02-22-2013, 07:39 AM
The direction I see this conversation go a lot is based on geography of the Afghan AOR, which is somewhat unique in the world. When the 5.56 NATO was developed, it was done with Europe in mind, and is actually an excellent cartridge for the forests and urban areas on the European Steppe, for maneuverable and flexible units to sustain multiple contacts, engagements, and follow-on missions without constant re-supply of ammunition.
It also tends to go down the path of looking at dismounted infantry warfare in terms of the service rifle or carbine as being the dominant weapons in pursuing solutions to force-on-force engagements, where no enemy we have fought has chosen to meet us on our terms since the 1950's.
You also have to ask: "Does it make sense to adopt a universal caliber that is more ideal for Afghanistan, and make every RTO, Key Leader, Forward Observer, Assistant Gunner, Ammo Bearer, Anti-Armor Weapon Specialist, combat engineer, generator mechanic, driver, cook, supply sergeant, etc. carry that versus 5.56?"
It also tends to go down the path of looking at dismounted infantry warfare in terms of the service rifle or carbine as being the dominant weapons in pursuing solutions to force-on-force engagements, where no enemy we have fought has chosen to meet us on our terms since the 1950's.
You also have to ask: "Does it make sense to adopt a universal caliber that is more ideal for Afghanistan, and make every RTO, Key Leader, Forward Observer, Assistant Gunner, Ammo Bearer, Anti-Armor Weapon Specialist, combat engineer, generator mechanic, driver, cook, supply sergeant, etc. carry that versus 5.56?"