New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[Tony Williams]

That, as well as other missions where an MMG is typically attached. In which case we're back to having two different calibers, and two different machine guns, which negates one of the fundamental premises of the GPC concept.

A GPC must be able to match the hit probability of 7.62mm at 1000m, which would be enough for the great majority of missions, even in Afghanistan. I've not heard of any small-arms attacks being launched against ISAF forces from longer ranges than that.

If a .338 MMG does make it into service, I would expect it to be commonly mounted on vehicles or sited in fixed locations for base defence (where the ammo weight doesn't matter). The reduced weight over the .50 cal would probably be of most value in carrying it to forward outposts and other positions, rather than on mobile patrols.

[cory]

That, as well as other missions where an MMG is typically attached. In which case we're back to having two different calibers, and two different machine guns, which negates one of the fundamental premises of the GPC concept.

Stan by this ridiculous argument the 60mm Mortar negates the premises of the GPC concept. The MMG and mortars are Crew Served Weapons and should be treated differently than the ARs and LMGs.

[stanc]

A GPC must be able to match the hit probability of 7.62mm at 1000m...

If 5.56 and 7.62 NATO were to be replaced by a single caliber, as originally envisioned for a GPC, I would agree.

However, if 5.56 will be replaced by one cartridge, and 7.62 by another (as per CLAWS and LDAM), then there is no obvious need for a Squad Common Cartridge to have the same long range capability as would be necessary with a GPC.

...which would be enough for the great majority of missions, even in Afghanistan. I've not heard of any small-arms attacks being launched against ISAF forces from longer ranges than that.

1. I think that's called "planning for the last war."
2. Does the US Army want to match 7.62x54R range, or does it want overmatch?

If a .338 MMG does make it into service, I would expect it to be commonly mounted on vehicles or sited in fixed locations for base defence...

If a .338 MMG weighs no more than a 7.62 MMG, I would expect it to be carried on foot-mobile operations just as the 7.62 MMG currently is. (Although that could change, depending on performance of the squad cartridge.)

[stanc]

Stan by this ridiculous argument the 60mm Mortar negates the premises of the GPC concept.

The 60mm mortar round is a rifle/machine gun cartridge? :confused:

[Michael]

If a .338 MMG weighs no more than a 7.62 MMG, I would expect it to be carried on foot-mobile operations just as the 7.62 MMG currently is. (Although that could change, depending on performance of the squad cartridge.)

Stan - I think this is a poor assumption as the ammo will weigh twice as much as the 7.62 ammo.

[stanc]

Stan - I think this is a poor assumption as the ammo will weigh twice as much as the 7.62 ammo.

Certainly it would. The obvious answer is to carry half as much ammo.

[cory]

Certainly it would. The obvious answer is to carry half as much ammo.

???? You're just trying to screw with us here, correct?

The ammo could be spread out among more Grunts, but the intent here is to see the Grunts get a LMG that'll match the range of the PKM. Therefore, eliminating the requirement for a MMG on patrol.

Then you have a MMG that'll only be deployed to specialized missions, that require the additional range and firepower.

[JASmith]

...
1. I think that's called "planning for the last war." ...

This is not the first time you've thrown this phrase into the discussion with the apparent intent of discrediting a posters' comment.

What do you suggest as an alternative for the needed hit probability at range?

Be sure to document your answer so the rest of us will know whether you are simply playing games or you are seriously trying to help with understanding.

[stanc]

???? You're just trying to screw with us here, correct?

Not at all. Doesn't the M240 gunner carry about half as much 7.62 ammo as the M249 gunner does 5.56 ammo?

...the intent here is to see the Grunts get a LMG that'll match the range of the PKM. Therefore, eliminating the requirement for a MMG on patrol.

That certainly seems to be Tony's intent with the GPC concept. But, it is not clear if that is the intent of the US Army's CLAWS and LDAM programs.

Then you have a MMG that'll only be deployed to specialized missions, that require the additional range and firepower.

Trouble is, the info (in post #2) we have on LDAM says only that it's to replace the 7.62 MMG. It does not say that it would be used just for specialized missions.

[Michael]

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ndu/sf214.pdf

I submit the above in response to the comments concerning fighting the last war. Also, if so motivated, pick up 'War Made New' by Max Boot.

[LRRPF52]

Europe is going to be a big focal point for the next few decades, but Russia will play the chessboard very methodically, with patience.

We're basically at a stage where you go to war with the Army you have, not the one you want, although direct US involvement may be dubious at this point, especially considering the role of Germany becoming more friendly with Russia in a chaotic Europe.

[stanc]

This is not the first time you've thrown this phrase into the discussion with the apparent intent of discrediting a posters' comment.

You're mistaken, as usual. I was noting what should be apparent to anybody: Tony is addressing events in Afghanistan, but the needs of the next war may not be the same.

What do you suggest as an alternative for the needed hit probability at range?

It's impossible to answer that without knowing what hit probability (pH) is actually required of a cartridge for CLAWS. If we go with Tony's idea that 7.62mm pH @ 1000 meters needs to be matched, that's fairly easy to achieve, since 7.62 Ball has close to 0.0 pH at 1000 meters.

Be sure to document your answer so the rest of us will know whether you are simply playing games or you are seriously trying to help with understanding.

IGNORED

[cory]

Trouble is, the info (in post #2) we have on LDAM says only that it's to replace the 7.62 MMG. It does not say that it would be used just for specialized missions.

Nor should it. It's not the the job of the developers to write battlefield tactics. That's the job of the commanders in the field.

[JASmith]

Michael,

Many thanks for the paper -- I have downloaded it and taken a quick glance. It looks to be a good read.

I have struggled with the 'last war' syndrome since 1975 when I first got seriously involved in weapons R&D.

There are several conflicting issues that need to be worked more or less simultaneously:

1. The last war is really the one we know, but not necessarily understand, the most about.
   
2. Regardless of potential future threats, those evident in the last few wars remain important.
   
3. Example for (2) above is the large world-wide stockpile of certain classes of weapons.
   
4. Another example is that there is only one nation capable of taking us into the stone age in under an hour, so we must continue to maintain that level of deterrence even though more friendly relations allow a reduction in scale.
   
5. The existing weapons will remain a threat for a long time, and until more serious threats emerge, will define minimum performance for new weapons to counter them.
   
6. Folks do indeed work diligently to project new and emerging threats, but tend to get little traction until our noses get rubbed in it.
   

The 7.62x54 is an excellent example. It has been around for longer than the 30-06 but still is used by a large number of our actual and potential adversaries.

While the 7.62x51 NATO has similar ballistics, it is our cartridge and weapon system, so we will not justify a new program to beat it. We are, however, likely to insist that a new item be no worse than it in any of several areas so long as the new concept effectively counters present and future adversarial threats.

I expect to see a few blanks in my personal knowledge base filled in as I read through the paper in detail.

Thanks again!

[JASmith]

...7.62 Ball has close to 0.0 pH at 1000 meters...

That's an interesting assertion.

Would you care to illuminate us on what close to 0.0 means? Single shot, burst, etc.

I ask because the weapon would have been long since replaced if it had zero effectiveness at that range.

[JASmith]

Nor should it. It's not the the job of the developers to write battlefield tactics. That's the job of the commanders in the field.

Agreed that developers do not have the job of writing battlefield tactics.

The development community, particularly analysts and lead designers, need to understand them and potential impacts the new system might have on the battlefield.

That expertise is needed both to be sure the design meets the stated and the implicit goals of the effort as well as in marketing the product.

[stanc]

Would you care to illuminate us on what close to 0.0 means? Single shot, burst, etc.

Per round. I haven't seen any info on hit probability per burst @ 1000 meters.

[cory]

Agreed that developers do not have the job of writing battlefield tactics.

The development community, particularly analysts and lead designers, need to understand them and potential impacts the new system might have on the battlefield.

That expertise is needed both to be sure the design meets the stated and the implicit goals of the effort as well as in marketing the product.

Agreed!

[stanc]

Nor should it. It's not the the job of the developers to write battlefield tactics. That's the job of the commanders in the field.

Okay. Do we know now if commanders in a future conflict would restrict a .338 MMG to specialized missions?

[cory]

Okay. Do we know now if commanders in a future conflict would restrict a .338 MMG to specialized missions?

LRRPF52 has explained this several pages ago. I won't touch on the Army SOPs as LRRPF52 explains it better than I can, as I have no experience there.

The Marine Corps SOPs I can explain. Each USMC Infantry Battalion has 3 Rifle companies, a Weapons Company, and H&S Company. For this sub-discussion only the Rifle companies are directly relevant.

Each Line Company has 4 Platoons - 3 Rifle Platoons and 1 Weapons Platoon.

The Weapons Platoon is made up of a MMG Section (currently M240s), a 60mm Mortars Section, and a Assault Section (SMAWS). Each of these sections are made up of Squads that implement their crew served weapons. These squads are attached to the Rifle Platoon/Squad/Team, normally on a per Mission Basis. They may on occasion be tasked out with a mission in support of the Rifle Platoon/Squad/Team.

It's not commanders of the future, this has been SOP for sometime.
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Public...Forces.pdf

We've seen the M240 issued at the Rifle Squad level in Afghanistan out of necessity, not as a Marine Corps SOP.