Military round comparisons

[Tony Williams]

That alone probably not. However, if it was to replace all 5.56 and 7.62, drastically improving logistics and improving soldier capabilities in short and long distance engagements, that might be enough.

I completely agree most of your basic grunts won't utilize the Grendel to its full capabilities, but they'll still see an improvement in their results on the battlefield.

Agreed.

I think it's helpful to start with the criticisms from ISAF troops concerning their small arms and ammunition:

1. The effective range of 5.56mm ammunition is too low, mainly due its susceptibility to cross-winds. The enemy has been choosing to launch attacks on ISAF patrols from 500m or more wherever the terrain permits. The British Army reported this in 2009, and more recently I have read that US troops have stated that at least half of all attacks are from 500-900m. 5.56mm weapons are pretty well useless dead weight at such distances.

2. 7.62mm weapons and ammunition (especially MGs) have the range and hitting power required, but their weight is too great. Reducing the weight of the combat load for dismounted infantry is one of the top priorities of western armies, with British troops wearing or carrying around 140 lbs in patrol order.

3. Carrying two different families of rifles/MGs and ammunition at squad/section level is undesirable, reducing the overall effectiveness (e.g. those with 5.56mm weapons cannot usefully contribute to engagements at 500+m).

4. 5.56mm ammunition is erratic in terminal effectiveness, and has poor barrier penetration.

I see no possibility of any new cartridge being chosen to replace either the 5.56mm or the 7.62mm - to have any chance of success, a new round must be able to at least match the long-range performance of the 7.62mm NATO in MGs and DMRs (plus, more to the point, the 7.62x54R in the PKM and SVD - the real-world comparators) while saving at least 25% of the ammo weight. Such a cartridge would inevitably be of smaller calibre than 7.62mm, and would have much less recoil, making it feasible to replace 5.56mm weapons in the dismounted infantry squads while delivering benefits in penetration and terminal effectiveness. Recent studies by both ARDEC and AMU have concluded that around 6.5mm calibre is optimal for future military use. I'm not advocating any particular cartridge here, just pointing out that this calibre seems to offer the best balance of characteristics.

I should emphasise that these issues only concern portable weapons carried by dismounted infantry, because that's where the problems are being experienced. There is no need to change the whole army over to a new calibre overnight. Other soldiers can retain 5.56mm carbines as PDWs for the foreseeable future, while vehicle-mounted 7.62mm MGs can also be retained until they wear out, if required.

Iraq and A'stan provided two very different operating environments, but they had one thing in common - an emphasis on dismounted patrols, working with and among the local populations. No-one knows what the next conflicts will be, but the general thinking is that they are at least as likely to involve this type of counter-insurgency conflict as a conventional hot war. So it's important to give the dismounted troops the best equipment we can.

Finally - although my interest primarily lies with the ammunition, I am well aware that this is only one element in the effectiveness of small arms, and by no means the most important. Training comes first (by a long way), then sights, then ammunition, then the guns. But while the primary emphasis will always be on training, that's no excuse to ignore the other factors when we know they have problems.