The Army needs more capability at range

[Savage Jav]

How Well Do the Army's New Guns Perform? That's Classified, But Soldiers Will Carry More Weight, Less Ammo

When soldiers get the new guns, they will carry less ammunition, given the 6.8mm is much heavier than the 5.56mm rounds the M4 and SAW use.

www.yahoo.com

"The M4, the Army's current standard-issue rifle used in the post-9/11 wars, can effectively engage targets at 500 meters. The SAW can suppress targets at around 800 meters.
For comparison, the standard-issue rifle for the Chinese military is the QBZ-95, which has a maximum effective range of 400 meters for a target.
Those distances are critical for troops to be able to confront an enemy force accurately, and anything less could alter U.S. soldiers' effectiveness and even require changes to tactics."

Even though most engagements happen inside 150M with most inside 75M. Were going back to "sounds good on paper" instead of focusing on the reality. More rounds and less weight is the name of the game for anyone who has had to hump it.

Read More

 

[User 1234]

I can say from personal experience that teaching average American recruits to fire competently with 5.56 is not easy, and for some even a basic passing score is a challenge. Increasing the cartridge's power will make it even more difficult for a large percentage of recruits.

 

[Knobgoblin]

I thought power assisted exo-skeleton load bearing/armor hybrid gear was supposed to be on deck 15 years ago?

Or at least simple robot ammo bearers.

No Jetsons army yet?

 

[nwslopoke]

I was in an Air Force mobility unit active duty and guard for about 8 years. We shot a lot for being in the AF but never got beyond the mentality of, if you're hitting paper you pass. A few people were very good but that was on them. Even in basic training, we got a whatever, attitude towards marksmanship. I don't think we ever shot beyond 100yds if even that. My last time qualifying maybe around 2000 was in a computer-generated range at March AFB. Laser tag.

The first time I was handed an M4 (burst) was 1993/94 in South America. There was a homemade range, maybe 50 yrds, and we were told we could shoot as much as we wanted. I never took them up on it. 90% Air Force vs Army personnel. I shot but never learned to really shoot in the AF.

 

[CamoDeafie]

Go back to the 20" M16 and shoot the 77gr OTM ammo?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

"Generals are always prepared to fight the last war."


Will we need that range if we ignore Vizzini and (once again!) get involved in a land war in Asia?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

The ability to shoot accurately is very important in combat.
However...
That ability suffers when one is :

Tried...
Being shot at...
In poor lighting conditions...
Wearing MOPP gear...
Engaging the enemy at different distances...
In bad weather...

Also worth considering is :

The enemy is doing his best to kill or stop you before you do the same to him...
Cover and concealment are also used by the enemy...a good clear shot is often not in the cards....
Contact with the enemy is best done when you want it to , on terrain and conditions of your choosing...
This doesn't happen as often as you would like....

Training should reflect the above.
Andy

 

[2506]

"Generals are always prepared to fight the last war."


Will we need that range if we ignore Vizzini and (once again!) get involved in a land war in Asia?

Inconceivable!

 

[pharmseller]

Inconceivable!

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

 

[RicInOR]

Robert McNamara, a Genius, who you may have heard of - ran the VietNam war for Kennedy and Johnson
Was tasked with among other things, investigating how the troops performed in WW2

The Marines trained the recruits to shoot out to 800 yards
The Army 600
Conscripts, remember the draft, would typically refuse to fire at over 100 yards. Many, many cases, when 'ordered' to by the Sergeants, that they would fire over the heads of the enemy on purpose.
Taking a life is not easy; Doing so when you are not 100% certain they are a bad guy is harder.

That gave rise to the Air Force adopting the 22 cartridge. Supposedly after a picnic shoot with General Lemay c1960.
And then the Army and Corps following.

Now the OP is arguing that we need maybe 22lr to keep the heads down? A 22lr is lethal at 1 mile. I saw it in a YouTube video so you know it is true. When for 60 years - VietNam thru the never ending war - we have heard we need a 1/3 in caliber round to kill, kill, kill.




Reality time



More likely, as argued by different ww2 war fighters like Col Jeff Cooper, we need exploding bullets. RPG-like, not the Russian type parabolic copper jet. More like a hand-grenade that goes off after some number of spins, so it can explode in the air.

Didn't someone develop a 3/4 in or maybe 1in exploding round that you laser a distance and fire - thus hitting someone hiding behind a tank or Jersey barrier. ( 12ga, 20mm 25mm ) I think I saw this on TV.

We, the USA, are far more likely to blow you up.

There was a line, maybe from a novel, but it's good, that goes ... To know who are you engaging, if you shoot at them and then 5-7 minutes later a plane is dropping bombs on you, then you are engaging the Americans.
I draw your attention to the movie Jarhead.


Also, robots.

you want to question my memory on these things ... startpage.com is a reasonable search engine.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Now the OP is arguing that we need maybe 22lr to keep the heads down?

Were in this thread did you see that the OP or anyone else suggested that?

 

[RicInOR]

5.56 == .22 right. If that is no longer in vogue, what's smaller, less weight and soldiers can carry more rounds --> 22lr.
A bit of an ad absurd argument, clearly.


The article did suggest that the new round 277 FURY is too heavy.

"will require soldiers to carry an even heavier load."
"Will Carry More Weight, Less Ammo"

 

[User 1234]

22 caliber does not mean "22lr"

 

[Savage Jav]

I can say from personal experience that teaching average American recruits to fire competently with 5.56 is not easy, and for some even a basic passing score is a challenge. Increasing the cartridge's power will make it even more difficult for a large percentage of recruits.

This is exacly my point. Its more difficult to shoot for first timers and experts. You cant change physics.

 

[Aero Denezol]

We shot a lot for being in the AF but never got beyond the mentality of, if you're hitting paper you pass. A few people were very good but that was on them. Even in basic training, we got a whatever, attitude towards marksmanship. I don't think we ever shot beyond 100yds if even that.

I've gone shooting with a lot of veterans and there is an enormous range in skill level. Some are very good, some cannot hit the broad side of a barn or even zero a scope, and many admitted to me they rarely if ever practiced marksmanship while in the military. They joined the military to "help others" and they know the M9 and the M16 (barely) and that's pretty much it. Those that were proficient shooters practiced often on their free time and IMO probably practiced shooting even before joining the military.

The ability to shoot accurately is very important in combat.
However...
That ability suffers when one is :

Tried...
Being shot at...
In poor lighting conditions...
Wearing MOPP gear...
Engaging the enemy at different distances...
In bad weather...

All good points. As in photography, lighting is very important in shooting. Shooting in poor lighting and bad weather is something many of us are used to here in the PNW.

 

[RedRover]

Use the right tool for the job.

When patrolling in a low valley/ravine, or defending/fighting from hilltop to hilltop; having an effective range of 500-600m isn't ideal when the enemy might be concealed at a further distance; employing a caliber possessing a longer effective range. -- IE. The enemy sitting 1000m above on a rocky crag shooting .303 British left over from a bygone era.

Fighting street-to-street/house-to-house involving breaching/clearing (AKA CQB) - where the enemy may be more visible; effective range may not be as important. Although, effective body-armor penetration might also be a consideration.

This may be where having modular weapon systems, and being well-trained on their functionality is practical.

 

[ma96782]

From the link in the OP.

The new guns and ammunition the Army just married and is expected to issue to combat arms units within the next decade will require soldiers to carry an even heavier load.

But information on how those weapons should outperform the guns they're replacing -- the justification for troops to shoulder extra weight on top of mountains of gear already injuring soldiers -- is classified.

Yeah, even that.......assumes......that they can "hit" their target.

BUT, But, but.......optics.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ma96782]

RE : Theory of the Fight

I remember asking myself.......

Say that the effective range for your rifle is say 300m to 500m max.
Anything farther out than that......
Call in for support: motors, artillery, etc....

You are operating within the range of your support, Rrrrrright......

Oh but wait.....
We're taking fire from the village or mosque (or another excuse) over there.

OMG!!!! Enter, the ROE, Politics and Politicians (including the Higher Ups).

Aloha, Mark

 

[Provincial]

"There was a line, maybe from a novel, but it's good, that goes ... To know who are you engaging, if you shoot at them and then 5-7 minutes later a plane is dropping bombs on you, then you are engaging the Americans."

The older version of this, from WWII, goes,

If you encounter someone, and receive intense machine gun fire, it is Germans.

If you encounter someone, and receive rapid and accurate small arms fire, it is British.

If you encounter someone, and receive scattered rifle fire, followed by a five minute pause, then are subject to in intense artillery barrage, it is Americans.

 

[ma96782]

Inconceivable!

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

Perhaps a little illustration might be in order here?


LOL.


Aloha, Mark