Considerations on the Evolution of War

[stanc]

...which is why I talk so much about the 6.5 LMG.

Do you have a plan for getting one developed?

[cory]

I'll give answering JASmith's question...OK...let’s look at capabilities/specs we want at weapons in the squad. I am keeping these in a capabilities mindset – and in some cases very vague - as not to influence caliber or type of weapon. Some of the specs I have below may not even be possible with current tech…but you asked!

All three weapons must -
Meet or exceeded current MilSpec durability/longevity standards (don’t know what these are)
Be chambered for the same caliber
Use a common magazine that holds a minimum of 25rds, weighs no more than 1lb, and is within +/-3% of the size of current STANAG magazines.
Be compatible with current Mil issue optics/accessories.
...

Carbine/individual weapon
...
Squad automatic weapon
...
DM rifle
...

...For most of your soldiers, 5.56 NATO is going to be more than adequate for their specific duty positions, whether they are trekking the mountains of Central Asia, or chasing down hood rats in North Africa. Once you start looking at the DM's and Company or Battalion Snipers, requirements shift a bit, with accuracy, wind drift and terminal effects at distance being higher prioritizations than the general issue carbines...

2-Caliber System for Snipers?
A 6.5 Grendel + .338 LM weapon mix would be a heaven-send for snipers, but they are still largely dependent on a massive log chain that dumps pallets of 5.56 and 7.62 into AORs, often not including Mk.262 or 7.62 Long Range, no matter how much you request it through your XO and supply guys. That leaves you with M855 and M80 ball, .50 BMG, and a mission to accomplish. The Grendel could very much provide a 2-caliber solution that is currently covered by 4 calibers for snipers, but is the rest of the force going to change because of that? Nope, which is why I talk so much about the 6.5 LMG.

Here are the current US Army Calibers being used by snipers:

* 5.56 NATO
* 7.62 NATO
* .300 Winchester Magnum
* .50 BMG

LRRPF52 I completely agree with your assessment here. However, we know the LMG will never be changed to a cartridge different from the cartridge used in the individual carbine, as Michael has also stated above.

In my dream world....

First off there'd need to be a LMG and Carbine/DMR designed, in conjunction, to take a 6.5 Grendel(x39) stretched to a x45 case. With emphasis on the LMG.
16"-10" LMG
12"-14.5" Carbine
18"-20" DMR

The carbine/DMR design would be based off of the AR platform. They'd be crazy not to with it's modularity and the current industry COTs items to select from.

A 130gr AP load would be developed specifically for the LMG. I'm postulating that a 130gr AP load would be the largest projectile suitable for use in the carbine. A 105gr-115gr AP load would be developed for the carbine. A 115gr-125gr HPBT load would be developed for the DMR. This load would likely be more ideal for the carbine in AOs like 'stan. A 95gr frangible load could be developed for carbine in Gen III Warfare and to stockpiled at the front lines (see South Korea).

A MMG designed around the .338 would replace the M240 and 50 as the vehicle mounted MMG. In turn 300 win mags and .308 Sniper rifles would be converted to the .338. Snipers should be given their choice of the DMR or a shortened to 14.5"-16" version. This would give them the ability to reach out and touch someone with their daily carry rifle and them escalate to the .338 as the mission dictates.

As long as we're talking about a system, I believe we need to be discussing the replacement of the M9 and 9mm round with another pistol directed towards the CQB environment. If the 5.56 NATO is arguably an effective round for CQB out to 300m, then I think we can assume something like the 5.7mm will be effective at <10m in the CQB arena. The 5.7mm intrigues me as it could also be used as SMG round.

The 9mm round should be replaced with a round that's effective in an SMG, And a SMG developed alongside the M9 replacement. When the AO is a dense urban environment that requires constant CQB, the Grunts should be provided with the option of shelving(still issued a carbine but left at the FOB) their carbines for the SMG.

The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO would go away as far as combat troops are concerned. Grunts would be issued a sidearm designed for CQB and a 6.5 Grendel x45mm (stretched Gendel) chambered AR12. The M249 design would be erased from any and all Military databases. A LMG would be designed around the Grendel.

Talking Marine Corps Structure
The Weapons Platoon would train/function as a MAP (Mobile Assualt Platoon) for 4th Gen Warfare purposes. Designed to work in 3 truck teams in a QRF capacity for the Company. They'd hover just outside the mission's AO, being cognate not to stay in any place to long and making one position a normal. In these 3 truck teams you'd see a lead and rear with an MMG and a middle with a MK19 mounted that also has a built in 60mm mortar system.

A UAV should be utilized to stream live footage of the AO to the trucks.

The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO couldn't completely go away, in the near future. Just give it to the Air Force. Maybe in 100 years they'll use up the stockpile of arms and ammunition we have. HAHA jk Seriously though the current weapons and ammunition is more than adequate for the Air Force and Navy, at least until we use up the stock piles.

[stanc]

...we know the LMG will never be changed to a cartridge different from the cartridge used in the individual carbine...

It does seem unlikely to happen. But, there was also a time when sniper rifles were the same caliber as infantry rifles and machine guns, yet today's sniper rifles fire bigger and more powerful rounds. There is no compelling need for magazine-fed rifles to use the same cartridge as belt-fed machine guns. Considering those facts, I think it's conceivable that such a LMG round could become reality.

In my dream world....

First off there'd need to be a LMG and Carbine/DMR designed, in conjunction, to take a 6.5 Grendel(x39) stretched to a x45 case. With emphasis on the LMG.
16"-20" LMG
12"-14.5" Carbine
18"-20" DMR

The carbine/DMR design would be based off of the AR platform. They'd be crazy not to with it's modularity and the current industry COTs items to select from.

Concur. But, I don't see 18-20" barrel length as likely for a future DMR. The carbine version of the M110 sniper rifle has only a 16" barrel, as does the UK L129A1 DMR (and the USMC M27 IAR).

A 130gr AP load would be developed specifically for the LMG. I'm postulating that a 130gr AP load would be the largest projectile suitable for use in the carbine. A 105gr-115gr AP load would be developed for the carbine.

Two different AP loads will never happen, if LMG and carbine are the same caliber. In any case, 130gr seems a very unlikely (too heavy) weight for 6.5mm AP. The M993 7.62mm AP is only ~127 gr.

A 115gr-125gr HPBT load would be developed for the DMR.

Sounds reasonable.

A 95gr frangible load could be developed for carbine in Gen III Warfare and to stockpiled at the front lines (see South Korea).

Extremely unlikely.

The 5.56 and 7.62 NATO would go away as far as combat troops are concerned. Grunts would be issued a sidearm designed for CQB and a 6.5 Grendel x45mm (stretched Grendel) chambered AR12. The M249 design would be erased from any and all Military databases.

Gee, Cory -- With comments like that, a person might get the idea you don't like the M249.

A LMG would be designed around the Grendel.

LRRPF52 wants a new LMG, too. I'd sure like to know who is expected to design and manufacture this hypothetical weapon?

Since dimensions of the "stretched" Grendel (and Tony's GPC) round are so close to those of 7.62 NATO, it seems to me that arms makers like FN and HK would just alter their existing 7.62mm machine guns to take the new cartridge, rather than spending time and $$$ to create a completely new design.

[cory]

It does seem unlikely to happen. But, there was also a time when sniper rifles were the same caliber as infantry rifles and machine guns, yet today's sniper rifles fire bigger and more powerful rounds. There is no compelling need for magazine-fed rifles to use the same cartridge as belt-fed machine guns. Considering those facts, I think it's conceivable that such a LMG round could become reality.

This goes back to Gen III Warfare and it's logistical challenges. However unlikely, we still must stay prepared for this event whether it be Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia.

Concur. But, I don't see 18-20" barrel length as likely for a future DMR. The carbine version of the M110 sniper rifle has only a 16" barrel, as does the UK L129A1 DMR (and the USMC M27 IAR).

If we can meet the requirements with a 16" Version even better.

Two different AP loads will never happen, if LMG and carbine are the same caliber. In any case, 130gr seems a very unlikely (too heavy) weight for 6.5mm AP. The M993 7.62mm AP is only ~127 gr.

Fair enough

Sounds reasonable.

Extremely unlikely.

Gee, Cory -- With comments like that, a person might get the idea you don't like the M249.

Because of my experiences with it, I hate the thing. I'll put it to you this way if all I head was an M9 and a K Bar I'd be happy to be the first guy in a stack; however, there's no way in hell I'd be the first guy in a stack with the M249 SAW.

LRRPF52 wants a new LMG, too. I'd sure like to know who is expected to design and manufacture this hypothetical weapon?

Whoever wins the military contract. That's how these things work.

Since dimensions of the "stretched" Grendel (and Tony's GPC) round are so close to those of 7.62 NATO, it seems to me that arms makers like FN and HK would just alter their existing 7.62mm machine guns to take the new cartridge, rather than spending time and $$$ to create a completely new design.

If they can meet the max weight and size requirements, I don't see any problem with this.

I responded to you in red.

[stanc]

It does seem unlikely to happen. But, there was also a time when sniper rifles were the same caliber as infantry rifles and machine guns, yet today's sniper rifles fire bigger and more powerful rounds. There is no compelling need for magazine-fed rifles to use the same cartridge as belt-fed machine guns. Considering those facts, I think it's conceivable that such a LMG round could become reality.

This goes back to Gen III Warfare and it's logistical challenges. However unlikely, we still must stay prepared for this event whether it be Iran, North Korea, China, or Russia.

Okay. I would point out that during the biggest Gen III war in history, American infantry units had shoulder weapons in three different calibers (.30-06, .30 Carbine, and .45 ACP). If they could do it 70 years ago, I'd think they could cope with it now.

LRRPF52 wants a new LMG, too. I'd sure like to know who is expected to design and manufacture this hypothetical weapon?

Whoever wins the military contract.

Well, duh. Of course the company that wins the contract will produce the weapon.

My question is, what company can be convinced to devote resources for design and development of the unique, ultra-lightweight machine gun that LRRPF52 and Michael desire? I've seen no indication that FN, HK, or anybody else is even so much as daydreaming about creating a totally new LMG, in any caliber. That leaves conversions of existing designs, all of which are much heavier than the oft-cited PKM.

The only possibility I can think of is GDATP, which has been more visionary in the field of machine gun development than other companies.

[JASmith]

...My question is, what company can be convinced to devote resources for design and development of the unique, ultra-lightweight machine gun that LRRPF52 and Michael desire? ...

Short answer: Whoever wins the development contract.

Longer answer. Assuming the weapon configuration and embedded technology* are significantly different, DOD would more likely start with a series of concept definition studies with several companies competing to define the weapon. That is generally winnowed down to 2 or 3 Advanced Development or Concept Feasibility contracts, followed by at least two Full-Scale development contracts.

* The elephant in the room is the emerging collection of very smart aiming aids, some of which have already been carried through at least the first few steps of the development sequence.

[LRRPF52]

The biggest obstacle is changing calibers of the most prolific small arms, which are 5.56-based carbines and rifles currently in the system. The assumption is that such a change is necessary, which is one that I can't agree with.

You can't reasonably justify to me that we should reduce the amount of ammunition capacity for soldiers so that they can engage targets outside of their normal duty position, with training they don't have, in the rare circumstances of Central Asian mountains. It's going to be a hard sell for any Army with even gullible decision-makers, since the benefits are extremely marginal, and the penalties are vast and real.

I still have yet to see someone openly state, then support how it makes sense for the following duty positions to be equipped with a weapon capable of 1000m+ effective range, with reduced basic load capacity, increased weight, and increased recoil:

* Platoon Leader/Commander (He should really have a Commando variant carbine with even a shorter barrel than an M4, like 11.5", lightweight blaster, slung on his side most of the time with a retaining device to keep it out of the way.)

* Platoon Sergeant ( A director of traffic and tactical/logistics advisor to the Lieutenant, co-locates with the Platoon Medic & controls the casualty collection point, helps emplace the gun teams, requests ammo and supplies for the platoon according to the needs of the Squad Leaders)

* Platoon RTO (Radio-Telephone Operator, co-locates with the Platoon Leader at all times, should have an 11.5" carbine weighing about 5lbs)
* Combat Engineers (Responsible for explosive breaches and disposal of enemy munitions in support of the Rifle Platoon or Company they are attached to.)
* Air Force TAC-P's (call in CAS, need 5lb carbines as well, slung to the side and out of the way.)

* Ammo Bearer
* Assistant Machine Gunner
* Javelin Gunner/Anti-Armor Weapon Specialist

* Indirect Fire Team Leader (Mortar NCO)
* Indirect Fire Weapon Specialists (Mortarmen) These guys need even lighter weapons than the M4. Hump some 60mm mortar rounds, a base plate, the tube, the computer, aiming stakes, plus your packing list and the tripod and you will understand why. The M4 was a heaven-send for mortars.

* Everyone in the Company HQ, to include the CO, 1SG, Company RTO's, XO, Supply, Medics, drivers....do they all need 1000m capable rifles or carbines?

Nobody is going to offer an argument to equip all these guys with 6.5mm 1000m-capable weapons, because it's a really bad idea, yet that is what adopting a "GPC" means.

[cory]

I don't disagree, but I wouldn't go nearly as far as calling it a bad idea. Let us not forget, the 5.56mm is a 1000m weapon. However, ineffective it may be due to flight path and a relatively low KE value at that distance.

I'm not sure how it's a bad thing for the following guys to get a 6.5mm carbine.
* Ammo Bearer
* Assistant Machine Gunner
* Javelin Gunner/Anti-Armor Weapon Specialist

You, yourself have talked about how well the Grendel has done in 10" pistol barrels. Could an ~11" carbine not be issued to the billets you mentioned? Maybe a debate we need to have is between the Grendelx39mm and a longer version Grendelx45mm, after seeing the x45mm version tested that was developed for the military testing Stanc posted about.

However, the question here is do you think we need a new LMG in a larger caliber? If so, can we obtain that without chambering the carbines in the same caliber? If not, is it worth replacing the 5.56 NATO with the Grendel, in all carbines?

[JASmith]

...the question here is do you think we need a new LMG in a larger caliber? If so, can we obtain that without chambering the carbines in the same caliber? If not, is it worth replacing the 5.56 NATO with the Grendel, in all carbines?

Therein lies the rub.

I think we get to a partial answer by looking again at the frequency belts are de-linked to provide carbine ammunition. The second answer may come from looking at ammunition resupply challenges faced by marksmen equipped with the 7.62 NATO.

If the answer to the first question is rarely or almost never, then the cartridge used by an LMG does not need to match that used by the carbine.

If the answer to the second question is characterized by "few or non-existent" then the same conclusion holds.

That brings us to the question of whether the DM needs to have the same ammo as the LMG if neither is the same as the carbine?

[stanc]

Short answer: Whoever wins the development contract.

That's the same non-answer that Cory gave. I'll try rephrasing, again:

Without a development contract, what company can be convinced to design and develop -- on their own dime, as GDATP did with the .338 LWMMG -- the unique, ultra-lightweight machine gun that LRRPF52 and Michael desire?

[JASmith]

That's the same non-answer that Cory gave. I'll try rephrasing, again:

Without a development contract, what company can be convinced to design and develop -- on their own dime, as GDATP did with the .338 LWMMG -- the unique, ultra-lightweight machine gun that LRRPF52 and Michael desire?

Actually the answer is different and helps illuminate the normal development path.

"Doing it on their own dime" is the model imposed in the late 20th century to make R&D costs appear to be reduced. It was actually a path to eating one's seed corn.

Any company that has the resources and expectation of sales will make that investment if they are brave or stupid enough. They exist, but counting on this, perhaps serendipitous, path does not constitute sound national policy in my opinion.

[stanc]

The biggest obstacle is changing calibers of the most prolific small arms, which are 5.56-based carbines and rifles currently in the system. The assumption is that such a change is necessary, which is one that I can't agree with.

However, the published CLAWS program goals indicate that the US Army is considering such a change. And PEO Soldier is quoted as wanting 800-meter engagement capability.

I still have yet to see someone openly state, then support how it makes sense for the following duty positions to be equipped with a weapon capable of 1000m+ effective range, with reduced basic load capacity, increased weight, and increased recoil:

* Platoon Leader
* Platoon Sergeant
* Platoon RTO
<snip>
* Everyone in the Company HQ, to include the CO, 1SG, Company RTO's, XO, Supply, Medics, drivers....do they all need 1000m capable rifles or carbines?

No. But, consider these questions:

Do the noted personnel need greater basic load than would be had with a GPC?

More importantly, should the decision on whether or not to equip infantry riflemen and machine gunners with GPC weapons be made on the basis of what caliber is best for the other duty positions you listed?

Nobody is going to offer an argument to equip all these guys with 6.5mm 1000m-capable weapons, because it's a really bad idea, yet that is what adopting a "GPC" means.

Not exactly. The GPC provides 1000-meter capability really only to the machine gunner. For the DM, it's maybe 800 meters, at best. And for riflemen, 600-800 meters, depending on who you ask.

[JASmith]

...my first lecture request is to paint a picture of what the battalion as a fire-system looks like in the full scale war. What assumptions can we make about:

1. Organic sensors and surveillance for directing maneuver and fire?
   
2. What heavy weapons are available and how close to troops will they be used.
   
3. Finally, what individual weapons are available, and when would they be used?
   

Later, we can morph this picture into what it should look like in a 4th Generation conflict along with a discussion of how logistical tails might need to be re-defined to assure availability of appropriate weapons and ammunition.

We seem to have gotten bogged down in the morass of caliber-specific arguments and have lost sight of the basic question.

Let's reset with a summary of the Gen III capable assets as listed above.

Then let's refine our mental pictures of what small-unit operations in Gen IV our troops would likely see. We already know differences exist but let's see of we can spell them out. One of the specific questions to be explored is whether these troops will look like Spec Ops forces with significant latitude in weapons drawn for missions or more like line troops with limited training and little or no options for weapons beyond standard issue.

Last for this thread anyway, would be a qualitative description of what that small unit needs if it is built on the Spec Ops model or one the line unit model.

Only after fleshing these questions out can we embark on meaningful discussions of calibers, cartridges, and so on.

[stanc]

Could an ~11" carbine not be issued to the billets [LRRPF52] mentioned?

Of course it could.

Maybe a debate we need to have is between the Grendelx39mm and a longer version Grendelx45mm...

That's a reasonable evaluation to make. I'm told that some military entities have done just that, and concluded that the basic 6.5 Grendel is lacking in some aspects.

However, the question here is do you think we need a new LMG in a larger caliber?

LRRPF52 has stated in a number of threads he thinks exactly that.

If so, can we obtain that without chambering the carbines in the same caliber?

Possibly, although it may be more likely that the military would want carbine and LMG to be the same caliber.

[stanc]

Actually the answer is different...

Nah, it's the same basic answer: "Whoever wins the contract."

"Doing it on their own dime" is the model imposed in the late 20th century to make R&D costs appear to be reduced. It was actually a path to eating one's seed corn.

Any company that has the resources and expectation of sales will make that investment if they are brave or stupid enough. They exist, but counting on this, perhaps serendipitous, path does not constitute sound national policy in my opinion.

That may all be true, but it looks to me like the only way to get a completely new LMG at this point in time is if some company can be convinced to do the design and development on their own, without waiting for a military contract.

[JASmith]

We are getting off track here.

What is the value added to the original posts by this line of reasoning?

We are nowhere near ready to credibly discussing weapons mixes, let alone whether a manufacturer might jump in.

[stanc]

We seem to have gotten bogged down in the morass of caliber-specific arguments and have lost sight of the basic question.

Let's reset with a summary of the Gen III capable assets as listed above.

Then let's refine our mental pictures of what small-unit operations in Gen IV our troops would likely see. We already know differences exist but let's see of we can spell them out. One of the specific questions to be explored is whether these troops will look like Spec Ops forces with significant latitude in weapons drawn for missions or more like line troops with limited training and little or no options for weapons beyond standard issue.

Last for this thread anyway, would be a qualitative description of what that small unit needs if it is built on the Spec Ops model or one the line unit model.

Only after fleshing these questions out can we embark on meaningful discussions of calibers, cartridges, and so on.

Actually, the caliber/cartridge issue is the basic question. I know you like to make discussion subjects as complicated as possible, but it's not necessary to do all that in order to answer the question. As I said before, the rifles and machine guns will be the same, regardless of whether used in Gen III or Gen IV conflicts.

[JASmith]

Stan, you are entitled to an opinion, but re-read the OP and you will see that we are not looking at a specific rifle.

Jumping into cartridge-specific arguments only perpetuates a long-standing fruitless line of discussions and debates.

[stanc]

Stan, you are entitled to an opinion, but re-read the OP and you will see that we are not looking at a specific rifle.

I didn't say we are. However, the OP seems to be aimed at "the direction military weapons should go," and some people have expressed their opinions on this matter.

Jumping into cartridge-specific arguments only perpetuates a long-standing fruitless line of discussions and debates.

If you really think that a prolonged discussion on Gen III and IV war is going to actually make for "discussions of calibers, cartridges, and so on" which are any more meaningful than past discussions, then I must say you are quite the optimist.

[JASmith]

Then. perhaps, you can give us optimists some space to try the experiment.