Once again, the brass is letting the boots down.
Operations in Afghanistan frequently require United States ground forces to engage and destroy the enemy at ranges beyond 300 meters. These operations occur in rugged terrain and in situations where traditional supporting fires are limited due to range or risk of collateral damage. With these limitations, the infantry in Afghanistan require a precise, lethal fire capability that exists only in a properly trained and equipped infantryman. While the infantryman is ideally suited for combat in Afghanistan, his current weapons, doctrine, and marksmanship training do not provide a precise, lethal fire capability to 500 meters and are therefore inappropriate.
Comments from returning non-commissioned officers and officers reveal that about fifty percent of engagements occur past 300 meters. The enemy tactics are to engage United States forces from high ground with medium and heavy weapons, often including mortars, knowing that we are restricted by our equipment limitations and the inability of our overburdened soldiers to maneuver at elevations exceeding 6000 feet. Current equipment, training, and doctrine are optimized for engagements under 300 meters and on level terrain.
Maj. Thomas P. Ehrhart – Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer
I’ve had this for almost two weeks now (found via Winds of Change), but getting ready for finals at school has kept me from remembering where I’d placed the link.
This is why our troops, in A-stan at least, should all be equipped with M-16A4s & M-4s in 6.5 Grendel. If our military decides to field the Remington ACR, it should be in 6.5 Grendel. I hear the SCAR is on the way out, but if we keep it, it should be chambered for 6.5 Grendel or a similar intermediate power cartridge that is highly effective at both long and short range.
I know all the arguments about NATO compatibility. Back during the cold war when we had legitimate concerns about the bear coming through the Fulda gap it was only reasonable that all NATO arms share a common cartridge. That was then, this is now, with a war halfway around the world from Germany, in completely different terrain, fighting a completely different enemy.
Today in A-stan, except for small contingents of NATO and a couple handfulls of non-NATO allies, the major players are all anglo-sphere. We should equip the entire anglo-sphere with 6.5 Grendel or some other intermediate power, long range effective cartridge, and apologize to the Brits for not adopting their proposed intermidiate cartridge back in the early 60s.
Better late than never. Let’s fix this sooner rather than later. I’ll bet it can be corrected for less than 5% of the cost of “universal” healthcare.
No need to go to an entirely new caliber when we have an effective caliber on hand.
The problem goes back to the switch in doctrine from aimed fire to spray and pray. We dumped an effective caliber (7.62) for a marginal caliber (5.56) because the average soldier could carry more ammunition.
The result of that putative weight savings is that we pile on more gear so that the real ‘savings’ is negligible at best. Factor in the size, strength and health of the modern soldier over those even 30 years ago and it makes no sense to limit the soldiers on the ground to the 5.56.
Then, when we have shown time and again that the 5.56 is marginal, we shorten the AR platform into the M4 making it that much more inaccurate at any real distance.
Many manufacturers make the AR platform in 7.62 and a lot of the parts are common enough to ease supply concerns. If we were to issue full-size 7.62 rifles to one or two men per fire team (or Squad), the soldiers on the ground would have the ability to work in close, at a distance and, with the SAW, against area targets.
Hey Preacher:
The SAW is a 5.56 cal weapon.
Your point about bigger healthier troops doesn’t cut the mustard. An increasing number of troops are of central american descent, filipino descent, Vietnamese descent. Many of these troops are tough as nails, some can shoot the balls off a gnat at 400 meters, but they still only weigh 130 or 140 lbs.
I don’t know when you went to the field last, but walking up and down steep hills, and busting your ass through towns in A-stan carrying all the body armor our soldiers didn’t wear 30 years ago sucks. It also saves a lot of lives. Let’s remember that most of our casualties come from IEDs in one form or another. Body armor REALLY helps to protect our soldiers in this kind of attack.
Supressing fire is still sometimes needed and expends ammunition rapidly. Very few of the currently issued M-16s and M-4s are automatic. Nearly all have a 3 round burst capability that is often not used unless we’re busting down doors.
Resupply in A-stan when you’re away from a FOB or COP can be a real problem. Troops often carry way more ammunition than the standard load when they go outside the wire.
If you can double lethality at 600 meters and only increase ammunition weight by 25% by switching to 6.5 Grendel, that sounds like a good deal, vs. doubling lethality and nearly doubling weight by switching to 7.62.
If we’re just going to equip one or two members of each fireteam with 7.62 rifles, then skip the AR platform and pull more M-14s back into active service, but it won’t solve the overall problem. Many times it’s our support troops who need to return fire from a Taliban ambush. Equipping our infantry with 7.62 rifles and leaving everyone else to twist in the wind is a piss poor compromise.
Also, have you ever fired a burst from a 7.62 rifle as opposed to a purpose built bipod or pintle mounted machine gun?
I’m just wondered…
I saw some pictures of British soldiers on patrol. As a former Marine I was amazed at the weight they carry. Their packs were huge. Between the ammo, and fancy comms sets they carry they waddled instead of walking. They could not fire from the prone, because the pack shoved their heads down.
I know they wouldn’t be able to assault up a hill with all that gear.
How many DMs in a squad? Also what about the 6.8 SPC? Speaking of the M-14 there just are not as many as there used to be. Many were sold to foreign nations or were destroyed while Slick Willie was in office.
HARP1034:
Yes, there aren’t as many M-14s in stock as there used to be. Fulton Armory is making new ones, if the FedGov cares to buy them.
The 6.8 SPC cartridge was designed to deliver additional knockdown power at short range, and it does that well. The shape of the bullet is such that it slows down quickly and falls fast. It’s not really an effective long or even medium range cartridge. It’s not much better than 5.56 out past 500 meters where it goes sub-sonic, and falls quicker due to lower velocity than the 5.56 out of 14″, 16″ and even 20″ barrels.
The 6.5 Grendel was designed as a long range cartridge from the get go. The long bullets cut the air better and resist crosswinds. That’s why Creedmoor chose 6.5mm bullets for their excellent long range ammunition. Some 6.5 Grendel loads actually perform better than 7.62 NATO rounds out past 1000 meters. The 6.5 Grendel is just as effective as the 6.8 SPC at close range, with better penetration due to bullet shape.
One benefit of the 6.5 Grendel, is that like the 6.8 SPC, we could retain the M-4 and M-16 platforms, and just replace the upper receiver assemblies and magazines. The lower receivers, stocks, sights, optics, etc. could all be retained, and the troops would be using a completely familiar weapon system. We have to give additional training to most troops we equip with M-14s.
I understand that the shape of the Grendel cartridge brass is not optimal for feeding in a automatic weapon.
It’s possible that what we need is a new cartridge that utilizes the long 120-140 grain 6.5mm bullet but having brass with a geometry such that it will feed and extract reliably. The Grendel was a compromise in that it had to fit in the standard AR-15 style magazine.
If DoD is serious about a new caliber, they could have a new rifle with a slightly longer chamber / maganize to accomodate slightly longer assembled cartridges in 6.5mm that fed and extracted more reliably than the Grendel.
I’ve never had feeding or extracting problems with my Grendel, then again I haven’t rolled around in the dust with mine, or fired more than 200 rounds through it without cleaning.
DoD should definitely do something to step away from 5.56mm, and for the war in Afghanistan as well as any future conflict on the horizon, I don’t see how they can do much better than the ballistics of the 6.5 Grendel for a reasonable amount of money, and in a reasonable amount of time.