Soldiers Will Carry More Weight, Less Ammo
The new guns and ammunition the Army just married and is expected to issue to combat arms units within the next decade will require soldiers to carry an even heavier load.
But information on how those weapons should outperform the guns they’re replacing — the justification for troops to shoulder extra weight on top of mountains of gear already injuring soldiers — is classified.
In April, the Army announced that Sig Sauer will produce replacements for the M4 rifle and M249 Squad Automatic Weapon, or SAW, starting with a trial run of about 40 new guns late next year. Production is expected to ramp up when the Army opens a new ammo plant to produce the new 6.8mm rounds for those weapons around 2026.
Army officials have touted that the new XM5, the M4’s replacement, and XM250, set to replace the SAW, pack a much harder punch and will improve the combat performance of ground troops. But thus far, the service has declined to disclose evidence that those weapons outperform the M4 and SAW, including how far they can shoot accurately. And it’s unclear whether the Army has verified the ranges at which those new weapons can engage an enemy before committing to a multimillion-dollar contract.
[ … ]
The M4, the Army’s current standard-issue rifle used in the post-9/11 wars, can effectively engage targets at 500 meters. The SAW can suppress targets at around 800 meters.
For comparison, the standard-issue rifle for the Chinese military is the QBZ-95, which has a maximum effective range of 400 meters for a target.
Carrying weightier ammunition and less of it is a defeater for the notion of an area suppression weapon to begin with. It verges on having another medium machine gun (the M240 as opposed to the light machine gun, the M249).
I suppose I should modify the statements above with the observation that the light machine gun is usually used by a single infantry fighter regardless of the fact that it is considered a “crew served weapon,” and the medium machine gun is in actual fact a crew served weapon.
I predict this won’t change a thing regarding the lethality of the armed forces, and that they should have focused on military and physical training rather than diversity.
They’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.
If they really wanted to return to increased lethality, perhaps they should consider a legitimate role for grenadier in each squad again using the M79 rather than the shorter under-the-barrel design.
Via WiscoDave.
