Testing, testing...

[LR1955]

More than that, you need to convince Army leadership, especially the Chief of Staff. A determined CSA can push through a project, even if not needed. Stryker infantry vehicle is a prime example. GEN Shinseki really wanted it, and said it was needed because the Army did not then have an air-deployable, light-armored, infantry carrier. That was a blatant lie, because the M113 was (and still is) in the inventory, and holds the same number of infantrymen...and can be carried on C-5 and C17 transports in greater numbers than can Stryker. Despite that, Shinseki got Stryker rammed through the acquisition process, and fielded.

The moral to the story: If you want something adopted, get the CSA in love with it.

"Nothing is ever as good as what we've got if they decide not to spend the money. Of course if they really want something then what we're going after surpasses whatever we've got, regardless of test results."

Stan:

Although your views on the Stryker and how it got into the system are false, the notion that powerful people in the RTDE process can push forward a project is very sound.

LR1955

[stanc]

Stan: ...your views on the Stryker and how it got into the system are false...

Gene:

What is false about what I wrote? Back around 2000-2004, there were a number of generals quoted in articles, and they said that air transportability was the primary reason for acquiring Stryker.

I didn't keep any of those articles, so am unable to cite, but here is an April 2002 quote from Shinseki:

"We realized it took us a long time to get heavy forces into the field. We knew we had to fix that. If this force had been ready Sept. 11, it would be in Afghanistan today."

The only way for the US Army to have put a light armor force into Afghanistan in 2001 was by air.

Stan

[stanc]

P.S. If you don't believe Shinseki's own words, check out the Jan 2000 ORD.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/...Jan-00.htm

Note the very first sentence: "An immediate and urgent need exists for an air transportable Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), capable of deployment to anywhere on the globe in a combat ready configuration."

Are you still going to insist that I'm wrong?

[LR1955]

P.S. If you don't believe Shinseki's own words, check out the Jan 2000 ORD.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/...Jan-00.htm

Note the very first sentence: "An immediate and urgent need exists for an air transportable Interim Brigade Combat Team (IBCT), capable of deployment to anywhere on the globe in a combat ready configuration."

Are you still going to insist that I'm wrong?

Stan:

I insist that you have always hated the Stryker vehicle and nothing in the world is going to change your mind. You hated it when the concept was brought forth and hate it now.

The Stryker of 2K11 is far different than the ones of 2K2 and the concept has proven itself to be far superior to a 113 for the doctrine of the SBCT's.

So, why in the world do you want to bring it up again? I mean, the thread concerns testing and not the dead debate over what vehicle should be issued to SBCT's.

LR1955

[stanc]

Stan: I insist that you have always hated the Stryker vehicle and nothing in the world is going to change your mind. You hated it when the concept was brought forth and hate it now.

Gene, you're wrong on that, too. I have never hated the Stryker. I like all armored vehicles, even those with wheels. What I disliked about the Stryker program is that it was spending hundreds of millions of $$$ to acquire a vehicle that -- because of its heavy weight and large size -- simply could not meet the stated purpose of the IBCT: an air-transportable armored unit that could get to anyplace on the globe in 96 hours.

The Stryker of 2K11 is far different than the ones of 2K2...

Even if that's true, it's irrelevant to the air-transportability issue.

...and the concept has proven itself to be far superior to a 113 for the doctrine of the SBCT's.

I don't dispute that Stryker is better than the M113 for getting around quickly on relatively easy terrain. (Stryker gets stuck in mud easier than the M113, though, and I suspect would be very inferior at breaking bush in the jungle, a la Vietnam War.)

However, that Stryker is well-suited for the way the SBCT is actually used, is a different subject from what I've always addressed. But, for some unfathomable reason you always seem to think Stryker's operational use in theatre disproves what I've said about it's strategic mobility. It doesn't. As the ORD proves, strategic mobility was the primary reason used to justify Stryker's purchase.

So, why in the world do you want to bring it up again? I mean, the thread concerns testing and not the dead debate over what vehicle should be issued to SBCT's.

I cited Stryker solely as background history to lead into my point that getting the CSA to like a concept seems to be the best way to get something adopted and fielded. It was the first example to come to mind, no doubt because I was heavily involved in the fight against it. You revived the debate when you erroneously claimed that what I wrote was false.

Another example is GEN Le May, who after shooting an AR15 at a picnic, decided that was the rifle he wanted to replace USAF M1 carbines. After some twists and turns, the Air Force did re-equip with the AR15/M16. (Maybe Alexander should invite the current CSA to a 4th of July picnic to shoot a Grendel... )

A reverse example is the Garand rifle in .276 Pedersen. The Ordnance people liked it, and a review board recommended it for adoption, but the top Army leader (then-CSA GEN MacArthur) vetoed it, insisting upon staying with .30 caliber.

Oh, heck -- I suppose now you're going to accuse me of trying to revive the dead debates over whether the M16 rifle or .276 Pedersen cartridge should have been adopted... :eek:

[Tony Williams]

I've taken a look at the Metal Storm system, with its advantages, drawbacks and potential uses, here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/MetalStorm.htm

[warped]

I concur, MS is best used as an area denial weapon or like a CIWS.

It could be used on aircraft in a close support role as a grenade launcher or a mine layer.

[noone]

Where I see the metalstorm as very useful for a number of applications (CIWS or area denial), storage of used barrels for reloading could cause a significant logistical problem. I presume they are too expensive to just throw away, or dump overboard, so once used, these units would need to be stored, and returned for reloading. Sure, we police up brass, and machine gun links at the range for re-use, but I think the logistics of that are quite different than the metalstorm units.

For remotely operated, or robotic area denial systems, the metal storm grenade system, in combination with some of the robotic mortar/mine deploying units could be really useful.

[warped]

I concur, it becomes a logistical exercise that may not be very pleasant.

[stanc]

While I laud the motivation for carrying out such testing, I must draw attention to the recent ARDEC calibre study which may make it unnecessary.

The Army is keeping very quiet about this, but according to the info I am picking up, they did a thorough job. 5.6, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm projectiles were tested, each in two bullet styles (Barnes TSX and a "GP" bullet similar in design to M855A1 EPR) ranging in weights from 61 for the 5.6mm to 165 for the 7.8mm.

The 6.5 and 7.0 performance was superior across the board...

By 6.5 and 7.0mm, do you mean .264" and .284", or .257" and .277" bullet diameters? It appears to me that it's the latter, which would mean that what we refer to as 6.5mm (as in 6.5 Grendel) wasn't even part of the test.

This seems to be corroborated by Gary Roberts, who wrote: "...the ARDEC caliber study that conclusively proves the superiority of .277" projectiles compared to smaller calibers..."

http://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=...stcount=96

[Tony Williams]

By 6.5 and 7.0mm, do you mean .264" and .284", or .257" and .277" bullet diameters? It appears to me that it's the latter, which would mean that what we refer to as 6.5mm (as in 6.5 Grendel) wasn't even part of the test.

This seems to be corroborated by Gary Roberts, who wrote: "...the ARDEC caliber study that conclusively proves the superiority of .277" projectiles compared to smaller calibers..."

I mean .257 and .277 bore diameters, .264 and .284 bullet diameters.

I suspect that Gary Roberts was just following the military convention of giving calibres as bore diameters.

[stanc]

I suspect that Gary Roberts was just following the military convention of giving calibres as bore diameters.

Probably not. He's a long-time supporter of 6.8 SPC (.277" bullet).

[warped]

That was putting it mildly Stan....

[LR1955]

Probably not. He's a long-time supporter of 6.8 SPC (.277" bullet).

Stan:

I talked with Roberts at length numerous times over the phone and as I can recall, AA did not submit a Grendel or ammo for that series of tests. And yes, at that time -- three or four years ago I believe -- the 6.8 performed better in jel than the issued ammo. That should not have been a surprise as the 6.8 that was tested was designed for CQB and you won't find many small arms cartridges differing to any significant degree in ballistics to 300 meters.

I recall the heated debates with him on the last forum with the continual implications that he skewed the testing and results in favor of the 6.8. I do not think he even played a role in the test protocols or the final report.

LR55

[stanc]

I talked with Roberts at length numerous times over the phone and as I can recall, AA did not submit a Grendel or ammo for that series of tests. And yes, at that time -- three or four years ago I believe -- the 6.8 performed better in jel than the issued ammo.

Gene:

That's a different series of tests, which were done by an organization other than ARDEC. The ARDEC study currently being discussed was, as I understand, done within the last year or so, and apparently did not test cartridges like 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel. According to what Tony posted previously, it was a comparison of different caliber bullets only.

If Tony's list is complete, then .224, .243, .264, .284 and .308 bullets were tested, with .257 and .277 omitted.

So the next question is, is Tony wrong about what bullets were evaluated, or is Gary mistaken about .277 being tested, let alone being the best performer?

Stan

[Tony Williams]

Gene:

That's a different series of tests, which were done by an organization other than ARDEC. The ARDEC study currently being discussed was, as I understand, done within the last year or so, and apparently did not test cartridges like 6.8 SPC and 6.5 Grendel. According to what Tony posted previously, it was a comparison of different caliber bullets only.

If Tony's list is complete, then .224, .243, .264, .284 and .308 bullets were tested, with .257 and .277 omitted.

So the next question is, is Tony wrong about what bullets were evaluated, or is Gary mistaken about .277 being tested, let alone being the best performer?

Stan

The notes I have are a bit ambiguous, so I'm doing some checking over the exact calibres used.

They certainly fired the bullets from something, and measured the results out to 300m, but exactly which cartridge cases were used I'm not sure.

[warped]

As I understood it, the .277 was omitted.

[Bill Alexander]

Time will probably sort everything out.

As I understand the ARDEC study and read its contents then some of the things being touted are not exactly as others would wish them to be. This said this is a closed study with a restriction on the disemination of data. It is a pitiful situation when those who are so placed to be (officially)appraised of the work cannot keep their mouths shut.

In the community as a whole such behaviour now created chasms in how data is procured and leaves both contractors and staff suspitious as to the motives of otherwise useful entities.

[stanc]

Okay, Gary Roberts posted the following on arfcom:

"As presented at a joint USG meeting this past March, the bullet diameters tested were described as: .224", .243", .257", .277", .308""

Converted from inch to metric measurement, those figures correspond to projectile diameters (not calibers!) of 5.7, 6.2, 6.5, 7.0 and 7.8mm, the sizes Tony said were tested.

Which means that it was .264" which was omitted from the test. The Army did about the same thing once before. When developing variations using the 7.62x51 case to create the "homologous" rounds, there was a .25-caliber version and a .27-caliber version, but no .26-caliber.

[LRRPF52]

If the government is involved, I just think DMV + D.C., with at least 25% of the funds for whatever it was unaccounted for on average, so I don't look for much validity in anything coming from that hybernaculum.

We'd be better off giving the money they're most likely wasting back to the States so units can put it to their ammo training budgets. I just learned that the Pentagon controls 95% of my State's National Guard budget. Nice...I guess that's why they're not called State Guards anymore...

This ARDEC testing wouldn't surprise me if it was just one big spendex, with no real results coming from it...like OICW from the 50's. We have bigger problems to fix than caliber, that's for sure.

LRRPF52