Improved Infantry Squad Capabilities Article

[stanc]

As far as riflemen go, many will be awe-stricken at the thought of something new or cool, until they have to carry it. (Surveying 1st-term riflemen is not a good way to determine caliber appropriateness, as they have a very limited understanding of their role in the big picture.)

Simple solution: omit 1st-termers from the survey.

Then anything heavier than 5.56 will become an albatross real quick, and buyer's remorse will occur within the 1st few minutes of a field exercise with it if it is adopted for all riflemen.

That depends on how much heavier. You have 5.56 and 6.5 carbines -- do you consider the Grendel carbine to be so much heavier (if it is heavier) as to be an albatross?

The bean-counters will see quickly how dismounted and even mounted units are requiring re-supplies more often, and have significantly reduced combat endurance compared to what we have now with 5.56...

That assumes intermediate-caliber ammo would be expended at the same rate, which may not hold true.

The 5.56 is not just superior at CQB distances, but out to 150m, where most riflemen engagements will occur. For the 300m-800m distances, it would be an advantage to have DMR's and LMG's with something roughly equating 7.62 NATO capabilities, with less weight and recoil, from lighter platforms than the SAW and M14EBR or M110 SASS.

So the choice is:

a. Have the rifle cartridge optimized for the close fight, which makes only the two SAW gunners (and the DM, if there is one) adequately armed for long range engagements.

b. Have a rifle/SAW cartridge that makes all squad members adequately armed for both the close fight and long range engagements.

Either way, the new LMG needs to be the primary focus, as that is the weak point right now.

I agree. The question is, what's the best option?