Soldier have plenty of firepower. The problem is you are looking at the rifle in isolation, soldiers look at the overall fighting package which includes plenty of machine guns including those in 7.62. Study how armies fight and you will understand. Everyone does need to have a machine gun or a 7.62.
Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan
- Thread starter rdelliott
- Start date
Soldier have plenty of firepower. The problem is you are looking at the rifle in isolation, soldiers look at the overall fighting package which includes plenty of machine guns including those in 7.62. Study how armies fight and you will understand. Everyone does need to have a machine gun or a 7.62.
Not intending to attack you, but were we reading the same article?
As I understood it, the article examined the broad spectrum of unit engagements in Afghanistan and noted that effective range of the units deployed was not sufficient to the task in many cases, not simply the individuals within the unit. The article examines the details of current engagement doctrine, highlighting that it relies on suppression and support fire rather than individual marksmanship, and that at the longer ranges of engagement found in Afghanistan along with the restriction of support fire due to restrictive ROEs, and advises, based upon evidence provided, that doctrine should be revised towards a more direct fire marksmanship base on the unit level.
Frangible ammo is already in use by the CF. It is just now making itself available to us, the "unwashed masses."
DC13,
Roger that - however the 9mm and the "strict" 5.56mm Frang has a much larger template than the CQT 5.56mm
One concern that some may have is the CQT will go into the Blue Trg bolts -- thus possilbe to have a potentially lethal round in Force on Force trg, but there are many way to ensure that does not happen.
- Location
- currently downrange
We'll have to just use what we have for now. I'm sure the technology will filter down eventually to the "big" CF.
If you are using the article as the only input into this discussion, then your correct. I am basing my comments on my experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the feedback from our personnel on tours. It is easy as noted in a number of posts to single out one item in the complexity of combat and say...that is it, we need a new round, or more small arms training or a new scope. This is not taking into account the Canadian experience nor our training. This article represents only one perspective.
Our training is continuing to evolve, it is improving to meet the realities of combat. Our soldiers deploying overseas recieve significant small arms training, along with tremendous training working with all the various weapons available in the army team. If you look at one aspect of the fighting, without a holistic view, you might conclude that everyone should be equiped as a sniper since precision appears to be more important than firepower.
I think what you will find is a number of the posters here are fixated on caliber, or a weapon system, since that is both interesting and novel. But in reality, everything comes at a cost. We have limits in $, and time. So how as an army do we train and equip our people to maximum effect. Our training for operations stresses non standard shooting positions, close CQB engagements, and near instinctive shooting. We can argue all day long about what we should do, or what you would do, but the reality is that we fight as teams.
It would be nice if we had an unlimited budget for training, and equiping the army. But we don't. So we have to balance things to ensure we get best value and maximum effect. The cost of a new round (outside of 5.56mm) would be prohibitively expense and something would have to come off the table, like more helicopters, better vehicles for protection from IEDs, UAVs, etc.
Personally, I think we have come a long way and are certainly moving in the right direction. We have solid marksmanship training and the gunfighter style program has proven to be most successful in combat.
My fear is what will happen when we don't have a war post 2011 and we can't justify training in terms of saved blood. That is more important of a discussion.
Ummm NO
Junk junk and junk...
Its a super fast varmint round rolled up in molly...
hardly blended metal...more like carbon covered copper and lead...
Its bull#### and has been called so over and over again...
KPA
LeMas...lol
Blended metal...in the sense that it is normal metal, next to a plastic ball and coated with an exotic blend of advertising hyperbole.
Blended metal...in the sense that it is normal metal, next to a plastic ball and coated with an exotic blend of advertising hyperbole.
That paper was written as a college assignment. The aim was for the author to be able to demonstrate his ability to form an opinion on a topic of military relevance, and argue in favor of it in writing, including the proper use of reference material, etc... There is no right or wrong answer to papers like this, provided it was written correctly. The author is not assessed on his opinion, but rather on how he presented it and how he defended it. Its quite possible that the author left out some elements to make his paper easier to write. His aim was probably to get it out of the way as fast as possible, and get on with the next assignment.
The paper certainly does not reflect the official position of the US military, and for that matter may not even reflect the complete opinion of the author. It is a training vehicle, not a scientific or even official research document. So everything in it should be taken with a grain of salt.
The paper certainly does not reflect the official position of the US military, and for that matter may not even reflect the complete opinion of the author. It is a training vehicle, not a scientific or even official research document. So everything in it should be taken with a grain of salt.
- Location
- land of f-cktards
x2
the only thing i would like to see is more support for the shooting sports across the board.....but you can't have everything and I am a chronic whiner
the only thing i would like to see is more support for the shooting sports across the board.....but you can't have everything and I am a chronic whiner
- Location
- currently downrange
Hit the nail on the head. Very little new data in his references. He gets away with using S.W.A.T. magazine as a reference for an academic paper for Colonel College? Paper could have been a C- for all we know.
Keep in Mind the US and UK are NOT using LAVIII based manuever units.
If the CF was playing a more Light specific role, it would be very relevant.
The British issue is based on the effectiveness of 5.56mm weapons beyond 300m.
They have gone to a Pl organic 7.62mm DM system.
The USMC has gone SOST in 5.56mm across the board to increase the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round.
Both are good options, and make the entity more flexible and capable.
If the CF was playing a more Light specific role, it would be very relevant.
The British issue is based on the effectiveness of 5.56mm weapons beyond 300m.
They have gone to a Pl organic 7.62mm DM system.
The USMC has gone SOST in 5.56mm across the board to increase the effectiveness of the 5.56mm round.
Both are good options, and make the entity more flexible and capable.
Bang on. Unfortunately as this is a gun board, people gravitate to these types of discussions, be in 308 vs 5.56 or AR vs something else, it does not matter since this is usually just mental masturbation for gun lovers. In the end, some very switched on people are working these issues on the Canadian side of the house. We have seen leaps and bounds improvement in equipment, gear, weapons and training. I expect this to continue. At the end of the day, we are experience cuts now in non combat activities as the army wants to purchase kit/vehicles/armour/systems, for the next war before a peace dividend is required from the CF as a whole. I for one support this approach as I have done two roto zeros and showed up to the fight missing all sorts of essential kit. I like to think we are learning a bit here and getting prepared for the next one post Afghanistan....
Clearly I forgot to mention 45 vs 9mm in the mental masturbation comment!
One of my concerns is the next time the CF has to play is a LI-SOC specific theatre is the lessons the Brits and Americans are learning in blood may not have been adequately addressed.
I apreciate the budget concerns, and perhaps it would be better to wrap most of this up in SARPIII or whatever they are calling it now.
I apreciate the budget concerns, and perhaps it would be better to wrap most of this up in SARPIII or whatever they are calling it now.
To put this into perspective, the SS109 design, which both Canada and the USA adopted, was optimized for a 20" barrel.
The bullet was not designed to fragment. Despite the legalistic stance by the Yanks (whose lawyers - how I envy their generals - know who they are working for), bullets specifically designed to fragment would almost certainly be ruled to be in violation of the Conventions in a court of law. The SS109 was designed as a semi-armour piercing round, intended to defeat the at-the-time most-probable Warsaw Pact threat with helmet and possible body armour.
The formula for ballistic stability is, shall we say, 'impressive', with about a dozen variables in it. Key ones WRT this discussion include velocity, bullet diameter, rate of spin and the density of the medium through which a projectile is moving.
The SS109 bullet is essentially stable in air (ignoring nutation and such). Above a certain speed, however, when it transitions into a much higher-density medium (eg a body), it becomes unstable. It wobbles and tends to tumble. (Curiously, if it were flying butt-end first, it would be more stable at average velocities.)
The construction of the bullet, quite adequate to hold it together in flight, is very often not sufficient to withstand the stresses the tumbling puts it through, especially under the exceptionally high rate of spin a 5.56mm bullet demands. Given the relatively thin jacket possible in a small-diameter projectile, the bullet cannot hold together and usually fragments in what some describe as an explosive fashion. The wound channel is larger and fragments tend to go off in all directions, giving it both high lethality and high stopping power.
Once however the in-air velocity of the bullet drops below a given level, the bullet will remain stable even when transitioning into a water-based medium (body). While it will produce a very nasty wound, it generally will not tumble or fragment and hence is usually possessed of a much lower stopping power, even if the wound is eventually lethal.
Under normal conditions, including those applying in Afghanistan and Iraq, that velocity from a 20" barrel obtains out to about 200-250 metres. Put the same cartridge through a much shorter barrel (eg C8 or M4) and that key distance drops dramatically, sometimes to as little as 75-100 metres.
(I acknowledge the weasel-words involved - 'usually', 'most often', etc. Bullets do the damnest things and it's not always predictable. It's a good way to put your money, however.)
The SS109 bullet is not a bad compromise when used in the barrels for which it was designed. When paired up however with the current desire for short, more handy barrels, accuracy is inherently no worse, but the stopping power down-range drops off rather dramatically.
To clarify the rate of spin question, projectile diameter is key in ballistic stability. The higher the diameter, the lower the RPM needed to provide gyroscopic stability, ie that stability provided by spin. (Think about how easy it is to spin a short, wide child's top. Now think about trying to spin a pencil on its point... Assuming the pencil holds together under the spin, it's possible but the RPM required is considerable.)
The L15 155mm projectile, the C21 7.62mm ball bullet and the SS109 all have about the same shape and move at much the same velocity. (Yes, there are differences, but wait to see where I'm going with this.) The point is that, almost entirely due to their diameter, the L15 needs to be spun at about 16,500 RPM to be ballistically stable, the C21 at about 165,000 and the SS109 bullet in the 300,000 range. Once the projectile gets out of true WRT its line of flight, that very high spin rate makes it very hard to hold everything together.
Bottom line - hitting is good. Hitting is essential. Hitting is that without which everything else becomes pointless. But the smaller the bullet, the more you need velocity to maintain stopping power. Trading off a few inches of barrel length, convenient in so many ways though it is, lowers your velocity considerably.
I leave it to those actually on the ground to decide the question of fewer big bullets vs more small bullets. As I see it, there's no perfect solution.
The bullet was not designed to fragment. Despite the legalistic stance by the Yanks (whose lawyers - how I envy their generals - know who they are working for), bullets specifically designed to fragment would almost certainly be ruled to be in violation of the Conventions in a court of law. The SS109 was designed as a semi-armour piercing round, intended to defeat the at-the-time most-probable Warsaw Pact threat with helmet and possible body armour.
The formula for ballistic stability is, shall we say, 'impressive', with about a dozen variables in it. Key ones WRT this discussion include velocity, bullet diameter, rate of spin and the density of the medium through which a projectile is moving.
The SS109 bullet is essentially stable in air (ignoring nutation and such). Above a certain speed, however, when it transitions into a much higher-density medium (eg a body), it becomes unstable. It wobbles and tends to tumble. (Curiously, if it were flying butt-end first, it would be more stable at average velocities.)
The construction of the bullet, quite adequate to hold it together in flight, is very often not sufficient to withstand the stresses the tumbling puts it through, especially under the exceptionally high rate of spin a 5.56mm bullet demands. Given the relatively thin jacket possible in a small-diameter projectile, the bullet cannot hold together and usually fragments in what some describe as an explosive fashion. The wound channel is larger and fragments tend to go off in all directions, giving it both high lethality and high stopping power.
Once however the in-air velocity of the bullet drops below a given level, the bullet will remain stable even when transitioning into a water-based medium (body). While it will produce a very nasty wound, it generally will not tumble or fragment and hence is usually possessed of a much lower stopping power, even if the wound is eventually lethal.
Under normal conditions, including those applying in Afghanistan and Iraq, that velocity from a 20" barrel obtains out to about 200-250 metres. Put the same cartridge through a much shorter barrel (eg C8 or M4) and that key distance drops dramatically, sometimes to as little as 75-100 metres.
(I acknowledge the weasel-words involved - 'usually', 'most often', etc. Bullets do the damnest things and it's not always predictable. It's a good way to put your money, however.)
The SS109 bullet is not a bad compromise when used in the barrels for which it was designed. When paired up however with the current desire for short, more handy barrels, accuracy is inherently no worse, but the stopping power down-range drops off rather dramatically.
To clarify the rate of spin question, projectile diameter is key in ballistic stability. The higher the diameter, the lower the RPM needed to provide gyroscopic stability, ie that stability provided by spin. (Think about how easy it is to spin a short, wide child's top. Now think about trying to spin a pencil on its point... Assuming the pencil holds together under the spin, it's possible but the RPM required is considerable.)
The L15 155mm projectile, the C21 7.62mm ball bullet and the SS109 all have about the same shape and move at much the same velocity. (Yes, there are differences, but wait to see where I'm going with this.) The point is that, almost entirely due to their diameter, the L15 needs to be spun at about 16,500 RPM to be ballistically stable, the C21 at about 165,000 and the SS109 bullet in the 300,000 range. Once the projectile gets out of true WRT its line of flight, that very high spin rate makes it very hard to hold everything together.
Bottom line - hitting is good. Hitting is essential. Hitting is that without which everything else becomes pointless. But the smaller the bullet, the more you need velocity to maintain stopping power. Trading off a few inches of barrel length, convenient in so many ways though it is, lowers your velocity considerably.
I leave it to those actually on the ground to decide the question of fewer big bullets vs more small bullets. As I see it, there's no perfect solution.
- Location
- currently downrange
speaking of weasel terms what is a "semi armour piercing round" designed to do exactly?
