Small Arms and the Soldier 2005

[kaur3]

Small Arms and the Soldier. Jane’s Defence Weekly, 5 October 2005

For the past quarter of a century, NATO has relied upon two different rifle/machine gun cartridges: the 7.62 x 51 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm. The US Army's present intention to replace its entire family of 5.56 mm weapons with new equipment provides a rare opportunity to reconsider that choice.

Evidence from recent conflicts questions the effectiveness of the 5.56 mm round and suggests that the opportunity for a review should not be ignored. What is clear is that the decisions taken by the US over the next few months will determine NATO small-arms calibres for the foreseeable future.
New small arms for the 21st century
The US Army uses two distinct families of weapons in 5.56 x 45 mm calibre: the M16 rifle and the derivative M4 carbine form one group, the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon the other. The M249, a licence-produced and much-modified version of the highly successful Belgian FN Herstal Minimi light machine gun, was purchased in the 1980s and the guns are now wearing out and need replacing. The US Army has also decided to replace the M16/M4 familywith a different design, for more complex reasons.
The constant search for a more effective infantry weapon led in the 1990s to the concept of small-calibre high-explosive fragmentation grenade shells designed to burst over the heads of their targets, thereby permitting the attack of troops in defilade, ie hiding behind cover. Studies indicated a dramatic improvement in the effectiveness of small-arms fire. Ensuring that the shells explode at precisely the correct point involves some sophisticated technology. This includes a laser rangef inder coupled to a ballistic computer linked to the sights to ensure that the user aims the weapon accurately. The computer also provides data to electronically set the shell's time fuze as it is fired so that it detonates after travelling the correct distance.
Two different weapon projects were initiated to use the new high-explosive airburst technology. One was the Objective Crew Served Weapon, now known as the Advanced Crew Served Weapon and designated XM307; this is a machine gun in 25 mm calibre. The other was the Objective Individual Combat Weapon, also known as the Selective Assault Battle Rifle and designated XM29. The XM29 was intended to be a shoulder-fired, semi-automatic grenade launcher in 20 mm calibre and to incorporate a compact, lightweight 5.56 mm rifle as a back-up weapon. The development team, led by Alliant Techsystems Corp, included Heckler & Koch (H&K) of Germany, which won the contest to supply the 20 mm and 5.56 mm gun mechanisms.

The XM29 ran into difficulties when it proved impossible to reduce the weight any lower than 1"8 Ibs (8.2 kg), the target being 15 Ibs. A decision was therefore taken to continue separate development of the rifle and grenade launcher elements, while at the same time increasing the calibre of the grenades to 25 mm to improve their effectiveness against troops in body armour. Development of the grenade launcher is proceeding as the XM25, while the rifle element was redesignated XM8.
The XM8 design is based on H&K's successful G36 rifle, with various modifications required by the US Army. It is clearly a much lower-risk project than the grenade launcher and is already close to maturity; plans to carry out large-scale troop trials have been drawn up. The XM8 is of modular construction and barrels of different lengths and weights can be interchanged to meet tactical needs, producing carbine, compact carbine, sharpshooter, and -with a long heavy barrel, a bipod and a large-,t capacity magazine - an automatic rifle. %. '|
However, it was decided to include a belt-fed A
fi||t
light machine gun variant in the programme, " instead of the automatic rifle, to replace the M249. In view of this change another competition was announced for the new family of weapons rather than automatically selecting the XM8. A request for proposals was published in May 2005 with a timescale of 180 days in which to respond with written submissions along with four examples of each variant for testing. In July this was superseded by a further decision to suspend the competition in order to consider the * needs of all of the services, not just the army. ' I To complicate matters further, a different , competition has been running in parallel for a ' new rifle for US Special Operations Command (SOCOM) forces under the designation Special Operations Forces Combat Assault Rifle (SCAR or SCR). Here the emphasis is different, as SOCOM wants the ability to use different calibres, so the rifle is planned to be in two versions: SCAR-L (light) and SCAR-H (heavy) so that it can use 5.56 x 45 mm, 7.62 x 39 mm, 7.62 x 51 mm and potentially other cartridges. Like the XM8, the gun is modular and can be i •apidly adapted to different purposes. This com-xtition was won by FN Herstal in late 2004 with- -;j i much-modified development of its established 1 •^NC rifle. It seems likely that this weapon and ts derivatives will be a major competitor for the XM8 once the contest for the rifle/machine gun amily is restarted.

A change of cartridge?
None of the above US developments suggest my wish to change from the existing NATO ;artridges (the ability of the SCAR to be adapted o 7.62 x 39 mm being concerned with the com-non availability of this ammunition in areas
where Special Forces operate).
Official reports from Iraq express general satisfaction with the 5.56 mm cartridge. Despite this, there has been concern among sections of the US military ever since the operations Somalia in 1993 that it is less than adequate.
A US Marine Corps sergeant who was asked to prepare a report on the performance of his equipment in Iraq said of the 5.56 mm: "The round is too fast, too small and too stabilised. It cannot compete with the 7.62 mm fired by Warsaw Pact weapons."
Another comment made to the author by an experienced US soldier is that "the 5.56 mm often only does the job if you shoot each man several times". Such soldiers state that selecting a more effective cartridge should have a high priority.
Concerns over the 5.56 mm cartridge are being exacerbated by the US Army's growing preference for the short-barrelled M4 carbine over the M16 rifle: a result of the fact that the carbine is much handier in confined vehicles and in urban fighting.
The problems occur because the 5.56 mm bullet gains much of its lethality from two features: one is that (like all pointed bullets) it tumbles on impact, increasing the size of the wound channel; the other is that it often breaks up while tumbling, sending fragments through the body and increasing the severity of the wound. However, with the standard 4 g NATO SS109 bullet (designated M855 in US production), this latter effect only happens at high-impact velocities. From the 508 mm barrel of the M16, the fragmentation effect lasts out to 150 m to 200 m but the short (368 mm) barrel of the M4 develops a lower-muzzle velocity, pulling the fragmentation limit down to 50m to 100m.
It is therefore surprising that the proposed standard version of the XM8 was to be the carbine with a barrel only 318 mm long, from which fragmentation is only likely to occur at point-blank range, if at all.
The logical answer to the need for a compact weapon with a long barrel to preserve effectiveness is of course to adopt a rifle in bullpup configuration, as other armies are increasingly doing.
The Chinese QBZ-95, Israeli Tavor TAR-21, Singaporean SAR-21 and Belgian FN F2000 have all recently joined the established French FAMAS, British SA80 and highly successful Austrian Steyr AUG. However, US Army doctrine appears to be opposed to considering a bullpup rifle, which rules out that approach to improving effectiveness.


Maximise lethality
Concerns within the US military about the 5.56 mm cartridge have spread beyond individual complaints. A group within SOCOM has promoted the development of a new cartridge that could replace the 5.56 mm: the 6.8 x 43 mm Remington Special Purpose Cartridge (SPC). This fires a larger and heavier (7.45 g) bullet, which has proved to be considerably more effective in tests even when fired from carbine-length barrels. It has been specifically designed to maximise lethality within normal rifle ranges of up to 300 m, although in fact the trajectory and terminal effects rival those of the 7.62 x 51 mm M80 ball out to 500m.
A rival approach has been the fielding in limited numbers of the new 5.56 mm Mk 262 cartridge, with a heavier (5 g) bullet designed originally for long-range target shooting. This not only has a better long-range performance than the SS109/M855, it also fragments out to longer ranges. However, at 600 m the remaining energy of the 6.8 mm bullet is over 40 per cent greater than that of the Mk 262. Despite this power, the recoil of the 6.8 mm is much less compared to the 7.62 x 51 mm and the cartridge is compact enough to fit into adapted 5.56 mm weapons.
It has reportedly been combat-tested in Iraq in modified Ml6s with impressive results, although confirmation is hard to obtain.

New challenger
More recently, a challenger to the 6.8 mm has emerged in the form of the 6.5 mm Grendel from Alexander Arms.
This is an attempt to match the merits of the 6.8 mm while providing even better long-range performance good enough to completely replace the 7.62x51 mm.
The 6.8 mm Remington SPC is limited to relatively short bullets to fit within the maximum cartridge length of 5.56 mm weapons, so the Gren-dej,,has a shorter (39 mm) and fatter case, leaving
room for longer,low-drag bullets, which retain their velocity out to long ranges.

Bullets of up to 9.3 g have been tested; with this loading the remaining velocity and energy at 1,000 m match the long-range 7.62 mm M11 SLR NATO round and are distinctly superior to the standard M80 7.62 mm ball. However, the optimum choice for general-purpose use appears to be a bullet of around 8 g, which matches the MSO's trajectory. The 6.5 mm Grendel is at an earlier stage of development than the 6.8 mm Remington SPC, however, and has not been tested as extensively.
One of the penalties of switching to a more powerful round has already been mentioned: the recoil will be heavier. However, the recoil generated by the 6.8 mm or 6.5 mm is similar to that of the 7.62 x 39 mm AK-47 round, which has been successfully used in automatic weapons for over half a century, so it is clearly manageable.

Another is that the cartridge cases are slightly fatter. The 6.8 mm case is based on the old .30 Remington hunting round of 10.6 mm rather than 9.5 mm 'diameter, which reduces magazine capacity; a magazine similar in size to the standard 30-round 5.56 mm one will take about 28 rounds of 6.8 mm.
A third drawback is that the cartridge is heavier, so fewer rounds can be carried for a given weight, although the force of that argument is much reduced if it is necessary to fire more 5.56 mm rounds to achieve the same effect.
The 6.5 mm Grendel round is fatter still (it actually has the same 11.2 mm base diameter as the 7.62 x 39 mm), so only about 25 rounds will fit into a standard-sized magazine.
The ammunition is also slightly heavier than the 6.8 mm if heavy, long-range bullets are used. However, in the longer term it has more potential to replace the 7.62 x 51 mm and its weapons as well as the 5.56 x 45 mm family.
With regard to developments in non-NATO European countries, it is interesting to note that although the Russians, inspired by the early reputation of the 5.56 x 45 mm, introduced their 5.45 x 39 mm cartridge in the AK-74 some three decades ago, this has also acquired a patchy reputation.
Some users prefer the old 7.62 x 39 mm, which is still being offered in new weapons. The latest Russian rifle, the 5.45 x 39 mm AN-94, utilises a complex mechanism to provide an extremely fast two-round burst, apparently to ensure that at normal ranges two bullets will strike the target rather than one. The Chinese recently adopted a 5.8 x 42 mm round in the QBZ-95 issued to elite troops, which is claimed to have a long-range performance superior to both the 5.45 x 39 mm and the 5.56 x 45 mm, although the differences are marginal as the 5.8 mm cartridge, despite having more case capacity, is loaded to a lower pressure.
What would be the penalties if the US (and presumably NATO at some point) were to decide to adopt a more powerful cartridge like the 6.8 mm Remington SPC or 6.5 mm Grendel?
Normally, such a change would be extremely expensive due to the investment in existing weapons and ammunition.
However, the US Army Joined probably by the other services, is proposing to replace all of its 5.56 mm small arms and does not have large stockpiles of 5.56 mm ammunition - indeed, they recently suffered a shortfall due to high expenditure in Iraq. There is therefore a window of opportunity to consider the replacement of the 5.56 x 45 mm cartridge before the new rifle competition is reopened, during which time it would seem sensible to carry out exhaustive tests of the 6.8 mm and 6.5 mm rounds against the 5.56 mm Mk 262 before reaching a conclusion about the future calibre.
One thing is certain: if the US eventually orders a new family of weapons, whichever cartridge is chosen will be in service for decades to come.
Anthony G Williams is co-editor of Jane's Ammunition Handbook and co-author of
'Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition'

Uuest moonast on siin hea lugu:
http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Grendel.pdf

[speedsta]

Einoh tore küll, oleks täiesti piisanud lingist sellele lehele või oleks teinud väikese kokkuvõtte Eesti keelde, muidu kaotab asi nagu mõtte.

[kaur3]

Vat Jane'si lehele saab sisse ainult kõva papi eest ehk linke ei saa kuidagi saata. Skännisin loo sisse ja saatsin kõigile lugemiseks. Vahelduseks vanakraamilugudele.

Aeg oleks inglise keelt õppida, sest Mati Õuna ja Toe Nõmme eestikeelsete artiklitega eriti kaugele ei sõua.

[Würger 190G]

Aeg oleks inglise keelt õppida, sest Mati Õuna ja Toe Nõmme eestikeelsete artiklitega eriti kaugele ei sõua--Mis as sellega öelda tahad?
Mõlemad rohkem nagu ajaloolased ning kummalgi oma lemmikteemad! Ja Õuna Mati pole nagu eriti kunagi kirjutanud käsirelvadest!
T. Nõmm on , aga temal ajahäda ja töö!

[kaur3]

Würger 190G, mõtlengi seda, et eesti keeles ei ilmu (just rõõmustama paneval määral) kirjutisi uutest relvadest ja laskemoonast. Kes tahab kaasaegsete sündmustega kursis olla, peab oskama inglise keelt. M. Õuna ja T. Nõmme kirjutisi soovitan ajaloohuvilistele soojalt!

[kaur3]

Üks värske uudis Jane'si artikli täienduseks. Viimane lause on tase

XM8 Put to Sleep

November 3, 2005: The XM8, the U.S. Army’s design for a new assault rifle and light machine-gun, has been cancelled. Actually, the project was put on hold last July. At the time, the reason was believed to be the ongoing debate over whether a new caliber (6.8mm was most often mentioned) should be adopted. While the XM8 used more modern engineering, and was lighter and more reliable, it was basically an improved M-16, just another 5.56mm assault rifle. Meanwhile, SOCOM adopted another new 5.56mm design (SCAR), while the U.S. Marine Corps decided to stay with the M-16 in the future. The XM8 may be revived, in another caliber. But for now, the army does not want to spend several billion bucks on a new assault rifle. Better to wait until the war in Iraq dies down, and radically new weapons, like the 25mm XM-25, hit the field, and pile up some combat experience. Basically, the army believes there are better alternatives than the XM8, but are not sure exactly what these alternatives are.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htweap ... 51103.aspx

[-=Mortyr=-]

xm8 ja xm25 tean juba ammu lol mingi 2 aastat tagasi lasin sellega Flashpoindi mängus...(äkki keegi teab seda mängu) ja ära topi oma inglise texte.....kirjuta parem oma arvamus voi midagi muud....

[Felix]

xm8 ja xm25 tean juba ammu lol mingi 2 aastat tagasi lasin sellega Flashpoindi mängus...(äkki keegi teab seda mängu) ja ära topi oma inglise texte.....kirjuta parem oma arvamus voi midagi muud....

Minu arvates on inglise tekstid siia väga teretulnud saab vähemalt värsket informatsiooni. Kui neid inglise tekste ise ei loe ning asjast ainult kokkuvõtteid või teiste arvamusi lugeda siis võib paraku juhtuda sama asi nagu selle tankiga juhtus...

[Un' Recluta]

Täitsa hea lugu. Sama mehe raamatud on ka väga head.