US Army Set to Kill Improved Carbine Competition

870P said:
Maybe if you compare a modern configuration AR with an optic and good ammo, to a old school everything AKM, but the AK platform and ammo has been updated as well.
Click to expand...

Another good point.. There's a difference between what you'll issue to kindergarteners and what you'll issue to Spetsnaz (*)

(*) And yes, I'm aware they switched to a poodle caliber as well and that the Chinese didn't go much bigger
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
Oooops, my bad... Time index 1:20, don't look like M249 to me (background) In any case just because the M249 was used for full auto suppressive fire, doesn't mean that an M4 would have been useless in that particular instance. Just the existence of M249's means that full auto is here to stay

Edit: If the president of Armalite considers full auto a necessary feature in the modern battlefields, I'd sincerely doubt he's talking out of his rectum

I agree that full auto is less useful in the terrain and conditions that they have in Afghanistan, but even then, it has its uses. In an urban setting, where a good chunk of small arms combat will be happening and even in dense foliage, you can't deny the usefulness of full auto, especially if your projectiles can reliably penetrate light cover like car doors and foliage.
http://kitup.military.com/2011/01/video-lack-of-full-auto-on-m4s-cost-lives.html
Click to expand...
I think you've got the entire wrong impression in regards to the idea of full auto and it's usage.

1) One guy standing on a berm, firing a Mk18 in full auto with an ACOG does not represent current doctrine or even good training. The man is 5 feet from an M240, firing full auto, on a target he likely can't see.

2) Fully automatic fire has a purpose, which is fairly limited on an individual rifle/carbine. That's what squad automatic weapons are for. And I'm not arguing the utility of a fully automatic belt-fed weapon system.

3) Just.. just no.
 
Let me clarify my point.. I can believe that many troopers don't need to fire full auto in most of their engagements. However, you can't underestimate the utility of having the option. What if the guy with the fully automatic belt-fed weapon system springs a couple of leaks, one of which is 7.62mm in size and suppressive fire in larger volume is still needed.... uhmmm... NOW ? Why don't all the armies in the world just go back to semi-auto only all the time? There must be utility value to the feature or they would have plugged the potential for wasted ammo, especially when they're operating in areas with limited logistical support or if the leadership is required to pinch those tax pennies.
 
870P said:
Maybe if you compare a modern configuration AR with an optic and good ammo, to a old school everything AKM, but the AK platform and ammo has been updated as well.
Click to expand...

Um yeah, the AK platform has been upgraded to shoot a caliber that duplicates the 556 and fitted with sight rails and do-dads borrowed from the AR platform. As far as the previous remark about distance and body armor goes, the SS109 was designed specifically to be lethal on armored EC's. The M193 was designed for un-armored EC's and the latest rounds (OTM etc.) were designed to improve performance from short barreled weapons. Many troops are now issued short barreled weapons without the ammunition - this isn't a failure of the weapons system, it's a failure of the command/supply chain. Use the right ammo for the gun and situation, and bad guy becomes dead guy with fairly boring regularity. Oh yes, and if you truly believe foliage will deflect a 556 round - I just don't know what to say. I can tell you for a dead certain fact that 556 fire will penetrate auto glass and body metal and make an absolute mess of the gang member inside.
 
It's sure that a 6.8 or 7.62x51 assault rifle system would be an improvement, the real problem with today's military is the lack of training, every military can tell you. The best option, according to me would be more training, or a designed marksmen rifle each section, such as there is a c9 or 2 c9 each section that could provide suppressive fire, there would be a DMR, an hk417 for example, that could accuratly reach target at long distances.
 
I have yet to hear someone who has actually killed EC's say that the 556 is an issue - I have heard lots of people on the internet say it is and lots of people who have actually played Halo say it is - but they don't count.
 
enefgee said:
I have yet to hear someone who has actually killed EC's say that the 556 is an issue - I have heard lots of people on the internet say it is and lots of people who have actually played Halo say it is - but they don't count.
Click to expand...

Most of the complaints I've heard, from guys who served from Vietnam, South and Central America to the sandbox, had to do with terminal effectiveness after barrier penetration.

Maybe the newer "barrier blind" ammo would help significantly, but IMO there only so much that can be done within the limits of the cartridge.
 
870P said:
Most of the complaints I've heard, from guys who served from Vietnam, South and Central America to the sandbox, had to do with terminal effectiveness after barrier penetration.

Maybe the newer "barrier blind" ammo would help significantly, but IMO there only so much that can be done within the limits of the cartridge.
Click to expand...

And considering the fact that there are cartridges that will give our troops the best of both worlds and that our current weapon systems can be converted to on the cheap, the only question that remains is "How many rounds of ammo is a trooper's life worth?".
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
And considering the fact that there are cartridges that will give our troops the best of both worlds and that our current weapon systems can be converted to on the cheap, the only question that remains is "How many rounds of ammo is a trooper's life worth?".
Click to expand...

I'm no ex-spurt, but maybe the solution is to go "arms room" and have a range of task optimized small arms available to use at need like the Russians do, instead of trying to push everyone into using a compromise driven standard rifle and caliber?

I can see rigid standardization being a must back in the day of enormous conscript armies, but today things are different and you could do a lot as far as selectively fielded infantry small arms and training for the cost of even a single combat aircraft or other major system.
 
870P said:
I'm no ex-spurt, but maybe the solution is to go "arms room" and have a range of task optimized small arms available to use at need like the Russians do, instead of trying to push everyone into using a compromise driven standard rifle and caliber?

I can see rigid standardization being a must back in the day of enormous conscript armies, but today things are different and you could do a lot as far as selectively fielded infantry small arms and training for the cost of even a single combat aircraft or other major system.
Click to expand...

A small compromise might be made, but generally speaking, that approach introduces logistical difficulties. A capable do-it-all carbine can be designed and some cheap designs needing very few changes are already out there. Even a caliber switch on the M4 platform would go most of the way there. The problem is what to do with all that ammo stockpiled by all NATO countries.
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
Modern military doctrine is all about spray and pray. If you can't hit a man-sized mannequin at 300 with an AK, you have no business being in uniform. 556 may have superior lethality under lab conditions designed to highlight its advantages, and it is a better caliber for open country with no houses, cars or foliage, where the trained marksman can let it stretch out its "legs".. Due to the heavier bullet, 7.62x39 doesn't get deflected as much when going through barriers such as heavy foliage, doors, walls, windows and sheet metal, which is a concern even when shooting .308. That is why it came under consideration from our side and why 300BLK was developed in the first place. The disadvantages (and they are serious) in modern military doctrine are that the soldier can carry fewer rounds and controllability under full auto. An "intermediate" caliber like 6.5Grendel or 6.8SPC would give us the best of both worlds with minimal changes in actual equipment. This is all well known to the NATO brass but nothing will ever get done about it. Huge amount of debt and an even bigger bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

Gorsh. So much failure in that post. I recommend that you familiarize yourself with the following documentation before you talk any more about modern military doctrine:

B-GL-309-003/FT-001 : The Infantry Section and Platoon in Battle
B-GL-392-001/FP-001 : The Infantry Battalion in Battle
B-GL-332-008/FP-002 : Infantry Insert
B-GL-383-002/PT-015 : Infantry Battle Tasks Standards
B-GL-382-001/PT-001 : Shoot to Live

Here is a taste from B-GL-317-018/PT-001 (THE RIFLE 5.56 mm C7 AND THE CARBINE 5.56 mm C8) in both official languages:

''Automatic fire is normally only used in close quarter battle particularly during the final stages of an ambush, when repelling a mass attack or in house clearing. Ammunition availability will govern the rate of fire on most occasions.''

''D'habitude, le tir automatique ne sert que dans le combat rapproché, en particulier pendant les phases finales d'une embuscade, lorsqu'il faut repousser une attaque massive ou effectuer le ratissage des maisons. La plupart du temps, la cadence de tir dépendra des quantités de munitions disponibles.''
 
Last edited:
TRaTSeRiF said:
A small compromise might be made, but generally speaking, that approach introduces logistical difficulties. A capable do-it-all carbine can be designed and some cheap designs needing very few changes are already out there. Even a caliber switch on the M4 platform would go most of the way there. The problem is what to do with all that ammo stockpiled by all NATO countries.
Click to expand...

If there's any military that has an exorbitantly capable supply system, it's the U.S. military. There are already tons of narrowly specialized systems throughout the U.S. military already, so I don't see how a few extra small arms systems would be all that taxing under today's conditions.
 
yohann160 said:
Here is a taste from B-GL-317-018/PT-001 (THE RIFLE 5.56 mm C7 AND THE CARBINE 5.56 mm C8) in both official languages:

''Automatic fire is normally only used in close quarter battle particularly during the final stages of an ambush, when repelling a mass attack or in house clearing. Ammunition availability will govern the rate of fire on most occasions.''

''D'habitude, le tir automatique ne sert que dans le combat rapproché, en particulier pendant les phases finales d'une embuscade, lorsqu'il faut repousser une attaque massive ou effectuer le ratissage des maisons. La plupart du temps, la cadence de tir dépendra des quantités de munitions disponibles.''
Click to expand...

And with growing urbanization, where do you think most fighting will be taking place in future wars? It was sheer blind luck that the last 2 engagements that the US is involved in were desert and mountain. Since other desert nations are just giving up their oil, next country "in need of democracy" will most likely be more urbanized than Afghanistan or Iraq, which will bring us to the "house to house" aspect, especially when the locals start objecting to foreign armies walking in on their land.
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
And with growing urbanization, where do you think most fighting will be taking place in future wars? It was sheer blind luck that the last 2 engagements that the US is involved in were desert and mountain. Since other desert nations are just giving up their oil, next country "in need of democracy" will most likely be more urbanized than Afghanistan or Iraq, which will bring us to the "house to house" aspect, especially when the locals start objecting to foreign armies walking in on their land.
Click to expand...

Most engagements in both those theaters of operations actually occurred in urban environments; hence the reason why the urban operations training increased exponentially during the road to high readiness training soldiers received before Canadian battle-groups were sent overseas.

That being said, now that we are disengaging from Afghanistan our main effort during maneuvers is switching back on the spectrum of war from ''peace-making and peace-keeping'' closer to conventional warfare.
 
yohann160 said:
Most engagements in both those theaters of operations actually occurred in urban environments; hence the reason why the urban operations training increased exponentially during the road to high readiness training soldiers received before Canadian battle-groups were sent overseas.

That being said, now that we are disengaging from Afghanistan our main effort during maneuvers is switching back on the spectrum of war from ''peace-making and peace-keeping'' closer to conventional warfare.
Click to expand...

I'm betting it will involve a good amount of "ambushes", "repelling attacks" and "house clearing". For that, our troops will need the versatility of selective fire even if some never use it in their careers. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
And with growing urbanization, where do you think most fighting will be taking place in future wars? It was sheer blind luck that the last 2 engagements that the US is involved in were desert and mountain. Since other desert nations are just giving up their oil, next country "in need of democracy" will most likely be more urbanized than Afghanistan or Iraq, which will bring us to the "house to house" aspect, especially when the locals start objecting to foreign armies walking in on their land.
Click to expand...

Ok, we get it. You have zero idea what you are talking about.

Sum up.
 
TRaTSeRiF said:
I'm betting it will involve a good amount of "ambushes", "repelling attacks" and "house clearing". For that, our troops will need the versatility of selective fire even if some never use it in their careers. Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.
Click to expand...

Kind of like taking a car battery on patrol?

You never know you might need it.

Thats why I have been taking my waffle maker on EX for years, some waffles might need to be made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom