Army's 1st New Rifle Round in 30 Years

[metalslug 36]

My debate with you is not the ballistic merits of the 5.56x45 over either the 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 for deer hunting or sniping. I too would prefer the larger calibers for that.

I do however have a problem with this statement:

Quote

The 5.56x45 round is inappropriate for antipersonnel use, any way you cut it.

From your arguments so far I get the impression that you believe that modern military ground combat consists of (or should consist of) lines of marksmen from either side engaging each other with benchrested sniper rifles as though they were on opposite sides of a prepared shooting range.
A typical military engagement on the ground does not work like that.

Quote

Brigadier James M. Gavin, in his book "On to Berlin," noted that the Germans against which he fought were comparatively lousy marksmen.

Do you suspect that it is just Germans that are lousy marksmen? ...or do you concede the possibility that the average infantry grunt is a lousy marksman?
This is one of the reasons why an army cannot field entire companies of marksmen with heavy calibers.
Modern ground engagements, and the tactics employed, include a substantial amount of suppressing fire, and the ability for a unit to be able to sustain the attack while operating as light as possible (in terms of ordnance gear) is important. Why else would so much body armor and small arms steel be replaced by kevlar and polymer composites nowadays?

There have been a tremendous number of respected veterans and marksmen over many years expressing opinions on various firearms and calibers, in many cases without concurring on many subjects.
I am sure I could look up names of prominent figures past and present to support my viewpoint aswell.
You should therefore forgive people like me for not accepting Brigadier James M. Gavin, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock or even yourself as having the last definitive word on matters pertaining to modern military ground combat.

It is worth noting that it was not just the U.S.A. that switched to 5.56x45 but also the Israelis (with the Galil), South Africa (the R4 and R5), the British (SA80) and quite probably several others. Could they all have been denied the gift of winsor wisdom when making that decision ?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

or do you concede the possibility that the average infantry grunt is a lousy marksman?

I would submit that is now why you have the "Designated Marksman", since the Army no longer trains for extended range shooting.

Excerpted from "Improving Army Marksmanship" (emphasis mine):

"The U.S. Army infantryman is supported by incredibly sophisticated all-weather weapons and arms notable for their precision, effectiveness, and lethality at extended ranges--yet he must close to within 300-200 meters to engage enemy soldiers with a rifle effective to 500-550 meters. This fight is in the "the infantryman's half-kilometer," the difference between the 200-300 meter range of the average infantryman's training and the 500-550 meter maximum point-effective range of an expert rifleman armed with an M 16/M4.

Today's accepted musketry standards are far lower than during WW1, when 600 meters and under were regarded as "close" range for a rifle."

Quote

This is one of the reasons why an army cannot field entire companies of marksmen with heavy calibers.

Odd - that's exactly what we did in WWI and II.

Another excerpt:
"Army marksmanship doctrine shifted to formally emphasize short-range volume fire over precision fire. Soldiers were taught to shoot at terrain and suspected enemy hiding places and firing positions--experience had proven it was easier to get amino resupplied than trained replacements. The Army transitioned from the 8-shot semiautomatic M1 to the 20-shot semiautomatic M14, then to the full-automatic-capable M 16.

Vietnam experience seemed to validate assumptions that most infantry engagements would be intense, short-range fights against indistinct targets. Theory suggested survival and success were linked to pure volume of fire. "Quickfire" point-shooting techniques without the use of sights appeared in the M16 marksmanship manuals, and were trained at Vietnam-specific training centers like Fort Polk using B-B rifles. Army marksmanship doctrine earned the nickname 'spray and pray.'"

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[winsor 236]

Quote

My debate with you is not the ballistic merits of the 5.56x45 over either the 7.62x39 or 7.62x51 for deer hunting or sniping. I too would prefer the larger calibers for that.

I do however have a problem with this statement:

Quote

The 5.56x45 round is inappropriate for antipersonnel use, any way you cut it.

From your arguments so far I get the impression that you believe that modern military ground combat consists of (or should consist of) lines of marksmen from either side engaging each other with benchrested sniper rifles as though they were on opposite sides of a prepared shooting range.
A typical military engagement on the ground does not work like that.

Quote

Brigadier James M. Gavin, in his book "On to Berlin," noted that the Germans against which he fought were comparatively lousy marksmen.

Do you suspect that it is just Germans that are lousy marksmen? ...or do you concede the possibility that the average infantry grunt is a lousy marksman?
This is one of the reasons why an army cannot field entire companies of marksmen with heavy calibers.
Modern ground engagements, and the tactics employed, include a substantial amount of suppressing fire, and the ability for a unit to be able to sustain the attack while operating as light as possible (in terms of ordnance gear) is important. Why else would so much body armor and small arms steel be replaced by kevlar and polymer composites nowadays?

There have been a tremendous number of respected veterans and marksmen over many years expressing opinions on various firearms and calibers, in many cases without concurring on many subjects.
I am sure I could look up names of prominent figures past and present to support my viewpoint aswell.
You should therefore forgive people like me for not accepting Brigadier James M. Gavin, Gunnery Sergeant Carlos Hathcock or even yourself as having the last definitive word on matters pertaining to modern military ground combat.

It is worth noting that it was not just the U.S.A. that switched to 5.56x45 but also the Israelis (with the Galil), South Africa (the R4 and R5), the British (SA80) and quite probably several others. Could they all have been denied the gift of winsor wisdom when making that decision ?

Yes.

As General Douglas MacArthur said, "Old soldiers never die. Young ones do."

A lot of getting youngsters to go into battle involves getting them pumped up - which often includes plying them with large doses of bullshit.

The average age of a bomber pilot in WWII was something on the order of 21 years. They found that older pilots were more skillful, but they tended to be aware of their mortality.

The vaunted "Flying Fortress" was good for another 100 knots if cleaned up and largely stripped of defensive armaments, which would allow it to outrun most fighters of the day. It would also be able to operate quite nicely with a crew of 4.

The problem with that approach was that there was no illusion left to the crew that it was anything but the luck of the draw as to whether they got shot down or not.

Slowing the planes down by having them bristling with .50 caliber machine guns gave the crew of 10 the impression (at least initially) that they were a force with which to be reckoned. Damn near everything against which they flew was armed with at least 20mm cannon, but no scenario is perfect.

Then you have the US Navy's approach to finding the Naval guns the Japanese were given to installing and camouflaging on a variety of islands we wished to attack. Since they found that 20 feet of coconut logs and crushed bamboo protected these installations from anything but a direct hit from a 14 incher or better, the brass decided that they needed to get the Japanese to tip their hand. They thus equipped a number of LCIs with a variety of noisemakers and sent them in close enough to annoy the shore defenses into popping off a shot or two, bringing them under fire from the guns of the battlewagons waiting for their cue. Of course, it only took one round from an 18.1 inch Naval gun to leave a hole in the water where there had previously been an annoying US Naval vessel, which the Japanese demonstrated repeatedly.

My father manned a Bofors 40mm (popgun) on the deck of an LCIG (gunship) and, when that one got sunk (by "friendly" fire), an LCIR (rocket ship) (that was decommissioned by a kamikaze boat). He was told that his mission was to clear defenses for the approaching Marines (go get 'em, Tiger!), but the armament was about as effective as harsh words; at least the Navy had the good taste to hold off on painting a bullseye on his boat.

The point to all this is that training troops in the tactic of putting an excessive amount of unaimed fire downrange is another example of the kind of feelgood bullshit at which we excel. That you imply that lousy marksmanship is a given embraces a level of mediocrity that I find unacceptable.

The military has "drivers" who cannot operate a stick shift, and "riflemen" whose skill with aimed fire is nothing short of abysmal. I have instructed enough of them, teaching them to do more with a single shot than most troops can do with a full magazine, that I have come to a few conclusions on the subject. One of my students, a Colonel, wrote in his course evaluation that he learned more from me in a weekend than he did during 20 years in the Corps.

The AR-15 has a number of saving graces (linear recoil, balanced cartridge lockup and a well situated selector lever among them), but its limitations (cartridge selection for "survival rifle" application, direct impingement gas system, etc.) make it a poor choice as an infantry arm.

The effectiveness of troops armed with the AR offering is despite its use, rather that because of it.


BSBD,

Winsor