07-22-2013, 07:45 AM
A few comments in response:
Yes, I know that there's a lot of things wrong with the way in which procurement works; I can well believe that training could be greatly improved; and I am well aware that in deciding what wins a war, the calibre of small arms is not a major factor. I am also aware that the 5.56mm is capable of inflicting severe wounds within its rather limited effective range.
However, it's a hard task to solve all of the problems in this world. I focus on ammunition (and to a lesser extent guns) because those are the subjects which I know something about. And while the performance of small arms and their ammo may be insignificant in the great scheme of things, it is not insignificant to the soldiers whose lives may depend on them, and they do not like it when they come under fire from an enemy too far away for their 5.56mm weapons to respond to.
The idea that the effective range of the 5.56mm is short, and its terminal effectiveness is erratic, does not come from me: it comes from the many soldiers I have heard from who have complained about it, and both complaints have been supported by official spokesmen from the US and other armies who I have heard give presentations about this. The weight of 7.62mm MG ammo is also a major problem to all dismounted soldiers who have to carry it, and its recoil is a problem in rifles, so a switch to 7.62mm isn't the answer.
I have myself given various presentations to military audiences in the USA as well as the UK, and the response to the idea of an intermediate calibre cartridge which could match the long-range performance of 7.62mm while offering significant reductions in weight and recoil has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic (especially in the US). It can basically be summed up as "you make it, we'll buy it". I well recall after one such presentation being pinned to the wall by a US special forces guy whose comments on the 5.56mm were too rude to repeat here, but can be summed up as: it's fine up to 200 metres, useless thereafter in any kind of cross-wind.
The priorities in small arms effectiveness I always give as follows:
1. Training: by far the most important.
2. Sights: with big improvements coming.
3. Ammunition: in terms of achieving the right compromise between range and effectiveness on the one hand, and weight and recoil on the other.
4. The guns: as long as they are reliable, their exact characteristics are the least important factor (although you wouldn't think that from the focus on guns, as in the late IC competition).
A huge amount of time and money is put into recruiting, training and maintaining a soldier. It costs a relatively small sum to make sure that soldier has the most suitable weapons and ammunition we can provide, so there's really no excuse for not doing that.
The 7.62mm NATO was intended to be the universal rifle/MG round but it failed in that because of its weight (and associated gun weight) and recoil issues. The 5.56mm appeared more or less by accident and was seen as a temporary measure particularly suited to jungle warfare until something better came along. But once a round gets established, it's a long, hard slog to replace it.
You are right that adopting a new calibre doesn't have the same sexy glamour as a big-budget new scheme like the XM25, but big-budget new schemes haven't being doing too well lately: not just the XM25 but LSAT have been stopped, and M855A1 is causing problems. I hear that the Individual Carbine competition was abandoned largely because none of the guns (or the M4A1) could deliver the reliability and gun life requirements because the M855A1 develops too much pressure.
Despite the budget problems, there has probably never been a better time to argue the case for a change in calibre. Whether that happens is, of course, a different matter.
Yes, I know that there's a lot of things wrong with the way in which procurement works; I can well believe that training could be greatly improved; and I am well aware that in deciding what wins a war, the calibre of small arms is not a major factor. I am also aware that the 5.56mm is capable of inflicting severe wounds within its rather limited effective range.
However, it's a hard task to solve all of the problems in this world. I focus on ammunition (and to a lesser extent guns) because those are the subjects which I know something about. And while the performance of small arms and their ammo may be insignificant in the great scheme of things, it is not insignificant to the soldiers whose lives may depend on them, and they do not like it when they come under fire from an enemy too far away for their 5.56mm weapons to respond to.
The idea that the effective range of the 5.56mm is short, and its terminal effectiveness is erratic, does not come from me: it comes from the many soldiers I have heard from who have complained about it, and both complaints have been supported by official spokesmen from the US and other armies who I have heard give presentations about this. The weight of 7.62mm MG ammo is also a major problem to all dismounted soldiers who have to carry it, and its recoil is a problem in rifles, so a switch to 7.62mm isn't the answer.
I have myself given various presentations to military audiences in the USA as well as the UK, and the response to the idea of an intermediate calibre cartridge which could match the long-range performance of 7.62mm while offering significant reductions in weight and recoil has been overwhelmingly enthusiastic (especially in the US). It can basically be summed up as "you make it, we'll buy it". I well recall after one such presentation being pinned to the wall by a US special forces guy whose comments on the 5.56mm were too rude to repeat here, but can be summed up as: it's fine up to 200 metres, useless thereafter in any kind of cross-wind.
The priorities in small arms effectiveness I always give as follows:
1. Training: by far the most important.
2. Sights: with big improvements coming.
3. Ammunition: in terms of achieving the right compromise between range and effectiveness on the one hand, and weight and recoil on the other.
4. The guns: as long as they are reliable, their exact characteristics are the least important factor (although you wouldn't think that from the focus on guns, as in the late IC competition).
A huge amount of time and money is put into recruiting, training and maintaining a soldier. It costs a relatively small sum to make sure that soldier has the most suitable weapons and ammunition we can provide, so there's really no excuse for not doing that.
The 7.62mm NATO was intended to be the universal rifle/MG round but it failed in that because of its weight (and associated gun weight) and recoil issues. The 5.56mm appeared more or less by accident and was seen as a temporary measure particularly suited to jungle warfare until something better came along. But once a round gets established, it's a long, hard slog to replace it.
You are right that adopting a new calibre doesn't have the same sexy glamour as a big-budget new scheme like the XM25, but big-budget new schemes haven't being doing too well lately: not just the XM25 but LSAT have been stopped, and M855A1 is causing problems. I hear that the Individual Carbine competition was abandoned largely because none of the guns (or the M4A1) could deliver the reliability and gun life requirements because the M855A1 develops too much pressure.
Despite the budget problems, there has probably never been a better time to argue the case for a change in calibre. Whether that happens is, of course, a different matter.