65G and Future Urban Warfare

[BluntForceTrauma]

An article over at The Firearm Blog discusses how our military needs to adapt to urban warfare.

Following is a quote from the article. Tell me which cartridge this reminds you of:

"Urbanization therefore poses as serious a problem for small arms and ammunition designers as it does army tacticians and organizers. Weapons must be short and maneuverable, but capable of medium/long range fire at the same time, without sacrificing ergonomics. Ammunition must be powerful enough to break through intermediate barriers, but light enough to allow small units to carry enough ammunition to fight independently for long periods of time if need be. Projectiles must be optimized for short-range destruction, but also capable of flying for long distances when needed."

[danm]

An article over at The Firearm Blog discusses how our military needs to adapt to urban warfare.

Following is a quote from the article. Tell me which cartridge this reminds you of:

"Urbanization therefore poses as serious a problem for small arms and ammunition designers as it does army tacticians and organizers. Weapons must be short and maneuverable, but capable of medium/long range fire at the same time, without sacrificing ergonomics. Ammunition must be powerful enough to break through intermediate barriers, but light enough to allow small units to carry enough ammunition to fight independently for long periods of time if need be. Projectiles must be optimized for short-range destruction, but also capable of flying for long distances when needed."

Looks like this?!?!?!?

[biodsl]

I'm just putting the finishing touches on my urban Grendel: nitrided AA 16" inch barrel, nitrided PF BCG and SWFA SS 1-6x24 HD scope.

[85_Ranger4x4]

I have read rumbles of a 6.5 USA the govt has been working on that is based on the Grendel, a google search came up dry aside from a few articles showing it may have a gimicky polymer case... anyone know anything about it?

[Texas]

A suppressed 11.5 in barrel Grendel - No brainer

[stanc]

An article over at The Firearm Blog discusses how our military needs to adapt to urban warfare.

Following is a quote from the article. Tell me which cartridge this reminds you of:

"Urbanization therefore poses as serious a problem for small arms and ammunition designers as it does army tacticians and organizers. Weapons must be short and maneuverable, but capable of medium/long range fire at the same time, without sacrificing ergonomics. Ammunition must be powerful enough to break through intermediate barriers, but light enough to allow small units to carry enough ammunition to fight independently for long periods of time if need be. Projectiles must be optimized for short-range destruction, but also capable of flying for long distances when needed."

It does not remind me of one cartridge.

The idea that "smaller units may become separated from their parent units, and may therefore have to fight for long periods of time alone and without support" calls for ammo of minimum bulk/weight.

In my opinion, that means for the infantry squad:

- For riflemen and grenadiers, 5.56 NATO.

- For designated marksmen and automatic riflemen, 6.5 Grendel.

[LRRPF52]

What didn't get mentioned in the article is that the #1 population growth demographic is aging people in the developing world, not high birth rates. Birth rates have been on the decline globally since the 1950s, with several large populations already headed into demographic winter, like Japan and Russia not far behind, then China.

Usually, we see violent criminals aging from 12-40yrs, almost always males. Industry relies heavily on labor from this age range, especially in the developing world.

The only region/continent of the world that hasn't had as drastic of decreased fertility rates is Sub-Saharan Africa, where their fertility "only" decreased by 37 percent between 1960 and 2005, much less than the 61 percent decline in Asia and Latin America over the same period.

Africa will be one of the main "new frontiers" in American global force projection, since we have become the default empire with the only Navy and military capable of keeping the oceanic trade routes secure.

The focus of the article is more on doctrine and force structure to deal with the developing megacities, which is an important consideration for an expeditionary task force that will be expected to isolate and diminish hostile actors in these heavily-urbanized masses of people, industry, slums, and disparity.

Making a conclusion about small arms this early in the game is well beyond my pay grade. Information systems integration and mobile QRFs with new types of vehicles seems way more important than the caliber that will be used. I'm thinking of something like drone swarms with the ability to ID bad actors who have been observed and target-designated for application of terminal effects on with robotic locusts.

[85_Ranger4x4]

It does not remind me of one cartridge.

The idea that "smaller units may become separated from their parent units, and may therefore have to fight for long periods of time alone and without support" calls for ammo of minimum bulk/weight.

In my opinion, that means for the infantry squad:

- For riflemen and grenadiers, 5.56 NATO.

- For designated marksmen and automatic riflemen, 6.5 Grendel.

The neat thing about the all for one and one for all round is if the designated marksmen is needed burns a lot of ammo with targets the normal riflemen can't engage... if his buddy's rifles fire the same round he has a much greater source of ammo to tap into than just what he can carry on his own.

[stanc]

What didn't get mentioned in the article is that the #1 population growth demographic is aging people in the developing world, not high birth rates.

Not sure why you seem to think that's an issue. As long as births exceed deaths each year, won't the population -- and the number of young people -- continue to increase?

Africa will be one of the main "new frontiers" in American global force projection...

Why should it? The US has historically shown very little interest in getting involved in Africa.

The focus of the article is more on doctrine and force structure to deal with the developing megacities...

True, but the Army Chief of Staff also addressed equipment, which could include small arms:

[COLOR="blue"]"So what this means then -- and I have discussed this with the Army leadership -- we are going to have to ... optimize the Army for urban warfare," he said.

This has implications for equipment, from the "width, size and weight of tanks" to the "rotor-span of helicopters," the general said.[/COLOR]

Making a conclusion about small arms this early in the game is well beyond my pay grade.

Meh. No one here is of a pay grade to make decisions about any of these subjects. That doesn't mean we're not allowed to discuss it and express our opinions. Especially seeing as how this is a gun forum...

Information systems integration and mobile QRFs with new types of vehicles seems way more important than the caliber that will be used. I'm thinking of something like drone swarms with the ability to ID bad actors who have been observed and target-designated for application of terminal effects on with robotic locusts.

Why would a "swarm" of drones be needed? Or do you literally mean robotic locusts that eat the enemy alive? :eek:

[stanc]

The neat thing about the all for one and one for all round is if the designated marksmen is needed burns a lot of ammo with targets the normal riflemen can't engage... if his buddy's rifles fire the same round he has a much greater source of ammo to tap into than just what he can carry on his own.

Certainly. But, that seems to be more of a theoretical concern than a real issue.

From the Vietnam War to the present day, there are any number of stories about the superiority of the 5.56 ammo load vs larger, heavy calibers in combat endurance.

If the squad marksman runs dry, it'd be inconvenient, but probably not critical. If all of the riflemen were to "go black" on ammo, the squad would be in serious trouble.

With 6.5 Grendel, magazine capacity is 17% less than for 5.56mm, ammo is 40% heavier, and so are the magazines.

Either soldier load would have to increase, or combat endurance would have to decrease. Neither option is desirable.

[85_Ranger4x4]

But I keep hearing about this .264 USA which is based on the Grendel but has less case taper and fits in standard AR mags. And they are working on polymer casings for it.

My train of thought on the marksman needing more ammo was based on that the military has been musing about dropping back to 7.62x51 since the 5.56 is reported to lack range (supposedly) If they are doing that the marksmen must be getting overwhelmed. (or someone's uncle wants to sell the govt a new rifle they may or may not really need)

[stanc]

But I keep hearing about this .264 USA which is based on the Grendel but has less case taper and fits in standard AR mags. And they are working on polymer casings for it.

.264 USA is too long to fit the standard AR15 mag well.





It needs either an AR10-size rifle, or a new receiver intermediate in length between the AR10 and AR15.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Dubbed the .264 USA, the Army Marksmanship Unit at Fort Benning, Georgia, has been shooting a prototype intermediate caliber round for years. Similar to the 6.5 Grendel but with a case sized for use in a standard M4 magazine, the .264 USA has an 800 meter effective range and better terminal ballistics further out than a 5.56.

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/...e-numbered

It wouldn't surprise me if they were wrong on that, I couldn't find much on it myself. That is where I read it though.

[LRRPF52]

Not sure why you seem to think that's an issue. As long as births exceed deaths each year, won't the population -- and the number of young people -- continue to increase?

No. The aging population continues to increase because they aren't dying at normal life expectancies, so population growth is driven by this in most of the world and has been since the 1950s, while fertility has declined rapidly. This is what leads to demographic winter, where there aren't enough youth and young adults to support the elderly.

The megacities will be populated by historically older inhabitants than any time in recorded history that I am aware of. This plays a huge factor in any anticipated conflict in a number of ways, and will increase demand for automation even in the developing world.

Why should it? The US has historically shown very little interest in getting involved in Africa.

...to the shores of Tripoli. We've been involved in Africa to some degree dating back centuries, but more so lately. North Africa goes without saying, including the North Africa campaign in WWII, US focus on peace accords between Egypt and Israel, US commitment to the UN Sinai mission, as well as our involvement in Somalia, our hub in Djibouti even before, but especially since 9/11, and the growing threat of terrorist expansion into Africa, compounded with Chinese thirst for resources in the Dark Continent.

Nigeria is a big consideration for us since we import oil from them, and Middle Eastern factions have moved into Nigeria as one of their main strategic targets for conquest. It's the largest population in Africa by a huge margin (7th largest in the world), with Egypt coming in a distant 15th and DR Congo 16th.

True, but the Army Chief of Staff also addressed equipment, which could include small arms:

[COLOR="blue"]"So what this means then -- and I have discussed this with the Army leadership -- we are going to have to ... optimize the Army for urban warfare," he said.

This has implications for equipment, from the "width, size and weight of tanks" to the "rotor-span of helicopters," the general said.[/COLOR]

Why would a "swarm" of drones be needed? Or do you literally mean robotic locusts that eat the enemy alive? :eek:

No need to eat. Just inject them or mark them with a chemical irritant or paralysis compound, maybe both, with microscopic resonant material for all the ISR systems to hone in on.

Then the clean-up crews come in and recover them or the carcass. Offer rewards to the population for turn-in as well.

I'd be more concerned about how we're going to arm the new wave of hover vehicles with ducted fans so they can maneuver in between sky scrapers on their way to and from the slum district for another rat bastard kill/capture run. Brazil is a good model for what I'm talking about, and we already see coordinated efforts with air assets, while cycle cops chase thugs through alleys and streets at high speed and burn them down.

We're looking at more of a global LE mission than a traditional military one, if you read between the lines of their mission profile mindset. It's based on the probable assumption of the US's historical rivals not playing a military role on the world scene anymore, unless it's according to US interests and cooperation.

In other words, they've written off any Fulda Gap scenarios for Europe, since Russia is in decline.

[stanc]

https://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/...e-numbered

It wouldn't surprise me if they were wrong on that, I couldn't find much on it myself. That is where I read it though.

As the dimensioned drawing shows, they're clearly wrong about the .264 USA.

However, a few years ago the AMU was reportedly also developing a smaller 6.5mm round that would fit existing 5.56mm weapons. IIRC, it was said to use a shortened 6.8 SPC case.

[stanc]

Not sure why you seem to think that's an issue. As long as births exceed deaths each year, won't the population -- and the number of young people -- continue to increase?

No. The aging population continues to increase because they aren't dying at normal life expectancies, so population growth is driven by this in most of the world and has been since the 1950s...

Illogical. The population does not increase because people are living longer. It increases because there are more births than deaths.

If no children were born each year, the population would not increase. It would decrease, regardless of increases in life expectancy.

Why should it? The US has historically shown very little interest in getting involved in Africa.

...to the shores of Tripoli. We've been involved in Africa to some degree dating back centuries, but more so lately. North Africa goes without saying, including the North Africa campaign in WWII, US focus on peace accords between Egypt and Israel, US commitment to the UN Sinai mission, as well as our involvement in Somalia, our hub in Djibouti even before, but especially since 9/11, and the growing threat of terrorist expansion into Africa, compounded with Chinese thirst for resources in the Dark Continent.

Tripoli was two centuries ago. The US invaded North Africa during WWII only to fight the Germans and Italians, not because of a desire to get involved in Africa.

Somalia was the only example of a commitment of large numbers of combat troops, and that effort was soon abandoned. As I said, very little historical interest.

We're looking at more of a global LE mission than a traditional military one, if you read between the lines of their mission profile mindset.

That's reasonable. After all, global law enforcement is what the mission has typically been since the Vietnam War ended.

In other words, they've written off any Fulda Gap scenarios for Europe, since Russia is in decline.

I don't know how much of a decline Russia is in, but I always considered the obsession with the Fulda Gap scenario to have been based more on wishful thinking of American Generals who wanted to emulate Patton's exploits, than on any real likelihood of a Russian invasion.

[JASmith]

Illogical. The population does not increase because people are living longer. It increases because there are more births than deaths.

If no children were born each year, the population would not increase. It would decrease, regardless of increases in life expectancy...

True but wrong -- start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal. Then increase the life span by 20% and wihat happens?

The death rate will have decreased resulting in population growth.

The biggest example is China's attempt to lomit their population growth woth the "one child" policy. If I recall the open source article correctly, their population would have doubled over 50 years eaven if every family was limited to just one child.

Over the longer term, however, the "one child" policy would cause a dramtic decline in population.

The time constant of a few generations makes figuring these things out a bit challenging.

[stanc]

True but wrong -- start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal. Then increase the life span by 20% and wihat happens?

The death rate will have decreased resulting in population growth.

Faulty reasoning. The population growth would result only from births, not from increased life span.

To borrow from your example, start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal.

Then cut the birth rate to zero, increase the life span by 100% (or even 200%), and what happens?

The population would decrease, not increase.

Population growth results only from births, not extended life span.

[JASmith]

Do the math -- increasing life span increases the population even with a steady birth rates.

Specious counter examples will not change the facts.

[85_Ranger4x4]

True but wrong -- start with a stable population where the birth rate and death rates are equal. Then increase the life span by 20% and wihat happens?

The death rate will have decreased resulting in population growth.

The biggest example is China's attempt to lomit their population growth woth the "one child" policy. If I recall the open source article correctly, their population would have doubled over 50 years eaven if every family was limited to just one child.

Over the longer term, however, the "one child" policy would cause a dramtic decline in population.

The time constant of a few generations makes figuring these things out a bit challenging.

Since firstbornes are usually males it starts feeding on itself too, they are getting a very lopsided population out of the deal with fewer females. Fewer couples = fewer firstborns in the next generation... and then the process repeats.