זהו המאמר הראשון מקווה שתהנו.
Small Arms & Cannons
© Anthony G Williams
I've just returned from the annual "Small Arms & Cannons" symposium at the MoD College of Management & Technology, Shrivenham UK.
Several of the presenters (including me) touched on the issue of the adequacy of the 5.56mm ammunition, especially at the extended ranges often encountered in Afghanistan. Contrary to established doctrine, fire-fights occur at ranges up to 900 meters (that's 1,000 yards in old money). The Taliban are equipped with PKMs and SVDs chambered in the old but powerful 7.62x54R Russian caliber, as well as RPGs. The following figures were given with respect to the British Army: 25% of fire-fights took place within 170m, 50% within 340m and 75% within 480m.
British foot patrols are nominally equipped with 5.56mm firearms (L85A2 rifle, L86A2 LSW, L110A1 Minimi Para). However, these weapons just can't hack it at longer distances: the L85A2 is regarded as a 300m weapon, the L86A2 somewhat longer (but the gun isn't popular), the L110A1 only 200m due to its short barrel (they're looking to acquire a longer barrel).
Incidentally, a British analysis of the relationship between barrel length and terminal effectiveness in soft target tests confirmed that effectiveness of the 5.56mm fell off rapidly above a certain distance, the actual distance depending on the barrel length. This basically means that the US Army's standard M4 carbine is really effective only within 200m, the USMC M16 is good for 300m. Interestingly, an analysis of the Russian 5.45 round showed that although terminal effectiveness was less than the 5.56mm at short range, it did not show the sharp fall-off with range and was superior to the 5.56mm at longer ranges.
All of this means that BA foot patrols are now carrying 7.62mm weapons to supplement the 5.56mm. The (very effective) GPMG has been returned to the sections and is being lugged around (poor souls - a project is in hand to lighten the lump) and an effort is being made to employ rifles in that caliber: initially L96A1 bolt-action sniper rifles are being handed down as the snipers get L115A3 .338 guns. They are also looking to acquire a 7.62mm sharpshooter rifle as a matter of urgency.
I recommended that the L86A2 should be replaced with something like the HK 417 or SCAR H (MK 17) in 7.62mm, or even the 7.62mm Minimi (MK 48), as a short-term expedient, with the longer-term solution to develop a general-purpose cartridge in c. 6.5mm, with the ballistics to match the long-range performance of the 7.62mm.
There didn't seem to be much disagreement about the use of more 7.62mm, although one NATO view was expressed that the 5.56mm is perfectly adequate, with a flatter trajectory than the 7.62mm out to 800m, and that resistance to the trend towards carbine-length barrels was misguided because the troops wanted short weapons (some people should get their heads out of the sand and look at what's happening!). Incidentally, there is a move to using smaller targets in training, with the scoring zone limited to a 120mm (4.7 inch) wide strip running from the head to the centre chest, since only hits in that zone would have a rapid effect.
The merits of a new intermediate cartridge of around 6.5mm were hotly debated. The official BA view seems to be that the 5.56/7.62mm combo is fine - but as I pointed out, if you have one 7.62mm weapon for every three 5.56mm (it probably won't get any better) that means that in engagements beyond 400m only 25% of the soldiers will be firing back, the other 75% presumably sitting back and keeping the score...It would make far more sense (to some of us anyway) if everyone was equipped to fight back, but there was agreement that the 7.62mm ammo was too big and heavy and kicked too hard to return to being the general issue.
The BA is still due to replace the SA80 from "2020-ish". Canada, Germany and Sweden were also planning to acquire new rifles in that time frame. The Canadians were concerned to retain a high velocity to achieve as much effectiveness as possible from 5.56mm ammo (i.e. a long barrel - one NATO comment was that only the UK and Canada were concerned to keep long barrels, although they might have mentioned the USMC) but had done some testing into the balance of rifles to discover what the troops found acceptable. They found that as rifles became heavier (e.g. with UGLs etc added), a forward weight balance was increasingly unacceptable. Put these two issues together and could Canada possibly end up with a bullpup?
An interesting point: the BA noted that the Taliban were very good at concealment and most troops never saw them during fire-fights. The best they could usually do was to locate the general direction of incoming fire and use their small arms to suppress the enemy and fix them in place until artillery or air support could be called in. Much work had been done on analyzing suppression, and it had been calculated from field trials that 40mm HV AGL fire could suppress people at miss distances of 59 meters, .50 BMG at 24m, 7.62mm at 6m and 5.56mm at 3m (in the case of the rifle/MG rounds, it was the volume of the supersonic 'crack' which made the difference, and that's directly linked to bullet energy). One comment from the BA concerning suppression: the Taliban "ignore 5.56mm, are worried by 7.62mm and fear .50 cal."
However, it was noted that it was difficult to suppress suicidal attackers, and the Taliban were using "suicide shooters" as well as suicide bombers. The BA is very keen to acquire hand-held fire locators to pinpoint the enemy.
Other points: the weight of equipment and amour remains a major issue for foot soldiers, with a lot of effort being put into lighter substitutes. That partly accounts for the resistance to any move to a bigger caliber than 5.56mm.
Much skepticism was expressed by US participants about the LSAT project, especially the ceaseless version. British contributors also felt that ceaseless, plastic-cased and light-alloy-cased ammo still faced serious technical problems. There is interest in stainless-steel-cased ammo, though - that can save c.20% of the total ammo weight.
Another snippet of info: the BA has acquired some Benelli semi-auto 12-gauge combat shotguns (as used by the USMC, I believe) for close-range work in the Green Zones, using 00 gauge or slugs. I had the chance for a blast with one - most impressive, and it made shooting 7.62mm rifles seem tame, especially with the hot slug rounds!
My talk also covered PDW weapons and ammunition - I was rude about pistols and promoted compact, folding-stock machine-pistols instead. I was amused to note a comment from the BA about the L105A2 SIG-Sauer P226 pistols which had been bought in quantity (c.4,000). There was huge enthusiasm for them at first, but now very few carried them, although there had been a couple of examples of them saving lives at point-blank range. The BA still had 20-25,000 Browning P35s and was looking to replace them at some time, although they hadn't decided how.
Moving to bigger stuff: the 40mm UGL is OK, but the BA is looking for a more effective projectile with a longer range (i.e. one of the new MV rounds). Great enthusiasm expressed for the L134A1 40mm GMG (now 400 in use) and L111A1 .50 BMG (numbers increased from 156 to 1,100) of which the vast majority was vehicle-borne. Skepticism about adopting a new lightweight .50 because of the ammo weight. The light mortars were popular.
ראשי
צ'אט
10-08-2010, 19:09
מצב כלאיים
