systems, an operating unit of Textron Systems, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, announced today that its U.S. Army Lightweight Small Arms Technologies (LSAT) program team has successfully completed a critical Military Utility Assessment (MUA) of its cased telescoped light machine gun (CT LMG).
The evaluation took place at the Maneuver Battle Lab at Fort Benning, Ga. during a three-week period in September. The MUA, employing soldiers from military police and infantry battalions and a Ranger regiment, fired 25,000 rounds using eight CT LMGs. Evaluators assessed the weapon’s performance in numerous categories-in a side by side comparison to the Army’s M249 Squad Automatic Weapon-to determine if the LSAT weapon system is suitable for the full spectrum of automatic rifleman tasks.
“Initial feedback from the MUA was extremely positive,” said Kori Phillips, the LSAT Project Officer from the U.S. Army Armament Research, Development and Engineering Center (ARDEC). “The cased telescoped ammunition and weapon together are 40 percent lighter than the M249 when carrying 1,000 linked rounds, which equates to more than 20 lbs. That makes a big difference to the warfighter-in terms of mobility, weapon ergonomics and logistics.”
LSAT is a technology based program managed through the Joint Service Small Arms Program Office (JSSAP), located at ARDEC at Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. Textron Systems’ AAI Corporation is the prime contractor and systems integrator for a team of six additional companies who contribute to the LSAT program.
The cased telescoped light machine gun is a gas-operated, air-cooled, belt feed selectable semi-automatic and fully automatic weapon that fires from the open-bolt position. Its rate of fire is approximately 650 rounds per minute.
Soldiers at Fort Benning tested the CT LMG’s performance across a variety of automatic rifleman tasks and operational scenarios to assess whether it affects their ability to effectively engage targets. The weapon also was evaluated on its suitability in other areas including portability, safety, compatibility with soldier equipment, durability in challenging operational environments, ease of use, and its impact on soldier mobility.
“Our Cased Telescoped Light Machine Gun really proved itself in the variety of environments and live-fire situations during the MUA,” said Textron Systems Program Manager Paul Shipley. “Soldiers experienced firsthand the benefits of this weapon and the significant advances our project team has made in weight reduction, handling, controllability and other factors during the past seven years.”
Additional CT LMG tests are in the planning stage with U.S. Army Special Operations Command while the Army determines a written requirement for lightweight weapons.
If you put enough rounds downrange often enough, then even an average shot(like me) can become profficient with a handgun. Not just easy stuff like 9mm, but loud, flashy rounds like .40 & even .44 Magnum.
Unlikely to master them overnight, as it takes years of practise for most people.
The Glock 17 is an easy gun to shoot with reasonable accuracy, even if you do not shoot much. Probably why the Met uses it. Not an insult as I like the Glock. I like the .40 Glock 22 better for obvious reasons.
“I was taught at JCTAT, it happens at a range of less than 3M lasts 3 seconds and average of 3 rounds are fired.”
And three turds unloaded into your trousers.
I remember thinking in Afghan looking at my SiG
“Christ if I ever need to use this thing I’m going to be in the deepest shit and I can’t shoot straight with it even when I’m calm!”.
@ Phil,
re SMG bayonet,
no, God bless Capt Keith Lucas, QM(T) of 16/5L at the time. I’d never seen one before we went sandy side, but Keith dug out a store of them from somewhere and we all had them. No training involved, but there’s not much to it. Keith was RSM was I arrived from Sandbags, used to throw up a tremendous salute and a bellow of “Good morning SIR!” as our paths crossed, but he always did the eyes left/right to the opposite side of where you were until you were a Major.
Pistol combat is generally governed by the rule of 3s. I was taught at JCTAT, it happens at a range of less than 3M lasts 3 seconds and average of 3 rounds are fired.
“You’re in luck then Phil. Approximately 90-95% of pistol fights occur at ranges of less than 12 feet. Of those, around half start at less than 5 feet.”
You’re all over this perhaps we have uncovered an interest?!
Watching video’s of gun fights with marginally or not trained people (cops vs robbers!), the thing I notice, and I did myself hence my terrible shooting, is drooping the wrist.
With a rifle you have a relatively stable firing position in any two handed scenario, but a pistol you can bend your wrist up down left or right, especially when flapping which results in awful accuracy.
It’s why I oppose Police Constables being routinely armed. They have enough to do as it is and having to train hard on a pistol will take up too much time so it won’t get done and you’ll have people who can’t shoot for shit – which frankly, happens a lot in the US. You need to put LOADS of rounds through a pistol to get consistently good at it in stressful situations. Most coppers, US and British, I don’t think have that sort of time and don’t have the budget.
@James
SMG bayonet?!!!
God Bless the British Army!
You’re in luck then Phil. Approximately 90-95% of pistol fights occur at ranges of less than 12 feet. Of those, around half start at less than 5 feet.
Based on collected video evidence of gunfights I’ve seen one recommendation that suggested almost exclusively training with the pistol one handed, because in the heat of combat most people are reacting and rarely bring the second hand up to the gun.
“US grunts moaning that multiple 5.56 hits are not stopping suicide bombers is the reason driving the whole 6.5/6.8/7.62/.338 development.”
So how does a bullet that is just over a millimetre bigger going to stop him? Perhaps they are skewed by Hollywood, people tend to instantly drop when shot because it is instinctive, not because their brain has been switched off like a TV. It takes a second or two for the blood pressure to drop and to go unconscious even with a good hit.
I think their expectation for instant effect on a determined suicide bomber are too simply too high and bigger rounds won’t alter anything.
Why SCAR? Well I guess because its useful. I never said bigger calibres were not useful, they are, just not for your average grunt whose job it is to suppress.
@ Phil,
Weaver grip for the pistol. Transformed me from equally as shocking as you to “mostly” on target. About as good as it gets.
Phil
Sorry, did not mean to be snippy, and you did not come across as patronising at all !!
@ Phil,
started off as an investigation into what we thought was an abandoned position during a short halt. Only took 3 with me. Turned out there were some Iraqis still hiding there. Took 6 prisoners after a bit of argy-bargy with the gunfire, one of whom I had to persuade to surrender by jabbing him him my SMG bayonet when he looked like changing his mind (I was closest – no personal bravery).
Phil
US grunts moaning that multiple 5.56 hits are not stopping suicide bombers is the reason driving the whole 6.5/6.8/7.62/.338 development.
If 5.56 was doing the job, why spend money on 7.62 SCAR?
“The recommended round for private pistol users appears to be the 9mm, because it has decent size, comes in high pressure loads, and the lower quality ammo for training can be purchased relatively cheaply.”
I don’t wish to blow my own trumpet, but with a long arm, I’m a very solid shot indeed. I am confident with the weapon, know how to fire accurately and am practised.
With a pistol, I am utterly bloody shocking. First time I fired one I could not understand how I missed the target entirely at 15 metres with EVERY round! Gobsmacked.
Difference was I had never learned a pistol, never had enough practise on it. So I would say that 9mm is definitely the best manstopper because it can mean you afford enough to practise plenty with and can place your shots very accurately into the chest.
A pistol is a brilliant area weapon in the hands of those that don’t train regularly with it!
“For that, I would take 30-06 over 5.56 anyday.”
Why? You will die for exactly the same reason.
“Erm, yes I get that, I have occasionally had a go with one ! (although more rounds through GPMG on buffered mounts when in RN).”
I didn’t mean to patronise I didn’t know you had had the pleasure.
I guess it does both really!
Phil
USAF wanted 5.56, US Army did not. In 1945 the US Army wanted a new Garand with 20 shot box mag but still chambered for 30-06. Atom bomb meant Japan invasion never happened so neither did that rifle.
Any round that whizzes through without hitting anything vital will just be a flesh wound, but a more sensible definition for stopping power, would be the effect of a single round to the chest. For that, I would take 30-06 over 5.56 anyday.
“I remember winning the firefight (a British Army mantra imparted at the earliest stages of training) once in an Iraqi brigade HQ trench complex to the east of the Wadi Al-Batin. We all ran out of ammo, and that was with SMG with magazines of about 30 rounds. Left with a Browning in my holster and a bayonet. We were possibly too enthusiastic.”
Hats off to you, must have been an experience!
“Riflemen to contribute, certainly, but more important is the combined situational awareness and shouted coordination you get from 6 riflemen looking lots not shooting lots.”
I’d say its both. I don’t mean to imply that the shooting should be wild, it should be a disciplined rapid or deliberate rate but you still need lots of ammo because the rifleman still needs to get rounds down.
Your experience attests to how fast the rounds get burned through in the heat of battle.
@ Phil
The recommended round for private pistol users appears to be the 9mm, because it has decent size, comes in high pressure loads, and the lower quality ammo for training can be purchased relatively cheaply.
Phil
Ref: “MG is not a good fleeting target weapon – it is heavy and takes a bit of heaving and then its a from the hip job which unless they are spitting distance accomplishes sod all. Getting a GPMG up into the shoulder is not a snap thing”
Erm, yes I get that, I have occasionally had a go with one ! (although more rounds through GPMG on buffered mounts when in RN).
What I meant was that if your GPMG (light role) or LMG is in a fire position, and your sending it down range in the general direction of bad guys; if bad guy(s) decide to break cover in a quick movement, your more likely to catch them with a burst – I did not mean “heaving” the weapon onto a new bearing :-)
@ Phil,
I remember winning the firefight (a British Army mantra imparted at the earliest stages of training) once in an Iraqi brigade HQ trench complex to the east of the Wadi Al-Batin. We all ran out of ammo, and that was with SMG with magazines of about 30 rounds. Left with a Browning in my holster and a bayonet. We were possibly too enthusiastic.
IMO, winning the firefight these days means having a couple of LMGs (probably 5.56, Minimi a good example) per section, probably also UGL, and mortars or arty on call. Not emptying a rifleman’s personal weapon. Riflemen to contribute, certainly, but more important is the combined situational awareness and shouted coordination you get from 6 riflemen looking lots not shooting lots.
“Rapid fire is one round every 2 seconds, that’s two magazine a minute: so that’s 3 minutes at rapid with six magazines”
Wow poor sums! 1 magazine every minute so six minutes! My point stands, six minutes isn’t long when you consider that in the Falklands a platoon attack was taking hours.
Chris B
Without having read any study I agree with you. You die because your brain and vital organs are no longer being perfused with oxygenated blood.
A .22 rim-fire is easily enough to disrupt that process and so it makes no material difference in my mind what long arm calibre you use until you start to get to very big ones. It all depends on where you cop it.
Yes I’ve treated a casualty with a GSW to his face, a through and through cheek to cheek, same guy that I mentioned who had been shot twice more. All 7.62, no hydrostatic shock or energy dumping, just a very fast bit of metal going in, hitting sod all, and coming out the other side. Very sore and very dramatic as he was spitting out shed loads of blood as the cheek is vascular, but no exploding body parts or shoulders being ripped apart.
“By the way, I was reading some stuff the other day, said the Taliban are not easily suppressed by even 7.62mm or 12.7mm if it is spanging noisily of boulders, then tend to ignore the near hits.”
They’re being brave, some blokes won’t get their heads down, which is why if your suppressing fire is accurate, it should eventually persuade them to get it down by blowing it off.
“So is the MG really for suppression, or more to gain hits on fleeting targets due to statistical probability of tagging something ?”
MG is not a good fleeting target weapon – it is heavy and takes a bit of heaving and then its a from the hip job which unless they are spitting distance accomplishes sod all. Getting a GPMG up into the shoulder is not a snap thing! An MG is an area suppression system or area effect system – in the SF role it’s there to create a beaten zone not directly fire into the enemy.
“5.56 has always been wrong since the day the USAF chose it for airbase security. It was never designed for battlefield warfighting.”
As opposed to battlefield…?
Anyway, why isn’t it? As I understand it was adopted because experience showed combat was usually at close range and required shed loads of ammunition and 5.56 fit the bill. No it’s not a HALO type round that reaches out and touches someone at great distances but it does its role very well. It’s a light bullet and it kills just as surely as a 7.62 if you do get to shoot someone with it rather than dirt and rocks and windows.
@ Phil
There was a very famous shootout in Miami between members of the FBI and a pair of bank robbers. At one point one of the robbers was shot in the face – a crossing shot, not head on – with a .45 calibre handgun. It was not fatal because it hit nothing of consequence (discounting the mans cheek bones).
The evidence tends to lean towards fatal shots resulting predominantly from loss of blood pressure and the associated problems that it causes. So major arterial strikes, hits to major organs etc. Severing of the blood vessels is critical.
Then there is the seperate subject of hits on, or close to, the spinal coloumn casuing varying degree of nervous dysfunction. Shots into the pelvic region also have a relatively high incidence of “mobility kills”.
Generally it would seem that energy dump and hydrostatic shock are not consistently supported by analysis, and that other explanations provide better and more reliable results.
The underlying message for hand gun users from many of the more credible experts is to use FMJ instead of hollow points, in a reasonably high velocity, with the ultimate key factor as to what round to use being price, because cheap training ammo which encourages plentiful practice is more valuable then any super round, with the choice of gun being best based around what is comfortable for the user along with reliability.
“thought that was the job of the LMG, but nevermind”
It’s the job of everyone. Winning the fire fight is every bugger firing for all their worth, not watching the LMG gunner giving it big licks whilst they take a hamlet moment. LMG obviously gives you more persistence because it can fire for longer without packing up on you and therefore drop more fire power overall.
I get what you are saying about there being probably a better calibre. And as you point out other weapons would have lighter ammo, it’s just at the moment, for better or for worse it’s not going to happen on a general scale.
By the way, I was reading some stuff the other day, said the Taliban are not easily suppressed by even 7.62mm or 12.7mm if it is spanging noisily of boulders, then tend to ignore the near hits.
They however do not like HE in any form, I guess it disturbs their equilibrium or something…….
So is the MG really for suppression, or more to gain hits on fleeting targets due to statistical probability of tagging something ? Is the 40mm UGL the weapon of suppression ?
If you want a manstopping rifle round, then look to civvy hunters & what they use on deer.
So .243 Winchester minimum, with not many feeling confident to reliably control more than .300 Win Mag. The balance between power & controlability is probably optimised at the .270 Win/7mm Rem Mag level. 7mm Rem Mag, repackaged without the belt, in a smaller case, would be my choice.
If you must have AR sized weapons then 6.8mm SPC is a good choice.
5.56 has always been wrong since the day the USAF chose it for airbase security. It was never designed for battlefield warfighting.
Related to that, will this gimmick for feeble PDWs never die? Would you really want to face a suicide bomber while armed with a squirrel shooting MP7 or P90?
Many in the US regret giving up the reliable 30-06 & even we had it in Browning tank guns to the mid 70s.
Dammit, 30mm barrel above should be 300mm ! DOH…..
Just to be contentious, based on my experience on the range and in the SAT, with SUSAT and iron sights, I subscribe to the theory that most infantrymen in combat won’t hit shit past 100m !
So, like I said, just to be contentious, after reading Tony Williams articles on “Personal Defence Weapons” (http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PDWs.htm ) I would give the average squaddie a weapon using the 6.5mm CBJ round:
http://www.cbjtech.com/sida.asp?sida=2_6.5×25%20CBJ
I might suggest a version of the HK UMP with a 30mm barrel for the average squaddie, and Tony’s suggestion of the B&T MP9 for those who currently get pistols or cut down carbines (vehicle crew, helo crew etc).
Two men could have UGL’s as per now, but the MetalStorm 3GL – with 3 rounds, rather than 1 at the ready, allowing a greater rate of fire. Add on the DMR and the light weight 7.62mm version of the Minimi and were sorted.
Reduced weight of HK UMP in 6.5 and the reduced weight of the rounds means they can hump more 40mm grenades for the grenadiers, and more 7.62 belt for the MG and DMR :-) Plus of course ASM-L (66mm rocket) and other stuff as required.
If the combat environment required it (urban?) stick the MetalStorm MAUL under the barrel, with 5 x FRAG-12 (18mm / 12 gauge) grenades, allegedly accurate out to 200m.
Want to win the “long range” ridge line battle in Afghanistan, up your number DMR’s and 60mm mortars.
“All taken together, it’s an inexact calculation, and one also dependent on how the victim reacts. It can go either way. All in all, I would rather carry the standard (in my day) SLR load of 4 mags of 20 x 7.62, than the current 120 rounds of 5.56. Pretty much the same weight.”
Having 120 rounds to suppress an enemy with is better than 80 rounds because at the other end, it doesn’t matter a damn if the bullet is slightly over a mm bigger.
And suppression is the primary purpose of the infantryman’s weapon – you win the fire fight, suppress the enemy and move in to get him with grenade and bayonet. British soldiers are not taught to fire at point targets in training scenario’s they are taught to win the fire fight. And that means bags and bags of ammo going crack over the enemies head while your muckers crawl forward to get him.
I’ve been shot at by 7.62 but only heard 5.56 in the butts and sorry, but I can’t agree, both make a very impressive crack and neither leaves you in any doubt as to something nasty coming very near you.
Fine agreed about the weights and the accuracy over range issue, that’s obvious but the infantryman is only expected to suppress out to around 400m, not drop an enemy. This is why we have the 7.62 DMR (optimal in the grand scheme of things or not).
I believe infantrymen are there to suppress the enemy. Even in COIN operations the aim is to win the fire-fight and give yourself more options. And this simply requires absolutely loads of ammunition.
Rapid fire is one round every 2 seconds, that’s two magazine a minute: so that’s 3 minutes at rapid with six magazines (if the rifle could do that without overheating and jamming), it can take that long just to work out what the hell is going on and start to issue QBOs. Ammo does not stretch very far at all and shooting fewer but bigger bullets into dirt isn’t going to make the infantryman anymore effective.
The benefit of an intermediate calibre, as conceptual as it might be, is that you can get a weapon that matches the range of the current 7.62mm in a package the size and only slightly more than the weight of a 5.56mm – the best of both worlds. It makes the standard IW ammunition a bit heavier, but the GPMG and DMR ammunition gets lighter.
The US attempts to go one further with new technologies, but such game changers have a poor track record for actually producing something worthwhile.
Now if we are going to say that all the riflemen do is provide suppression* then smaller, lighter cartridges are the way forward** and that we follow the Jim Storr route and all the idiots who can’t shoot straight just get given an FN P90 or a H&K MP7.
Although rumour has it that the heaviest weapon gets given to the least experienced in some units so that would knacker that one.
* thought that was the job of the LMG, but nevermind
** logical progression and all that
@ Phil,
there’s other factors going on as well, some of them scientific, others “in the mind” and possibly not backed up by logic, but still a reality.
1. 5.56 rifles tend to be automatic, 7.62 tend to be semi-auto. Drives different behaviours. What’s the difference in between firing one aimed shot with 7.62 and a short burst of 3 with 5.56, 2 of which are aimed off due to barrel climb? A couple of ounces saved in carried weight is one way of looking at it, alternatively an enemy keeping his head down for a bit longer is another.
2. Noise at target end. You know when you are being shot at with 7.62, because it sounds like bejesus as it bangs off a rock or wall next to you. 5.56 is much quieter. Again, that drives behaviours or reactions.
3. Wind drift etc (i.e. basic ballistics). There’s a reason most sniping is done with heavier calibre’s.
4. Kinetic energy imparted per square millimetre of the circular profile of each round. Something like double with 7.62 over 5.56 with NATO rounds at battle ranges of 300m. That – as you observe – does not necessarily imply double the destruction – sometimes 7.62 just goes straight through, and 5.56 starts tumbling due to tissue resistance. Other times 7.62 starts to tumble and then you see some really nasty “lots of flesh blown out” exit wounds.
5. Physical shock (related to point 4 above).
All taken together, it’s an inexact calculation, and one also dependent on how the victim reacts. It can go either way. All in all, I would rather carry the standard (in my day) SLR load of 4 mags of 20 x 7.62, than the current 120 rounds of 5.56. Pretty much the same weight.
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/terminal.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/1904trial.html
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/pigboard.html
“that essentially calibre size is meaningless to “stopping power” until you reach the large, very high power rounds, and that for the kind of weapons we’re talking about here (pistols to medium machine guns) shot placement and the number of hits are the most important factors.”
That’s very interesting as that has been the conclusion I have come to from my anecdotal evidence. Hit centre of mass and you are more likely to hit (a) the chest and (b) vascular organs like the spleen or liver that will see you bleed out.
If you shoot centre of mass and miss all these things then that person is probably going to be alright. And it doesn’t matter if it is a 5.56 size hole or a 7.26 that just cut through your aorta, nor smashed through your head. I am not convinced by these lack of stopping power arguments until, as you say, we get up to very big rounds that are simply going to physically impart enormous trauma to the soft tissues even if they do not hit anything, which is obviously far less likely with a bigger projectile.
A 7.62mm entry wound is about 20% of the size of your little finger nail. Tiny!
“Where a rifle has been produced in that calibre, the obstruction is usually related to institutional inertia.”
Which is why any discussion that does not involve 5.56 or 7.62 is, at this moment in time, very much conceptual.
Infantry need light rounds because their primary job with that weapon system is to suppress, which he can do out to 400m officially.
Any larger calibre must bring with it a weight penalty and thus make the infantryman less effective. Once bigger bullets can be made to weigh the same as a 5.56 then by all means.
Yes in Afghan there are longer engagement ranges but the thinking very much seems to be that it is better to adopt a small arm to cope with what is essentially an exception, than it is to adopt a cartridge that makes infantry less effective in one of their primary roles across most battlefield missions.
You need lots of bullets. You need to carry lots of bullets. You need a light bullet.
@ Phil
Regarding the the human reactions to being shot, there are as many studies as there are theories, and predictably everyone seems to have come to different conclusions.
There is a basic consensus though among the more pure scientific studies (usually conducted by doctors who are more interested in the result than what caused it) that essentially calibre size is meaningless to “stopping power” until you reach the large, very high power rounds, and that for the kind of weapons we’re talking about here (pistols to medium machine guns) shot placement and the number of hits are the most important factors.
One thing as well about Hollow point pistol rounds. There is a chap from Tennessee who does a lot testing using commercially available pistol ammunition, with a commercial Ballistic gel matched to professional specifications, which he then uploads to YouTube, including cutting open the block and showing people close ups of the path.
The one consistent thing I’ve noticed about his tests of Hollow point ammunition is that after the initial expansion of the petals which rip a hefty permanent hole within the first few inches, most of the rounds then leave pretty thin tracks through the remainder of the block. In pretty much every case he finds to the round lying on its side.
Looking at the close ups of the bullets when he pulls them out, it seems that most hollow points expanded in a non-uniform manner, or in other words some petals fold back more than others. It would then appear from this that the uneven drag on the bullet makes it twist sideways, at which point it then streamlines out and continues through the block flat, probably doing less damage (thinner track) than a FMJ.
Just some food for thought.
Along with one reported incident where a man from I believe Washington (the state, not the city) fired his pistol at a home intruder who then dropped down cold with one shot (not dead, but out of it). This was remarkable for the simple reason that the gun – much to the owners later embarassment and shock – was loaded with blanks.
Human psychology is funny old thing.
And as for Rommel and his jaunt through France in WW1, his experiences would suggest that all the research money spent on developing rifles and machine guns etc would be better spent on developing trenching tools, baring in mind that this was during the early, fluid stages of the war before the whole trench fetish kicked in.
When he and his men weren’t being shelled, then for the most part they were using firepower to suppress as opposed to actually killing, only having the opportunity to deliver particularly effective aimed fire in the rare cases that they were able to set up an ambush.
I would suggest that the very fact that we have both 5.56mm AND 7.62mm in an infantry section indicates a less than optimal solution.
Multiple independent studies into the optimum rifle calibre for the modern combination of metallurgy, chemistry and ballistics have been conducted since the early 20th Century and all but one that I know of recommend something in between the two calibres. Where a rifle has been produced in that calibre, the obstruction is usually related to institutional inertia.
What came first? Future Force warrior or Aliens?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Force_Warrior#Warfighter_Physiological_Status_Monitor_Subsystem
@ Phil – again I’m speaking as a complete civvy but I was thinking of stuff like the helmet mounted cameras, bio-signals, armour being transport by aircraft (ok, its a spaceship/dropship but you get the idea),caseless ammo, multi-shot grenade launcher, etc. And theres nothing wrong with the MG42 and Thompson… I think the Germans still use a modern version of the MG42 called the MG3 (could be wrong).
gareth
the bloke carrying it needed to be tied to trees to stop him falling over when fireing blanks.
From aliens, i think the dude with the camera feeds in the apc makes a lot of sense. especialy if he has a uav :)
“No one country wants to jump and adopt a new calibre in small arms* so inertia dictates that we keep 5.56 and 7.62, which is a damn fool way of doing things, IMHO.”
I doubt its just inertia, it is probably the fact that the 7.62 and 5.56 do a perfectly adequate job as battlefield ammunition and that inertia, combined with the cost of the switch over, just do not justify the cost of the de-contextualised gains. There must be good reasons why there is no appetite for the change. Ammunition commonality might be one but at 1,000,000 rounds a day we won’t be short for very long.
“In fact, some good ideas about future warfare in that film”
Really? Like what? An MG42 on a steadicam mount? Or the Barelli shotgun taped to a Thompson?!
@ DominicJ – of course! In fact, some good ideas about future warfare in that film; I heard somewhere that DARPA get a lot of requests for projects thanks to US top brass watching sci-fi films and going “I want one!”. Allegedly the SOF’s tried out the personal mini-gun from Predator; weight of the batteries and the huge amount of ammo made it impracticable unfortunately :(
gj
aliens?
“Explosive rounds for the infantry anyone?” Only if if they’re 10mm explosive-tipped caseless, standard light-armor piercing rounds…
Phil,
I would suggest that ammo stocks shouldn’t even be a consideration. You’ll burn it off before you get the new calibre out to everyone.
No one country wants to jump and adopt a new calibre in small arms* so inertia dictates that we keep 5.56 and 7.62, which is a damn fool way of doing things, IMHO.
Rationalising on one calibre, whether it is a new intermediate or a current heavy or light one, would allow rationalisation of weapons into a rifle base and an MG base. Since the current crop of weapons will wear out and need replacing it would make sense to replace them with a matched pair of systems.
This could even be a L129 and a L7, with versions to suit roles.
*odd, because there’s plenty of small arms calibres and production facilities out there, unlike larger calibre cannon where everyone is falling over themselves to use or produce as many different variants as possible.
Oh and Fatman – we’ll never be able to match the mobility of the insurgent – he knows where he can and cannot run. We don’t.
IEDs are as much of a mobility restriction tactic as an attempt to cause physical casualties. Unfortunately that is the way it is, which is why we have camera systems and ISTAR that can track individuals legging it.
“Mr Fred is making the same point as me: that with properly specified weapons and the right ammunition we only require two small arms types, an assault rifle and a belt fed machine gun.”
You’re probably right but as I have argued, there seems to be no official appetite to change from 5.56 or 7.62.
I also think I interpreted, possibly wrongly, that what was being proposed was one weapon system that could do everything from assault rifle to GPMG by changing some parts.
As for body armour.
It depends on the scenario. In a conventional conflict yes there is too much of it. A front plate would probably be fine on its own. But you NEED 2 plates in Afghanistan because it is the only defence you have – you MUST patrol out in the open, in plain line of sight, you must go certain places at a patrol pace and you must expose yourself. There is no choice. It therefore makes perfect sense to have plates front and back with the side plates being optional in most cases.
I saw no evidence of infantry gravitating to easy ground: everyone knows easy ground is dead man’s ground. You train properly on pre-deployment, you maintain that phys on tour and you just have to accept in Afghan that your joints will be in a very poor state on your return but you’ll be coming home and after some rest an rehabilitation you’ll be as alright as someone who completes a career in infantry can expect to be.
In any case, the body armour is not that much of an encumbrance, it is more the extra kit that is carried that adds real weight and problems.
Speaking from a complete civvy perspective but I see two different “ideals”: a GP machine gun and assault rifle firing intermediate round (TARDEN, EM2 and 7mm combo from late 50’s pretty good) or GP machine gun and DMR firing 7.62×52 providing the sections long range firepower, rest of section armed with weapon designed for close fighting (300m and under) – perhaps something like the Russian 9×39 micro-assaulr rifle?
Phil
Mr Fred is making the same point as me: that with properly specified weapons and the right ammunition we only require two small arms types, an assault rifle and a belt fed machine gun. The former would replace SA-80 and L129, the latter would be a replacement for Minimi and GPMG (the latter might still be needed in a SF role, but is a swine to carry in the light role).
As far as body armour is concerned I think we have gone in the wrong direction. We have now overloaded the infantry with so much protective kit that they resemble a mediaeval knight. The result is that they have lost mobility, cannot easily move across country, gravitate to ‘easy’ ground and then get killed by IEDs. We have lost sight of the real purpose of infantry and I would suggest that full armour should be relegated for use in static positions and vehicles. It has become a never ending quest to reduce casualties, in order to keep politicians happy, but has reached the point of diminishing returns. An alternative, of using a decent lightweight helmet and a chest piece only (as the Russians do) would go far to turn infantry from weightlifters into mobile forces. At the moment was have major problems with back and knee injuries, plus heat and physical exhaustion, without the commensurate benefits of being able to match the mobility of irregular opponents.
Ammunition. There are of course rounds that will literally knock people over, but unfortunately you are looking at projectiles like the .577″ Martini-Henry slug of soft lead, which is hardly practical. The US is quietly abandoning the Hague Convention stipulations on hollow point rounds, for example with the new range of 5.56 mm ammunition. In fact I have a feeling they never signed it, although they have abided by it for decades (I stand to be corrected). I would suggest part of the problem is that the UK is following an old legal agreement that was designed to apply only to conventional inter-state war (which is why the police have no compunction in using hollow so-called dum dum rounds). Given the changing nature of asymmetric war it is time that we abandoned adherence to these antiquated notions that are totally ignored by irregular forces and started designing rounds whose terminal effects go beyond simple penetration. It is ludicrous that the police can legally deploy more effective ammunition than the armed forces. Explosive rounds for the infantry anyone?