Small Arms and Ammunition

I would like to point out one thing about the 5.56mm: the round was designed in a period where the shoot to wound philosophy was in the minds of army strategists? Why?

A dead soldier is a dead soldier to the enemy. A wounded soldier, however, is a totally different matter. A wounded soldier needs a lot of logistics in order to bring him back to safety, and by the time he's back to health and capable of fighting again, the war should be almost over.

Furthermore a wounded soldier takes more than just one enemy out of the fight, unlike a dead soldier. A wounded soldier needs to be pulled out of the battle. That needs at least two other soldiers to do so. Then he needs someone to stabilize him and perform first aid. Then, you need to transport him out of the zone, and that takes 2 people. Then a team of doctors and nurses are required to bring him back to health. Just by wounding one guy, you suddenly removed at least 10 people out of the fight in one stroke in a conventional war. Not to mention the effects on morale as other soldiers and men see the wounded go to the rear to be treated...

Pointblank said:

I would like to point out one thing about the 5.56mm: the round was designed in a period where the shoot to wound philosophy was in the minds of army strategists? Why?

A dead soldier is a dead soldier to the enemy. A wounded soldier, however, is a totally different matter. A wounded soldier needs a lot of logistics in order to bring him back to safety, and by the time he's back to health and capable of fighting again, the war should be almost over.

Furthermore a wounded soldier takes more than just one enemy out of the fight, unlike a dead soldier. A wounded soldier needs to be pulled out of the battle. That needs at least two other soldiers to do so. Then he needs someone to stabilize him and perform first aid. Then, you need to transport him out of the zone, and that takes 2 people. Then a team of doctors and nurses are required to bring him back to health. Just by wounding one guy, you suddenly removed at least 10 people out of the fight in one stroke in a conventional war. Not to mention the effects on morale as other soldiers and men see the wounded go to the rear to be treated...

Click to expand...

Yes, and that may or may not work against armies that will do that. But it didn't work in Vietnam because the enemy didn't tend to their wounded anyway until after the battle, and even in many Western Armies. I remember when I was in the RCR, we were told that if you were shot, you just had to look to first aid yourself if you were able to, and that you would be evacuated after the battle had been won. Still very harmful to morale, but when armies can't tend to their wounded until after the fighting, the usefulness of bullets that wound rather than kill suffer.

Back then when the .223 was introduced, I think fighting distances were shorter than they are today.
At what distances do firefights today take place? I once read an article of NATO soldiers complaining not to be able to return accurate fire at distances they were engaged at with AKs in A-stan.
Then again with COIN and MOUT in these days, I would exspect fire distances to be rather short.
The 6,8mm SPC seems to be a good idea. And a 7,62x51 MG-3 like weapon on vehicles should be a good idea anyway.

The British Army did a study in the 1970's and found that most firefights occurred at ranges within and up to 300 m - around 90% - (M-16 can't drop targets reliably past 200 m - and same probably goes for all small-calibre small arms) and almost all the rest occurred within 400 m. Only a few percent occurred over 400 m (2 or 3 %). The M-16 was fielded about a decade before this study, which is generally accepted as definitive around the world.

The M-16 and small-calibre rounds were not chosen on the basis of firing ranges, but on the need for controllable full automatic fire and to wound, rather than kill, enemy troops (as for the latter, so went the theory, which was proven impractical during the Vietnam War). AK-47 by contrast, is only accurate to 300 m (sort of ) while M-16 A1 is likewise and M-16 A2 and subsequent versions are accurate to ~500 m or so, but AK-47 can still drop a man at 400 m, while neither M-16 can reliably do so past 200m or so.

Scratch said:

Back then when the .223 was introduced, I think fighting distances were shorter than they are today.
At what distances do firefights today take place? I once read an article of NATO soldiers complaining not to be able to return accurate fire at distances they were engaged at with AKs in A-stan.
Then again with COIN and MOUT in these days, I would exspect fire distances to be rather short.
The 6,8mm SPC seems to be a good idea. And a 7,62x51 MG-3 like weapon on vehicles should be a good idea anyway.

Click to expand...

The way I see is that the current 6.8mm SPC implementation is a major no go. Why? The current rifle that fires it, the Barrett M468 is basically a rechambered and rebarreled AR-15/M-16 rifle. It still uses the direct impingement, which means that the weapon craps where it eats, and it will jam due to fouling...

Not to mention, the logistical nightmare of converting all of NATO to 6.8mm SPC would be a utter nightmare, for a round that may only have a marginal advantage over the standard 5.56mm. Personally, I would just update the M16/M4's with new upper receivers from HK, which would improve weapon reliability. And I would rather have a more reliable weapon than one that might be able to drop a enemy more quickly...

Battle distance depends on the terrain. In Afghanistan, the terrain is hilly and in those places you are usually better off with the 0.30 cal. But in Iraq now, you are facing usually just close in pot hole insurgents and mud buildings. the 5.56 (especially the M193?) would be fine here.

Instead of changing the round, what if we change the bullet? The current bullets are designed to fragment. I am no ex-grunt but how does fragmentation put someone down? You are cutting people(probably numbing them since you are cutting their nerves) rather than bruising them. Which is more effective?
Worse of all, you need a very long barrel to have any effects with the current round, even with a bullet length of 45mm!

The Machine Gun:

Machine Guns are a fascinating piece of kit. Light and Medium Machine Guns (or GPMGs, if you will) can be fired by a single man as a sort of overweight, oversized, glorified assault rifle (the "Light Role"), or mounted on a tripod (as Heavy Machine Guns always are, unless mounted on a vehicle) as a piece of light artillery able to strike targets over a mile away (or even more) and even to a limited extent in dead ground (behind hills, down in gullies,etc.). Basically, machine guns tend to fire not like a rifle does, but more like a water hose with a spray-nozzle attached. Think of watering a lawn with a garden hose, and with the spray-nozzle adjusted to a fairly tight stream.

That's how a machine gun works. For a certain distance, the rounds travel at a relatively flat trajectory trajectory, but eventually they run out of steam and curve down to strike the ground - so far, this is the same for any firearm - but where the machine-gun differs is in what follows. Just like a spray-nozzle set to a fairly tight stream, as the rounds strike the ground ("First Graze"), they don't follow in a straight line, one round after the other, even if the aim of the machine gun is completely fixed and unswerving. Instead, the rounds strike the ground in a stretched elliptical pattern, basically in the same shape as a submarine sandwich or hoagie ("The Beaten Zone"). The lay of the ground will affect the actual shape of this pattern, as a hill will cause it to shorten on the near side, and to lengthen on the far side. Conversely, a hollow will cause it to lengthen on the near side, and shorten on the far side. And of course, the range at which the rounds strike the ground will also affect their dispersion pattern.

The reason for this is that machine guns are deliberately designed to vibrate (unlike rifles, which are not), thus causing the rounds to disperse somewhat in a cone-shaped pattern as they travel further and further from the gun. And so, if a machine gunner aims at a target, he is not really trying to land his rounds on a given point on that target, he is really trying to get that target inside a "cone" (except for close targets) and then land a burst of rounds all over the target inside that "cone" (the "Danger Area"). The rounds that hit the target (not the ground) inside this cone have achieved "First Strike".

Most light and medium machine guns can fire out to 600-800m like this, and the trajectory remains flat for the first 500-600m ("Grazing Fire"); for heavy machine guns, grazing fire can be 1000m or more. Now, like the water from a spray-nozzle, if the machine gun barrel is elevated, the rounds will travel farther, and will disperse even farther apart from each other. To a certain point, this is good, but beyond a certain point this is bad, and too much dispersion of the rounds, like too much dispersion of the water from a spray-nozzle, won't achieve sufficient saturation of the target area ("Danger Zone") to be effective. The vibration of the machine gun which causes this dispersion must be controlled, and this is where tripods come in.

When a machine gun is mounted on a tripod, the tripod is designed to allow the machine gun to vibrate, but only up to a certain point, and beyond that, the tripod has the effect of stabilizing the vibration of the gun. Additionally, of course, the tripod also allows the machine gun to be elevated while remaining stabilized, thus more than doubling its effective range while keeping the cone of fire sufficiently tight out to long ranges to ensure sufficient saturation of the danger zone to kill any targets inside.

Light Machine guns of less than 6.5mm calibre are rarely mounted on tripods (but there are a few exceptions) as their small, light rounds run out of effective killing power much beyond a half-mile or so, so mounting them on tripods is to extend their range is usually pointless. Medium machine guns of 6.5mm to 8mm calibre (often called General Purpose Machine Guns, though the terms are not entirely identical) and heavy machine guns of 12.5mm to 15.5mm calibre are very usefully mounted on tripods, when medium guns are not being carried by infantry and heavy guns are not mounted on vehicles. MMGs can extend the range from 800m when on a bipod to 1,800 m when on a tripod, while HMGs range can be extended from 1,000m or so on an unstabilized vehicle mount to 2,200 m on a tripod (bigger guns like 14.5mm and 15.5mm may reach out to 3,000 m).

This has just covered in rudimentary fashion the basics of the "Theory of Machine Gun Fire". More machine-gunning next time.

As the previous post described, machine guns operate quite differently from rifles, in having rather more of a spray-nozzle path (and almost parabolic at longer ranges) and landing pattern taken by its rounds than the straighter, much more undeviating from a straight, one-follows-the other (as opposed to more up-and-down and side-to-side trajectory of machine gun rounds) path of rounds fired from a rifle.

But machine guns face the problem of overheating. The early machine usually had water-jackets around the barrels that more or less solved this problem and were capable of true sustained fire without interruption. But these guns were very heavy, and very difficult to move about. Much lighter machine guns with changeable barrels go some way to solving this problem, but result in machine guns that are no longer capable of uninterrupted, sustained fire. These guns are gas-operated, and cannot be fitted with water-jackets to keep the barrel cooled sufficiently to allow uninterrupted sustained fire, and so machine guns must be fired in bursts, and with frequent barrel changes (every 200-250 rounds) if possible. Machine gunnners must carry at least one (and preferably two or three) spare barrels. Only recoil-operated machine guns can be fitted with water-jackets, making already heavy (compared to gas-operated guns) machine guns even heavier.

But even gas-operated machine guns are still, objectively speaking, heavy. Perhaps the most widely used Light Machine Gun (used only in the Light Role, and fired from a bipod) is the FN Minimi 5.56mmx45mm. Although it fires the same round as an Assault Rifle weighing less than 10 pounds, the Minimi weights twice that because of the need for belt feed mechanisms and a much heavier (and changeable) barrel to afford more sustained fire than a rifle. Each 250-round ammo belt in a box magazine weighs a few pounds, and each gunner carries a minimum of 3 such box magazines (with a 250-round belt inside) of ammo, plus at least one spare barrel and a cleaning kit. Other members of the squad or section each carry one box magazine for the LMG in addition to their own weapons and ammo and the like. It all adds up.

It's even worse for GPMG/Medium Machine Gunner crews. The gun itself weights 24-26 pounds, and each 220-to 250-round belt of ammo weighs 12 or more pounds. Some 2 man MMG crews are only issued with 4 boxes (1 belt each of ammo), but full-sized 3-man crews (not including a Gun Commander) may be issued 8 boxes of ammo - about 100 pounds of ammo for just three men. And this is just to start with, because 8 boxes of ammo isn't going to last more more than a few hours of heavy fighting. Bear in mind that MMG crews also have an SF (Sustained Fire) Kit with tripod (about 28 pounds), aiming stakes, a tool and cleaning kit, at least one spare barrel and spare parts, and either a Traverse and Elevation Mechanism (T&E mech) or a Mortar Sight and Tritium Lamps. A lot of weight, although, like the ammo, stwoing it until need in a vehicle or leaving it at CQ may be an option (and a risky one for already explained reasons).

Now, armoured/mechanized/motorized infantry may be able to stow some of this in an APC or IFV or the Company QuarterMaster and send a man or to to go get more when necessary (if the vehicle or CQ isn't destroyed or can't be reached because of heavy enemy fire), but foot-infantry may not be so lucky to even contmeplate such an option, which means that some of the other members of a rifle platoon will also have to carry a box of MMG ammo in addition to the box of LMG ammo they are carrying for the squad's/section's LMGs (and in addition to the Anti-Tank Rockets, grenades, mines, pyrotechnics, and other assorted tactical necessities, never mind all their own kit).

Heavy Machine Guns, at least, are usually either vehicle-mounted (but still require a lot of ammo to be loaded on-board), or if mounted on a tripod, are usually kept close enough to a vehicle to be kept re-supplied more easily and to be re-mounted on the vehicle quickly if necessary. Very important, considering that HMGs are at least 130 pounds (when mounted on a tripod and with a Traverse and Elevation Mechanism - some are around 200), and each 100-round belt (in a box) of .50-cal ammo (never mind 14.5 or 15.5mm) weighs about 50 pounds. Ouch.

Machine Guns are the main weapon of the infantry,and without them, the infantry cannot perform its batlefield roles. But they, and their sundries, are very heavy, and place a great burden on the infantry who are already heavily burdened by the weights they must carry while doing their job. Many attempts have been made to reduce this burden, such as introudcing Light Machine Guns (like the FN Minimi) that fire small-calibre rounds to replace MMGs/GPMGs that weight a great deal more at the squad/section level.

But such LMGs cannot replace MMGs at platoon or higher levels because of the limited range and striking power of small-calibre rounds, and so MMGs must be retained, despite their greater weight and manpower requirements. HMGs similarly are retained, as MMGs lack the ability to reliably penetrate many APCs/IFVs except at point-blank ranges, if that. But HMGs must be either vehicle-mounted, or kept nearby a vehicle in order to keep them supplied with ammo, etc., and to move them more than short distances. Autocanons in the 20-40mm range have partially replaced HMGs in the anti-IFV/APC role, especially in armoured/mechanized infantry units. As IFVs' frontal protection is increased to deal with autocannons, the latter's effectiveness is progressively marginalized, especially as IFVs with the weight of medium tanks become increasingly common. HMGs may be able to penetrate the side and rear armour of such IFVs at close range, but only within a few hundred metres, if that.

At the moment, the US Army is seeking to replace both the M-2 HB .50 inch HMG and the M-19 Mod 3 40mm Grenade MG with a new, lighter Heavy Machine Gun with interchangeable barrels for .50 inch rounds and 25mm grenades. At only around 50 pounds or so with tripod, such weapons offer intriguing possibilities. But to do so, the HMG version offers only half the range and half the rate of fire of the old M-2 HMG, and given that the weight of the ammo remains the same (~50 pounds per 100-round belt), this offers no real improvement over the older HMG nor even a real useful advantage over the MMG. Weight is a perpetual problem for the infantry in general, and the machine gun, even as it is the main weapon of the infantry, provides a good portion of that burden.

Not being an infantryman, just a short interjection.
The german army is currently changing from one 7,62mm MG per squad to two new MG4 5,56mm MGs in the new 10man squad. This procedure is said to improve firepower of the standart infantry sqaud. What that can do is to improve the number of rounds that can be sprayed at the enemy. But I sometimes ask myself if the loss of punch is worth it. Fighting on shorter distances and against not armored combatants, like in MOUT / COIN ops, that seems pretty resonable to me. Of course on the other hand that is somewhat discounting the possibility of a more traditional military conflict.
Then again, the .223 cal even has difficulties hurting targets behind simple logs at rather short distances.
Our good old MG3 had a quiet nice punch. I'd like it to be kept on vehicles, even light ones or simple trucks at least. What I simply don't understant is to put a MG4 as the coax gun ander the Puma's cannon. On an anyway heavy IFV, there should be no problem mounting a MMG.
And the new 40mm grenade launcher seems to be prefered over common HMGs today (Boxer, Fennek).

I have to admit that I get a little nervous when a weapon of the eminence of the MG 3 (I mean, it's the direct NATO-ized descendent of the MG 42 itself) is replaced outright by a small-calibre LMG, even if it is on a 2-to-one basis. Especially when none are being retained at platoon/company/battalion level for use in the SF role. When the Heer is even replacing the MG-3 as the co-ax on its new IFVs, someone somewhere isn't thinking straight. Fine, replacing the MG-3 at squad level is practical, but 4 guns should be retained at company level in the SF role. I'm taking it that the MG-3s are to be eliminated completely, am I correct about this Scratch?

Replacing HMGs with GMGs at battalion level is practical (and perhaps even for some vehicles), maybe even an improvement in many ways. But if the 40mm GMG is also expected to replace the MG-3 for fire support of the Companies and their Platoons, its ammo is far too heavy for infantry to carry around far from a vehicle, and vehicles get taken out pretty easily on a battlefield (if they're not MBT). MMGs like MG-3 let you have an SF weapon that can be carried, ammo, tripod, and all, without necessarily needing to keep a vehicle relatively nearby (or trying to get to and from it while under fire to keep the ammo coming). GMGs of 40mm calibre are battalion-level weapons; it's one thing to attach a few to a company for operations, it's quite another to expect heavy GMGs to replace MMGs outright.

Hmmm...I was aware that something like this was in the works, but I am somewhat surprised and quite dismayed that the MG-3 is on the way out it seems.