+- 6.5 Grendel Forum (https://65grendel.com)
+-- Forum: 6.5 GRENDEL DISCUSSION FORUMS (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: 6.5 Grendel Military & Law Enforcement (https://65grendel.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. (/showthread.php?tid=12665)
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - n9nwo - 02-05-2017
Ever since 2000 warfare has been evolving. What has happened is that the threat is no longer big armies as we prepared for during the Cold War (WWIII). Rather it is urban warfare with insurgencies.
The Israelis realized this thus moving from the M16/M4 to the Tavor bullpup. The Russians dealt with it during the Chechnya conflict where they found that the 5.45x39 was not effective in urban environments. For one thing the Muslim insurgents hid inside of walls (stone) and the small arms were not able to penetrate.
The nature of this new type of warfare is urban centers with the civilian populations providing cover. The use of IEDs (which the IRA sort of invented) has become a major weapon. The insurgents also want hostages thus close quarters combat (CQC) is used to overwhelm combat teams (or squads) so that one troop can be taken. Thus the Marines and Army are training in hand to hand combat, especially grappling if taken to the ground. Also training in use of knives under such conditions.
Another weapon is concrete barriers. Since 2008 every commander has had to become an expert in concrete. Thus more engineering even in Infantry. Here is an article on this. It may be our most effective weapon.
http://mwi.usma.edu/effective-weapon-modern-battlefield-concrete/
http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/winning-wars-with-concrete-weapons
In many ways we are relearning what we did during the Indian wars in the American west. Defending against ambush attacks. CQC. But in another way were are becoming the Romans. We now wear 40 lbs of body armor, starting in Basic. We are integrating combat engineering into every unit.
We need to go to a bullpup like the Tavor X95. Carbine in a PWD size. Have a new caliber of ammunition, preferable in 6.5mm. We need few weapons systems so that we can carry more ammunition for one or two weapons. We need lighter weapons with less recoil.
I see the Tavor as the future. And either the 6.5 Grendel or something similar. Move to the .338 NM (8.59x63) as the caliber for the M240 MG and phase out the M2 and .50 caliber. Have the 25mm as our cannon round.
We have also found that when the insurgents use long range it is often the RPG-7 which as a 900m range. Thus our AT-4s are not effective as they are not designed for that mission. There is a new Carl Gustof 84mm recoilless rifle that is lighter and has a range of 1200m. More units are using it.
Also we are going away from heavy Armor. Smaller is better. Thus the new tactical vehicle by Oshkosh JLTV is armored. It replaces the Hummer.
One last thing. There is little difference between infantry and support troops. There is no rear area. Thus a need for weapons that can meet all situations.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - Klem - 02-05-2017
So, if I wear concrete body armour while sniping 900M with an RPG on a windy day, will that protect me against tomahawks?
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LR1955 - 02-05-2017
Klem Wrote:So, if I wear concrete body armour while sniping 900M with an RPG on a windy day, will that protect me against tomahawks?
Klem:
Not the tomahawk I was issued as part of a specialty team. Can't talk about it because the whole thing is still classified. Needless to say, that concrete body armor of yours wouldn't stand a chance against a DU tomahawk. Effective range against a point target is 900 meters so I could chuck it towards you and it would do the rest. Then I could finish you off with my Tavor Bullpup in 6.5 something. Could toss a RPG at you too, just to make sure. Have to save my knife for close combat because I don't want to accidentally shoot a friendly.
LR55
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - n9nwo - 02-05-2017
Guys, cut the snarkiness. Much of the discussion here is about outdated tactics. We need to evolve our weapons and tactics. the 5.56x45 needs to be replaced. Preferably with the 6.5 Grendel.
We are doing hand to hand training due to the insurgents attempts at taking hostages of our soldiers. We are using concrete barriers. We do wear 40 lbs of body armor. And we do use the Carl Gustof 84mm Recoilless Rifle.
https://www.army.mil/article/72402/
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/05/20/us-army-adds-84mm-recoilless-rifle-to-platoon-arsenal.html
https://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/20/army-evaluates-new-recoilless-rifle/
there are more articles like these and the ones one the use of concrete.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - n9nwo - 02-05-2017
Just because you have been so dismissive on the use of edged weapons in current combat operations
https://www.thebalance.com/tomahawk-ancient-weapon-used-in-modern-combat-3357263
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90038&page=1
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LR1955 - 02-05-2017
n9nwo Wrote:Guys, cut the snarkiness. Much of the discussion here is about outdated tactics. We need to evolve our weapons and tactics. the 5.56x45 needs to be replaced. Preferably with the 6.5 Grendel.
We are doing hand to hand training due to the insurgents attempts at taking hostages of our soldiers. We are using concrete barriers. We do wear 40 lbs of body armor. And we do use the Carl Gustof 84mm Recoilless Rifle.
https://www.army.mil/article/72402/
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/05/20/us-army-adds-84mm-recoilless-rifle-to-platoon-arsenal.html
https://www.defensetech.org/2016/10/20/army-evaluates-new-recoilless-rifle/
there are more articles like these and the ones one the use of concrete.
n9:
Let me quote your statement from the previous Military thread.
"One of the things I noticed was that while I was issued an M9 in Afghanistan, generally outside the wire we carried rifles. The M9 was for having a weapon on base (FOP). We also had a unit policy of dropping our weapons to slings then going to steel (knives for the most part) if we were over ran. Under 10 ft we risked shooting each other. So knives were better. One of our guys carried a Tomahawk and used it against the Tabliban. Sliced one insurgent from chest to stomach. Scared the crap out of the rest of them. Outside the wire you want a rifle and knives."
You aren't discussing anything with us. You are uttering wannabee statements and expecting us to respect you.
Sorry but we won't bite. Go impress some ten year old who spends his days playing video games.
LR55
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LRRPF52 - 02-05-2017
Carl Gustav has been used by other units for a long time.
Tomahawks are gifts in one of the NSW JSOC Squadrons that were used in scalping incidents, not something you would ever issue to infantry.
Hooligan tools have their place, but I'm just not seeing this idea of CQC with insurgents and tomahawks.
Something is wrong with the picture here.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - n9nwo - 02-05-2017
BTW guys I have thirty years of service. Did my last combat tour in 2006-2007 in Afghanistan. My guess is that most of you have done some time in country as well.
That said, one of the tactical changes is the use of ambush attacks. Often the infantry is not the target. Rather it is logistical convoys, HUMINT teams, PSYOPS and others.
We had one HUMINT team out that was hit by an IED. We had a mechanic who always went out as a machine gunner to protect the team. Once they were stopped, the insurgents hit them with RPG fire. One 35F was able to get out of the vehicle as the rockets hit (his face was pockmarked with glass when I saw him at the hospital in Bagram). The gunner was cooked. It took four hours for the vehicle to cool enough to recover his body. I went with the chaplains to give last blessings at the mortuary affairs unit. Body was so burnt that we could not open the bag. If you want to verify this, contact Rabbi (LTC) Felzenberg who is now stationed at the Pentagon in the Chief of Chaplains office.
Infantry is not patrolling, they are used to assault and attack. It is the rest of us who get hit with ambush attacks.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LRRPF52 - 02-05-2017
What career management field for 30 years?
Was this all active, or a combo of Guard and Active?
Ambush tactics are as old as the hills for any dissimilar unit strength faced with occupying armies.
Focusing on logistics is time-honored as well. Do you hit the pipe-hitters who look like they're ready to face-shoot anyone who makes a sudden move, or the support troops who ferry their beans, bullets, and band-aids?
I don't know of any military today who has even an inkling of wanting to go toe-to-toe with the US, since we have numerical superiority, logistics trains that are unprecedented in human history, with the ability to run bombing sorties that never end if we don't want them to.
After the First Gulf War, not many Generals and Admirals around the world were feeling confident in their armies, since we decimated Saddam's in a matter of 100 hours, and he had one of the largest, with more fresh wartime experience than the US in conventional warfare with Iran, another of the largest armies in the world who were equipped with cutting-edge US technology even.
In Vietnam, irregular warfare was the name of the game, making us think that massive human wave assaults were the main effort, when it was really a slimy little sapper team with satchel charges that took out C2 bunker, ASP, crew-served weapons, mortars, then slipped out if possible under the melee of the assault.
Any time a smaller force has been faced with a larger, more capable one, they have had to be very inventive with how they avoid their enemy's strengths, while exploiting his weaknesses. A treatise on this dates back to antiquity.
We just throw smaller, faster stones nowadays, with better ways of distributing flammable materials for mass effects.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - n9nwo - 02-05-2017
LRRPF52 Wrote:What career management field for 30 years?
Was this all active, or a combo of Guard and Active?
Ambush tactics are as old as the hills for any dissimilar unit strength faced with occupying armies.
Focusing on logistics is time-honored as well. Do you hit the pipe-hitters who look like they're ready to face-shoot anyone who makes a sudden move, or the support troops who ferry their beans, bullets, and band-aids?
I don't know of any military today who has even an inkling of wanting to go toe-to-toe with the US, since we have numerical superiority, logistics trains that are unprecedented in human history, with the ability to run bombing sorties that never end if we don't want them to.
After the First Gulf War, not many Generals and Admirals around the world were feeling confident in their armies, since we decimated Saddam's in a matter of 100 hours, and he had one of the largest, with more fresh wartime experience than the US in conventional warfare with Iran, another of the largest armies in the world who were equipped with cutting-edge US technology even.
In Vietnam, irregular warfare was the name of the game, making us think that massive human wave assaults were the main effort, when it was really a slimy little sapper team with satchel charges that took out C2 bunker, ASP, crew-served weapons, mortars, then slipped out if possible under the melee of the assault.
Any time a smaller force has been faced with a larger, more capable one, they have had to be very inventive with how they avoid their enemy's strengths, while exploiting his weaknesses. A treatise on this dates back to antiquity.
We just throw smaller, faster stones nowadays, with better ways of distributing flammable materials for mass effects.
All true.
However we have too many, especially in the officer ranks, who like the big wars as the metrics are better for OERs. Real World as we have been doing over the last 20 years, and that we are up against insurgents rather than a massive military, has made it tough on the career officer career. It is much like the Army coming off of the Civil War with its big, glorious battles then having to go off to the west to fight Indians. Instead of "civilized" war, they faced ambush attacks, long patrols, and isolation from civilized society.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - stanc - 02-05-2017
n9nwo Wrote:We need to go to a bullpup like the Tavor X95. Carbine in a PWD size. Have a new caliber of ammunition, preferable in 6.5mm. We need few weapons systems so that we can carry more ammunition for one or two weapons. We need lighter weapons with less recoil.Your stated desires are contradictory.
I see the Tavor as the future. And either the 6.5 Grendel or something similar.
1. The basic X95 weighs more than the basic M4, so your proposed change would result in individual weapons that are heavier, not lighter.
2. 6.5 Grendel ammo weighs substantially more than 5.56 NATO, so your proposed change would result in either an increase in carry load, or a decrease in number of rounds carried.
3. 6.5 Grendel produces more recoil than 5.56 NATO, not less.
Also, a 6.5 Grendel magazine of the same size as a 30-round 5.56 magazine holds only 25 rounds, which means either a reduction in basic ammo load, or an increase in number of magazines carried.
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. You need to decide whether you want a bullpup, or a lighter weapon; a more powerful cartridge, or less recoil; a larger caliber, or lighter ammunition; etc, etc.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - Klem - 02-05-2017
OK, Thanks 55 for that. Guided Tomahawks eh? Like a cruise missile...
Now, getting back to the latest claims. It took '4 hours for the vehicle to cool'. Where did this exchange take place, Chernobyl?
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LR1955 - 02-05-2017
n9nwo Wrote:All true.
However we have too many, especially in the officer ranks, who like the big wars as the metrics are better for OERs. Real World as we have been doing over the last 20 years, and that we are up against insurgents rather than a massive military, has made it tough on the career officer career. It is much like the Army coming off of the Civil War with its big, glorious battles then having to go off to the west to fight Indians. Instead of "civilized" war, they faced ambush attacks, long patrols, and isolation from civilized society.
Lets ask this question once more.
What was your CMF?
Of your thirty years, how many were with the Regulars, Guard, and or Reserve?
Your rank on retirement -- just out of interest.
So you are saying that the Infantry doesn't get ambushed? I bet there are a bunch of Infantrymen who would debate that statement.
And lets get back to your wannabee statement about discarding your firearms and going to knifes if you are in a CQB situation in order to avoid fratricide. That is a change to tactics if I have ever heard of one.
You are following the typical pattern of a former military member who was CS or CSS and who has problems that are beyond the scope of this forum to assist.
First you utter a complete lie in order to try to impress people. When called out on it, you do not respond.
Then you go to the "I was in for thirty years". Maybe you were. However it doesn't mean that anything you say is correct or even the truth. Remember that you started this with a lie that you never responded to when called out.
Then you attempt to start a conversation about something you obviously know nothing about, either from a historical or a material perspective, hoping to get people into conversation. When your arguments on tactics and equipment are immediately shot down by people who DO know what they are talking about -- like Stan and LRRP52, you fall back on the tried and failed 'lets condemn the Officer Corps' tactic. That doesn't go over with us either because frankly, we don't care what our ranks were in the military. I will say right now -- after thirty years your view of the Officer Corps is that of an immature PV-2. Normally they grow out of it by the time they hit PFC.
I recall the era when the strategic thinkers thought that we would never fight another huge conventional ground war. That was about two years before we went into Desert Shield. And it seems that we may just be going against the Russians in Europe again.
LR55
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - stanc - 02-05-2017
LR1955 Wrote:I recall the era when the strategic thinkers thought that we would never fight another huge conventional ground war. That was about two years before we went into Desert Shield. And it seems that we may just be going against the Russians in Europe again.Gene, I'd be interested in learning what direction you think the development of military small arms and ammo should take to be best prepared for the future. Care to share your thoughts?
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LR1955 - 02-05-2017
stanc Wrote:Gene, I'd be interested in learning what direction you think the development of military small arms and ammo should take to be best prepared for the future. Care to share your thoughts?
Stan / Guys:
I have said this before on the forum. A couple of times too. The future will lie in some sort of directed energy. Unless someone can come up with a quantum leap in powder composition resulting in double the muzzle velocity with half the current pressure, in a container half the size and weight of our current cartridges, we have about hit the limits of powder technology and kinetic energy projectiles.
I think this is the direction we are already taking although it is just R&D.
LR55
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - Drift - 02-05-2017
LR55. Have you seen the breakthrough last week with the laboratory production of metallic hydrogen? Nano particles of the stuff embedded in smokeless powder should increase the velocity of a bullet by a factor of @ least 4, maybe as high as 16.
Yes I know there are a lot of down sides. Recoil. Barrel life.
Still..A rifle that could shoot some ammo that was antipersonnel and some with anti-armor potential would eliminate a number of heavy weapons from the battle field...Not that edged weapons will ever leave the battle field.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - LR1955 - 02-05-2017
Drift Wrote:LR55. Have you seen the breakthrough last week with the laboratory production of metallic hydrogen? Nano particles of the stuff embedded in smokeless powder should increase the velocity of a bullet by a factor of @ least 4, maybe as high as 16.
Yes I know there are a lot of down sides. Recoil. Barrel life.
Still..A rifle that could shoot some ammo that was antipersonnel and some with anti-armor potential would eliminate a number of heavy weapons from the battle field...Not that edged weapons will ever leave the battle field.
Drift:
No, didn't see it. Another problem you run into with velocity is in terms of the projectile. Speeds like that cause a bunch of air friction, and centrifugal (hope that is the right word) force that would disintegrate a conventional bullet.
Penetrating modern armor is no easy task, either.
I doubt anyone will eliminate heavy weapons for a long time to come.
Maybe they can put it into a knife so when you drop your rifle or pistol when being overrun to prevent fratricide, your knife has double its lethality. Put it into a tomahawk and you don't need a rifle or pistol. Such a weapon may be banned by international treaty, it would be so dangerous. Could even have a neutron tomahawk. Kills only people and doesn't damage material.
Keep an eye on the technology though. It is the type of leap ahead stuff that causes change.
LR55
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - Klem - 02-05-2017
I prefer a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
But, the idea of rail guns is exciting;
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ZqfEJTGzw[/video]
Now, shrink that down to the size of a rifle...and a tomahawk, unbeatable.
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - GSPHunter - 02-06-2017
Klem Wrote:I prefer a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
But, the idea of rail guns is exciting;
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4ZqfEJTGzw[/video]
Now, shrink that down to the size of a rifle...and a tomahawk, unbeatable.
+1 may have to be a guided munition though....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdZo_keUoEs
Evolution of weapons in modern warfare. - stanc - 02-06-2017
LR1955 Wrote:Stan / Guys: I have said this before on the forum. A couple of times too. The future will lie in some sort of directed energy.A couple of times, eh? Well, if I saw it before, it must've been erased from my memory... :o
I think this is the direction we are already taking although it is just R&D.