New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[Tony Williams]

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

Indeed. From my own amateur readings of military history up to recent times, I have come across far more criticism of militaries for failing to remember and apply the lessons of previous conflicts.

If we're not careful, we could see the same thing happening again: I have read that as the British and US armies are pulled out of more than a decade of irregular warfare (or whatever term is popular at the moment), they are rapidly switching the training emphasis back to the conventional warfare which was what they used to train for pre-Iraq/Afghanistan. How long will it take before the bitterly-won experience of recent conflicts begins to fade from the collective military memory? Sadly, there seems to be only one way of ensuring that such knowledge and skills remain polished....keep using them in action!

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.

Exactly, and the combination of this cartridge with the lightweight and widely used PKM LMG is a fact that is not going to go away. If our troops do not always carry weapons which can match its long-range performance, they will find themselves being outranged again whenever the opportunity presents itself to our enemies. So there is no choice at present but to keep the 7.62mm weapons in the squad. A GPC LMG would retain the ability to match the PKM and might (if we are lucky) not weigh any more...

While most people live in urban areas meaning that CQB will always have to be trained for, and in many places (especially Europe) the scope for long-range fire is limited by vegetation as well as buildings (not to mention weather conditions), there are still many parts of the world in which this is not the case, and where opportunities to engage at long range will occur.

These aren't just desert areas - the British found the same in the Falklands, where they learned a great deal of respect for the .50 BMG being used by the Argentinians. Fortunately they still had 7.62mm rifles and MGs at the time - if that conflict had occurred after the switch to 5.56mm, we might have heard a lot more about the limitations of that cartridge a lot sooner.

[Tony Williams]

Very cool discussion, am learning things, and I'm glad to see we've improved the tone a bit. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Seconded! It's great to have such input from professionals involved in this area.

[BjornF16]

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.

Interesting read...but IMHO they neglected to point out one of the most important mistakes of post "combat operations" in Iraq: the de-Baath'ification of the civilian infrastructure leadership. Same mistake we made in Germany...

While leaving former Baath Party members in place to run utilities, etc would not have stopped the insurgency, it likely would have decreased the support of the insurgency.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De-Baathification

I'm completely in favor of pulling troops and supplies out of Europe and letting Russia have at it.

After serving 3 years on NATO staff, I'm completely in favor of pulling US military out of Western Europe and stationing them in Eastern Europe...

[montana]

Indeed. From my own amateur readings of military history up to recent times, I have come across far more criticism of militaries for failing to remember and apply the lessons of previous conflicts.

If we're not careful, we could see the same thing happening again: I have read that as the British and US armies are pulled out of more than a decade of irregular warfare (or whatever term is popular at the moment), they are rapidly switching the training emphasis back to the conventional warfare which was what they used to train for pre-Iraq/Afghanistan. How long will it take before the bitterly-won experience of recent conflicts begins to fade from the collective military memory? Sadly, there seems to be only one way of ensuring that such knowledge and skills remain polished....keep using them in action!



Exactly, and the combination of this cartridge with the lightweight and widely used PKM LMG is a fact that is not going to go away. If our troops do not always carry weapons which can match its long-range performance, they will find themselves being outranged again whenever the opportunity presents itself to our enemies. So there is no choice at present but to keep the 7.62mm weapons in the squad. A GPC LMG would retain the ability to match the PKM and might (if we are lucky) not weigh any more...

While most people live in urban areas meaning that CQB will always have to be trained for, and in many places (especially Europe) the scope for long-range fire is limited by vegetation as well as buildings (not to mention weather conditions), there are still many parts of the world in which this is not the case, and where opportunities to engage at long range will occur.

These aren't just desert areas - the British found the same in the Falklands, where they learned a great deal of respect for the .50 BMG being used by the Argentinians. Fortunately they still had 7.62mm rifles and MGs at the time - if that conflict had occurred after the switch to 5.56mm, we might have heard a lot more about the limitations of that cartridge a lot sooner.

I thought you might be interested in this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Battle-Falklands...B00739VQHC

In the book "The Winter War The Falklands" by Patrick Bishop and John Witherow, I will quote from the book page 108 ; Unlike the rest of the Army the SAS was allowed to choose its own weapons and equipment. At the start of the war it carried, like the SBS, American Armalites which weigh considerably less than the ten pound standard self loading rifle, Later in the campaign some SAS men swopped back to the SLRs following an incident where an Argentine soldier was still firing back after being hit seven times by the round from the Armalite.

[stanc]

The only reason that 7.62mm weapons are carried by dismounted squads now is because of the inadequate range of 5.56mm. A GPC capable of matching the long-range ballistics of the 7.62mm would mean that 7.62mm weapons would no longer need to be carried - so why should .338 be, in normal circumstances?

In normal circumstances when the platoon goes out, would not the machine gunners of the weapons squad be carrying their .338 MMG's?

[cory]

In normal circumstances when the platoon goes out, would not the machine gunners of the weapons squad be carrying their .338 MMG's?

Only if attached to the rifle squad. Which would need to be justified by the commander requesting the extra firepower. This is not a normal situation.

[stanc]

A GPC LMG would retain the ability to match the PKM and might (if we are lucky) not weigh any more...

Perhaps that caveat should be, "if we are VERY lucky." Is there any reason to think that a new LMG would be developed, rather than just converting the Mk48?

[stanc]

Only if attached to the rifle squad. Which would need to be justified by the commander requesting the extra firepower. This is not a normal situation.

That makes no sense. When the platoon goes on a mission, the weapons squad is not ATTACHED to any of the rifle squads, it is part of the platoon.

[cory]

That makes no sense. When the platoon goes on a mission, the weapons squad is not ATTACHED to any of the rifle squads, it is part of the platoon.

No it's not part of the platoon. It's part of the same company. Completely different platoon.

[stanc]

No it's not part of the platoon. It's part of the same company. Completely different platoon.

Incorrect. The weapons squad is part of the platoon.

[stanc]

It wouldn't be different if the 5.56mm remains the standard infantry weapon calibre. It would be different if the 5.56mm were replaced by a GPC.

No argument there. The point is, the Squad Common Cartridge that comes out of the CLAWS program may not have 7.62mm ballistics.

[JASmith]

Stan,

Both might be right.

Do you see the Marine avatar used by Cory?

The cartoon you are using came from LRRPF52 -- an Army source.

We always knew the 'Gyrenes do things diffrn't -- this may be an example.

In any event, might we suggest using caution or at least more diplomatic language when suggesting that someone with long experience in the military and combat operations has the wrong picture of how things are done?

[Tony Williams]

In normal circumstances when the platoon goes out, would not the machine gunners of the weapons squad be carrying their .338 MMG's?

I am open to correction by anyone who knows differently, but AFAIK the British Army in Afghanistan did not normally send out patrols in platoon strength. The basic patrolling unit seems have been the standard section of eight men, sometimes supplemented by extras (snipers, or ATGW operators).

I've just looked through lots of photos on the web of the BA on patrol and the most I've seen in any pic is about a dozen, with the numbers visible generally being 6-8. Of course, every picture won't include everyone there, but you'd think that some of them would.

[stanc]

Stan,
Both might be right.
Do you see the Marine avatar used by Cory?
The cartoon you are using came from LRRPF52 -- an Army source.
We always knew the 'Gyrenes do things diffrn't -- this may be an example.

It may be. My training is US Army. I'm not familiar with the organization of foreign militaries.

In any event, might we suggest using caution or at least more diplomatic language when suggesting that someone with long experience in the military and combat operations has the wrong picture of how things are done?

a. My language was no less diplomatic than Cory's.

b. No, you may not suggest it. (And BTW, what's with the use of the royal "we"?)

[stanc]

I am open to correction by anyone who knows differently, but AFAIK the British Army in Afghanistan did not normally send out patrols in platoon strength. The basic patrolling unit seems have been the standard section of eight men, sometimes supplemented by extras...

I wouldn't know about that. But, I wasn't addressing the specific case of patrols. My question was, when the platoon does go out on a mission -- be it a patrol, or whatever -- would not the machine gunners of the weapons squad be carrying their .338 MMG's?

[cory]

I wouldn't know about that. But, I wasn't addressing the specific case of patrols. My question was, when the platoon does go out on a mission -- be it a patrol, or whatever -- would not the machine gunners of the weapons squad be carrying their .338 MMG's?

Not if there was no need for that much firepower. Stan you're assuming that a change to 6.5mm and .338 weapons over the current 5.56, 7.62, .50 weapons currently in service wouldn't result in a change in tactics. I don't see how doesn't result in a change in tactics.

[stanc]

I've just looked through lots of photos on the web of the BA on patrol and the most I've seen in any pic is about a dozen, with the numbers visible generally being 6-8. Of course, every picture won't include everyone there, but you'd think that some of them would.

Perhaps video would be better. Here's one where two platoons are on an operation:

[video=youtube;DYvHiDMMtOw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvHiDMMtOw[/video]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYvHiDMMtOw

[stanc]

Not if there was no need for that much firepower. Stan you're assuming that a change to 6.5mm and .338 weapons over the current 5.56, 7.62, .50 weapons currently in service wouldn't result in a change in tactics. I don't see how doesn't result in a change in tactics.

I don't see that whatever effect there might be on tactics is relevant to my question. When the platoon goes on an operation, won't the platoon's MMG teams be carrying their .338 machine guns?

[Michael]

I think, maybe, some of the confusion is the differences between USA TO/TE vs USMC TO/TE. LRRPF52 posted a great pic of USA Squads, normally 9 man. USMC squads are 13 man - add a Fire Team of 4. USA platoons have a weapons squad, while USMC keeps medium weapons in the Weapons Platoon. USMC units also fight as Marine Air Ground Task Forces (MAGTF). For complete explanation, check out
http://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Public...Forces.pdf

As to size of patrolling units, a commander will base min size unit on METT-TSL. In some situations, I would conduct patrols as small as a team, in other situations it would be a platoon.

[stanc]

I think, maybe, some of the confusion is the differences between USA TO/TE vs USMC TO/TE. USA platoons have a weapons squad, while USMC keeps medium weapons in the Weapons Platoon.

Yes, that would explain the disagreement. We both thought we were on the same page, but were actually in different books.