New Army "Caliber Configuration Study"

[stanc]

So, if I advocate using only 65G and 40mm ABGL for dismounted patrols, would anyone be comfortable advocating, instead, 5.56 and 40mm ABGL? Why, or why not?

Personally, I'd opt for 6.5/40mm over 5.56/40mm, mainly because of the 6.5 increased range.

The argument, theoretically, applies to the one as well as the other: ARs and LMGs — 65G or 5.56 — keep them pinned down and provide local protection for the ABGLs, which are the real killers, much as the Wehrmacht MG42s were.

What evidence is there to show the 40mm ABGL would be a better killer than the 6.5mm LMG? I've heard conflicting claims regarding effectiveness of the 25mm airburst rounds.

Under that scenario, is the capability of the AR and LMG round in and of itself that important?

Well, if the 40mm ABGL truly would be the "real killer" on the battlefield, far surpassing the hit/kill probability of the LMG, then I think caliber of the LMG wouldn't matter much.

Does quantity of 5.56 trump capability of 65G? Or does the overlap of 65G into 7.62 M80 territory trump 5.56 quantity?

In some situations, yes. In others, no. Overall, I can't be sure. Needs testing!

I see cheap laser-ranged, air-burst grenades as a game-changing technology, just as the rifled bore made mass troop formations in open country inadvisable and 50 years later the machine gun made them suicidal. Infantry tactics were forced to change to open formations using organic cover. Now ranged grenades help solve the problem of neutralizing infantry under cover.

You may be right. Personally, I think "game changer" is a vastly over-used phrase.