Next Gen Weapons Program finally public awareness into its stupidity.

[KevinB]

The not-really Next Generation Weapons Program

The author disputes the reliability of the Army's newest rifle and light machine gun.

www.armytimes.com

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Somehow the FAL muddled through decades of use around the world while using a gas piston.

 

[KevinB]

Somehow the FAL muddled through decades of use around the world while using a gas piston.

It also did horribly in mud tests FWIW - the entire reason the idiot M-14 and SCAR had reciprocating charging handles was for that.

But the article didn’t totally hit on why the program is so totally asinine.

 

[daftandbarmy]

The not-really Next Generation Weapons Program

The author disputes the reliability of the Army's newest rifle and light machine gun.

www.armytimes.com

 

[ArmyRick]

It also did horribly in mud tests FWIW - the entire reason the idiot M-14 and SCAR had reciprocating charging handles was for that.

But the article didn’t totally hit on why the program is so totally asinine.

I am not the gun guru like you but my simple infantry observation tells me don't ever try to make an "all singing, all dancing" small arms.

Better to go with mixed calibers (and types such as carbine, pistol, rifle, machine guns) within the same section and platoon/troop (for you royal marines out there!)

I almost see this as being not much different than say a HK417 with 12 inch barrel

 

[Navy_Pete]

What is the actual issue they are trying to address with replacing the weapons anyway?

Extra range only matters if your marksmanship is good enough, and I would think the bigger cartridge with more recoil would make that harder overall anyway.

For someone like me that only picks up a weapon for annual refreshers and never gets time on the range outside that the C7 is a great 'grab and go' rifle, and even just having optics instead of iron sights was huge. With the complaints the CA types have about range time, I would think you'd get a lot more bang for your buck with just providing ammo and time for improving marksmanship, and then have some different options for specialists.

 

[KevinB]

I’ve ranted about this elsewhere.

Several years ago the US Army did a study on the M4A1, and its effective accuracy with M855 ammunition.

From a fixture (no shooter in the loop)
630m 90%+ hit probability on an 18” torso sized target.

Shooter, static range prone supported.
300m 50% hit probability
*multiple shooters, data taken from combat arms soldiers scores.

Shooter, combat operations.
100m and in, 50% hit probability.
*multiple shooters, data taken from AWG and ISR etc footage and documented.

Basically resulting in the US Army average combat arms soldier is a 50m shooter


Instead of addressing the software issue with soldier skills, the Army, Political and some Industry elements start pushing the issue of Overmatch with the idea that there needs to be the ability to Penetrate Chinese Armor (let’s ignore the issue with what causes the mass casualties in conventional wars…)

SECDEF (at the time) Mattis swallows this load of shit hook line and sinker.
The Army adopts a 7.62mm DMR (directed requirement no competition- awarded to HK based on their CSAS gun. - direct by Gen Milley, the then FORSCOM Commander.

SOCOM adopts 6.5CM as their sniper and potential LMG round due to ballistics over 7.62NATO.

6.5 wins JSAP caliber study.

Gen Milley shoots JSAP LSAT and has an ‘epiphany’. Next Gen is born.
Army decides that next round needs to be 6.8 (claims desired carriage can’t be done in 6.5)

So due to incorrect interpretation of GWOT engagements in Afghanistan, the decision is made to go to a 1200m cartridge for a 50m shooter…

Then the stupid got going worse.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Thanks @KevinB, informative as always.

50m shooters seems to still be pretty effective for the average soldier though, no? From what I've been following in Ukr that seems pretty consistent with a lot of their fighting with small arms, and the much bigger danger to the average foot soldier still seems to be from artillery, mortars etc, so using things like drones, internet cameras etc to help targeting seems to be a much bigger real impact, and by the time they get in close the positions have already been wrecked.

 

[Good2Golf]

SOCOM adopts 6.5CM as their sniper and potential LMG round due to ballistics over 7.62NATO.

Is .338 Lapua considered passé?

 

[captloadie]

Is the though process maybe that you aren't really looking at one shooter firing down range and how far out they can be accurate, but a platoon or company laying down lead that is effective far enough out to keep the enemies heads down? The videos I have seen from recent conflicts don't normally depict the average soldier taking careful aim at an enemy to bring them down, but firing in the general direction to pin them in place until a fire mission or CAS can be brought to bear.

 

[KevinB]

Is .338 Lapua considered passé?

Somewhat. We went to .338 Norma Mag for long range sniper and machine guns.

 

[KevinB]

Is the though process maybe that you aren't really looking at one shooter firing down range and how far out they can be accurate, but a platoon or company laying down lead that is effective far enough out to keep the enemies heads down? The videos I have seen from recent conflicts don't normally depict the average soldier taking careful aim at an enemy to bring them down, but firing in the general direction to pin them in place until a fire mission or CAS can be brought to bear.

There are major myths about suppressive fire.
Suppressive fire needs to be effective fire, or an experience enemy with be able to maneuver against it.

Most ‘suppressive’ fire is simply a waste of ammo and making a soldier feel like they are accomplishing something.

If you aren’t putting round either into the enemy or a few inches away from them, it’s not going to stop anyone who recognizes what it is or isn’t.

Artillery kills the most in major conflicts, Small Arms really don’t other than well sited belt feds…
Some of that is simply because most troops can’t shoot under combat stress

 

[daftandbarmy]

Thanks @KevinB, informative as always.

50m shooters seems to still be pretty effective for the average soldier though, no? From what I've been following in Ukr that seems pretty consistent with a lot of their fighting with small arms, and the much bigger danger to the average foot soldier still seems to be from artillery, mortars etc, so using things like drones, internet cameras etc to help targeting seems to be a much bigger real impact, and by the time they get in close the positions have already been wrecked.

Building good shooters takes training time and patience, and a good understanding of how the weapon system fits into the overall fight. The results can be battle winning.

If the 'software' issues mentioned by @KevinB aren't addressed, it won't matter what calibre you hand out to your 18 year old killers.

 

[KevinB]

Thanks @KevinB, informative as always.

50m shooters seems to still be pretty effective for the average soldier though, no? From what I've been following in Ukr that seems pretty consistent with a lot of their fighting with small arms, and the much bigger danger to the average foot soldier still seems to be from artillery, mortars etc, so using things like drones, internet cameras etc to help targeting seems to be a much bigger real impact, and by the time they get in close the positions have already been wrecked.

Yes - but the issue is at 50m even 100m, you need to be fast and accurate— as any slob with an Ak can kill you at that distance.

 

[OldSolduer]

Artillery kills the most in major conflicts, Small Arms really don’t other than well sited belt feds…
Some of that is simply because most troops can’t shoot under combat stress

Bingo - Arty and MGs do most of the killing. Well said.

 

[KevinB]

Bingo - Arty and MGs do most of the killing. Well said.

We forgot this in GWOT, at our peril.

I’m all about effective small arms training, as it literally can be a life saver — but thinking a 1200m individual weapon will be more effective than a 400-500m weapon is insane.

I would be very comfortable getting issued a M4/C8 with a decent LPVO and MFAL, as I know of I do my thing, the weapon and ammo work.

 

[OldSolduer]

We forgot this in GWOT, at our peril.

I’m all about effective small arms training, as it literally can be a life saver — but thinking a 1200m individual weapon will be more effective than a 400-500m weapon is insane.

I would be very comfortable getting issued a M4/C8 with a decent LPVO and MFAL, as I know of I do my thing, the weapon and ammo work.

I'd be quite OK with a C7 - no plastic mags though.

Effective SA training is not high on anyone's list.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yes - but the issue is at 50m even 100m, you need to be fast and accurate— as any slob with an Ak can kill you at that distance.

That makes sense, but seems like something you can only do with training and practice, regardless of weapon (and seems like it would also significantly improve a 50m shooter at longer ranges as well).

 

[CountDC]

50m soldiers. That seems a verily low number needing some serious training to correct. Funny to see them looking back at the 7.62. Maybe they should bring back the FNC1 too. Roll that cheek!

 

[daftandbarmy]

That makes sense, but seems like something you can only do with training and practice, regardless of weapon (and seems like it would also significantly improve a 50m shooter at longer ranges as well).

Not really.

With the right training and preparation, and progression, any unit can reliably expect recruits to regularly hit targets out to 300m on the range with 5.56mm within the required specifications (can't remember... sorry!). This does not take 'forever'.

During field firing, you can also reliably get them 'on target' out to 4-600m using the proper section level fire control orders, although the majority of shooting tends to take place within 200m.

And, IMHO, 6.8mm is a waste of time and money. There are more important things to buy for the Infantry... like flamethrowers!