3 thoughts on “Military Proposal: Army Unit Organization: Infantry”

1. When it comes to Level I, why not reconsidering assault/battle/sniper riffles and light/medium machineguns in a more clever way :
   .243WSSM (Winchester Super Short Magnum) was created to allow serious game hunting with re-barreled light carbines like AR-15.
   Note that 6mm calibers are the typical ones in 1km target shooting.
   Here we have a 3000J round with better drop at 1km than .300winch-mag.
   If initial kinetic energy is inferior to .308NATO, ballistics are far better and velocity gives a better conservation of energy, ending with .308 kinetic energy falling under .243WSSM during the flight.
   .243 has a better and more progressive burn of powder and with a smaller caliber, recoil is on par with the 7.62x39R of habitual AK-47/AKM.

   It fits within STANAG magazines, thus, for sure, case diameter is bigger so you’re likely to have 20 rounds in a 30x 5.56×45 magazine but extended magazines have became common, e.g. the 60 and 100 rounds ‘casket magz’ are currently used by USMC, there are even 150 double snail magz for 5.56.
   Considering a bullpup like FAMAS G2 or Tavor, fitting a 64-65cm barrel like those used for hunting/competition would end with a 90cm only riffle.
   Re-using the type of mechanism from the Korobov TKB-022 would allow to even maintain a size under 80cm BTW

   Well, .243WSSM is very fast (Mach 4) with light 55gr projectiles, it can wear out barrels rapidly, but with 85gr it falls to mach 3, so not worst than XM193 5.56NATO. With chrome-coated inner barrel, it’s OK.
   A 60rd STANAG casket mag will have about 40 rounds, a 100rd one about 65 rounds and a 150rd snail mag about 100 rounds. More than enough to replace a light/mid machinegun including a MiniMi or Rambo’s M60…

   Note that Soviets, just before their collapse, considering the issue they had in Afghanistan, were about to field a 6×49 unified caliber to replace 7.62x54R, 5.45x39R and 7.62x39R.
   An unified machinegun prototype was created and worked very well.

   Note also that the .243WSSM could revive the XM214 MicroGun Gatling: if the 5.56 had no interest compared to M134 Minigun in .308NATO, in .243WSSM, the MicroGun would gain serious interest due to light weight.

   Now it’s clear that you may carry less rounds in .243WSSM than with 5.56, but you also carry more than with .308 and these are more efficient and accurate with more range than both caliber.
   Moreover, you gain weight when it comes to light+mid machineguns, marksmen and snipers (except those using .338 or .50BMG) who carry heavier weapons and heavier rounds, and well, the number of rounds carried may not decrease so much, just think about having bigger pouches for the extended magazines.
   Just think about the 10 French Legionaries who ended ambushed and killed by Talebans with Dragunovs : their FAMAS lacked range, they ended totally outgunned and with posthumous medals.
   Had FAMAS shot .243WSSM, especially with a 64-65cm barrel.

   A combo red-dot + scope sight may be needed since you are really accurate at 1km as much as 5.56 is at 300m.

   One may note that the initial Brit and Belgian researches to create assault-riffles ended absolutely with an intermediate caliber of this kind. .308w was imposed to NATO by the Yankees who wanted to keep a caliber with performance close to 30-06 on M1 Garand but… Just consider the recoil on any .308 riffle shooting burst and soon it became evident that a smaller caliber was needed, so the .223 Remington, initially created for Coyote hunting came on the table. Might be OK for jungle and urban warfare, but the .223 backfired in Afgha etc, especially with short barrels on M4 carbines, by lacking range and terminal energy, so we’ve seen the return of .308w and the limited introduction of 6.5 Grendel and 6.8 SPC

   It makes more sense to me to consider some revisions at Level I, but the problem with the military is they’re not very progressive and end bogged due to their conservatism.

   LikeLike

   Reply

   1. Yes, problem is that different weapons are good in different circumstances – while 5.56 may be adequate for urban fighting, you need 6, 7.62 or even 7.92 for mountainous terrain. But militaries often ignore this. That .243WSSM sounds really nice.

      LikeLike

      Reply

      1. Near the end of USSR, considering the experience of Afgha, they were about to field a unified 6x49mm round.
         A machinegun prototype had already been made ans Soviets considered to extend the use to riffles :
         https://modernfirearms.net/en/machineguns/russia-machineguns/unificirovannyj-6mm-eng/
         .243WSSM has the huge advantage of not needing to create new weapons as having been created to be used in a re-barrelled AR-15 carbine = M-16/M-4 and to fit into STANAG magazines
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.243_Winchester_Super_Short_Magnum
         If you look at .243WSSM ballistic charts, the bullet even has less drop at 1000-1100m than .300Winchest-Magnum used in M40 (Remington 700) sniper riffle. 6-6.5mm calibers are the kings of 1km sports shooting competition. For sure .243WSSM sounds really nice, especially since the case design allows a slow burning of powder => lightest recoil, the 6.17mm also means less recoil than 7.62 => No more recoil than AK-47 despite +700-800J energy.

         You may not even need an assault for urban combat. The only point is that PDWs ddn’t investigated modern ballistics enough while FN and H&K both imposed proprietary calibers. FN even modified the P90 initial prototype that actually could accept the .221 Fireball from Remington XP-100, you know, the hunting pistol which was used to put the bullet in JFK’s head (a .221 Fireball brass was found near the fence later, hehe).
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.221_Remington_Fireball
         Now look at kinetic energy compared to 5.45x39ru:
         https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.45%C3%9739mm
         Modern powders could compensate… Nevertheless, there’s even better to consider : the .25Garin (6.35mm)
         http://www.surestrikesystem.com/calibers/25_garin.php
         This uses .30carbine as a parent case and initial kinetic energy from the 40cm barrel in a US-M1 carbine is 1350J while the bullet’s overall length, as for .30carbine, is 41.91mm, enough short to fit in the pistol-grip of a pistol, as it was the case for AutoMag-III which used .30carbine…In fact, a .22APG for M1/M2 Carbines was proposed as soon as 1947 and discarded : US militaries could have had an assault riffle on par with AK-74 as soon as 1947 with a serious advantage at carrying much more bullets!
         Now take a look at a Mini-Uzi : the barrel is 197mm long for a 360mm long SMG. AK-74U has a 207mm barrel.
         Note that a M1 “Enforcer Pistol” with a 207mm barrel wouldn’t be longer than 403.85mm, with or without a folding stock, this is even shorter than a H&K MP7!
         Thus, making a kinda MP7/Mini-Uzi sized PDW using a round as powerful as 5.45x39ru and a barrel on par with AK-74U is not a technical problem…
         Add to this that, by making it modular, a 400mm barrel can be fit but another wildcat could be considered : there are 220gr and 250gr bullets used on .300winch-mag. At 320m/s, such a bullet’s energy s on par with the 9x39ru used on silenced sniper riffles like VSS Vintorez. Now I’m not 100% sure it would do it due to the small size of the .30carbine brass, but, as there are way more efficient modern powders than it used to be 40 years ago, IMHO, it’s highly feasible with such small rounds nowadays, although I haven’t studied powders’ efficiency, so I may be wrong in the end.

         I’m not sure militaries ignore these things : .22APG = Aberdeen Proving Ground : military research center. FN FAL and Enfield EM-2 prototypes first used 7.92×33mm Kurz (Stg.44) then after numerous ballistic tests were supposed to use a .280 (7×49) caliber before Yanks imposed .308w which was nothing else than a modernised 30-06 from M1-Garand made to fit in the M-14 riffle. EM-2 was also created in 6.25×43mm and was already a bullpup in 1951.
         Military experts in ballistics know about it all since the end of the 40’s/early 50’s…
         What we had already was an US military industrial complex with high brasses on payroll + lobbying because…
         Well, if you have a single riffle doing at once the job of the assault riffle, battle riffle and 1km+ sniper and even light/medium machineguns, the MIC will make less money and not only on weapons but also on logistics, bullet sales, costlier spare-parts and even vehicles to carry all this.

         Another point : it may greatly increase lethality thus, if you take a look, it’s been a while there were no army vs. army war : everything since the Iraqi invasion were armies vs. terrorists, even if these are funded bywell known states (Turkey, Qatar, Iran, Pakistan and Saudi-Arabia, although the Bani-Saud seems to really have puled the plug since prince Bandar was fired and MBS replaced bin Nayef as a crown prince added to the crack on princes which, IMHO wasn’t so linked to corruption since all the Bani-Saud is corrupted : several of the names were very familiar to those who watch about terrorism funding… The fact is that the Bani-Saud is very very elastic and came to the conclusion that funding extremists had became totally counter-productive for their interests while other actors are true fanatics)…
         So, as irregular fighters are the targets, well, Hague+Geneva Conventions don’t apply, hollow point bullets are OK, so are summary executions.

         LikeLike

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Enter your comment here...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

Email (required) (Address never made public)

Name (required)

Website

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out /  Change )

You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out /  Change )

Cancel

Connecting to %s

Notify me of new comments via email.

Notify me of new posts via email.

Δ