Army picks SIG to produce Next Generation Squad Weapon

[Wake27]

This is one aspect of a brief I give XVIIIth Airborne Corps next month.

In the INDO-PACOM Theater we deal with the tyranny of distance. Dating back to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, every Beanie-Weenie, bomb, bullet, band-aid, battery, bottle, and hydrocarbon shipped (with a lot more ships) from the West Coast to your front-line position in 120 days. In WWII the Navy (Halsey) and Army (MacArthur) competed for the same bunker fuel, AVGAS, bombs, and meals.

Air-Sea Warfare Doctrine says the Navy and Air Force will have priority in the Pacific until you need foot Soldiers to hold ground.

Yeah that’s a really good point. I’m nowhere near strategic level logistics discussions but the concern for sustainment throughout PACOM in LSCO is significant. It won’t look anything like GWOT and we’re seeing examples weekly of large assets (a single MBT up to Russia’s Black Sea Fleet) being degraded if not neutralized/destroyed by technology that was not around the last time we had to do it.

Our ability to project and sustain force is the best in the world, but it has not been truly tested in a very long time. We need to have the expectation that nothing will be easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[cd228]

This is one aspect of a brief I give XVIIIth Airborne Corps next month.

In the INDO-PACOM Theater we deal with the tyranny of distance. Dating back to WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, every Beanie-Weenie, bomb, bullet, band-aid, battery, bottle, and hydrocarbon shipped (with a lot more ships) from the West Coast to your front-line position in 120 days. In WWII the Navy (Halsey) and Army (MacArthur) competed for the same bunker fuel, AVGAS, bombs, and meals.

Air-Sea Warfare Doctrine says the Navy and Air Force will have priority in the Pacific until you need foot Soldiers to hold ground.

Great point. Everything I've seen has indicated that Air Force, Navy and Marines will be the lead in that theatre, unless the party starts in Korea.

[Wake27]

Will it be any worse than a WW2 battalion with a mix of Caliber .30, Caliber (boxed or M1906 clips for the BAR), Caliber .30 (belted), Caliber .30 (M1 clips) .30 Carbine, and Caliber .45?

I have no recent frame of reference for WWII sustainment but it was recently shared that regarding sea lift capabilities, the ready reserve force had 200 vessels during mobilization efforts leading up to Desert Shield. Apparently, it currently has 41.

Large caches and depots will be prime targets for numerous enemy capabilities in modern warfare that did not exist in the mid 40s. We’re still trying to understand how those will be employed, much less how we’re going to mitigate and ultimately defeat them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[sinister]

Great point. Everything I've seen has indicated that Air Force, Navy and Marines will be the lead in that theatre, unless the party starts in Korea.

It'll be sporting since the Marines have given up their tanks and tube artillery.

History lesson: in June 1950 Major General William F. Dean was ordered to deploy his three under-strength infantry regiments of his 24th Infantry Division from Japan to Korea by air. Mission: delay 13 invading North Korean infantry divisions and one tank division for 8 days so we could move the 1st Cavalry Division and the 25th Infantry Division to Pusan to build the perimeter along the Naktong River line.

[cd228]

It'll be sporting since the Marines have given up their tanks and tube artillery.

History lesson: in June 1950 Major General William F. Dean was ordered to deploy his three under-strength infantry regiments of his 24th Infantry Division from Japan to Korea by air. Mission: delay 13 invading North Korean infantry divisions and one tank division for 8 days so we could move the 1st Cavalry Division and the 25th Infantry Division to Pusan to build the perimeter along the Naktong River line.

USMC is banking on Rocket Arty. I don't know if they are investing in Mobile Protected Fires, but they probably should be. If the case studies I've seen from the Pacific and Middle East are legit, an armored gun is very useful for enemy strong points.

[mark5pt56]

Thread drift-maybe move the logistics and tactics portion of this to General Discussion and talk about the weapons here.

[Alpha-17]

While I agree that the "X" designation does not mean much, and even getting to drop the "X" does not mean cancelation is not possible, the DIVAD managed to be standardized as the M247, but still never entered production, but your timeline is a bit off.

There never was an "XM16", the USAF adopted the AR-15 off-the-street as the M16. In November 1963, the Army's XM16A1 program was launched under the same contract as the M16, and they were procured alongside each other until the USAF's demands were fulfilled. The XM16A1 was standardized as the M16A1 in February 1967, only 39 months after first procurement. The XM4 Carbine started life at a meeting in September 1984 between Colt's and ARDEC. In October 1986, the XM4 was standardized as the M4 and the USMC procured a small batch of 900. The XM4 spent only 25 months as the XM4, although it would spend almost a decade waiting for large scale procurement.

If you want an example of something that spent a long time in the development, look at the XM1 (1973-79) or YAH-64 (1973-81) programs.

RE: XM16--Interesting. I've seen XM16s mentioned in secondary sources (One example, on the 602) talking about the troubled adoption process, but looking into it does seem to suggest it was not common. No weapons were marked as such, anyway. Fair.

The XM16E1's timeline matches what I said; 39 months after first procurement included "two years of full on combat experience and wide scale adoption."

RE: XM4--You're right, I was going off of Big Army adoption date, rather than when it was redesignated. Some inconsistencies though, the dates I've seen indicate the M4 wasn't typified until '87, and the beginning dates for the program being in '82. Granted, this is from Wiki, so I do take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting that they seem to be so far off.

In 1982, the U.S. Government requested Colt to make a carbine version of the M16A2. At the time, the Colt M16A2 was the Colt 645, also known as the M16A1E1. Later that year, the U.S. Army Armament Munitions Chemical Command helped Colt develop a new variant of the XM177E2, and the U.S. Army redesignated the XM177E2 to the XM4 Carbine, giving the name as the successor to the M3 carbine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

[1168]

Will it be any worse than a WW2 battalion with a mix of Caliber .30, Caliber (boxed or M1906 clips for the BAR), Caliber .30 (belted), Caliber .30 (M1 clips) .30 Carbine, and Caliber .45?

How is this an improvement on that? At best, this would mimic that, assuming 240s and SAWs disappear at the same time this is fielded.IMG_6569.jpeg

[lysander]

How is this an improvement on that? At best, this would mimic that, assuming 240s and SAWs disappear at the same time this is fielded.IMG_6569.jpeg

That's the point. It was not a disaster then, and logistics has improved since then.

[lysander]

RE: XM16--Interesting. I've seen XM16s mentioned in secondary sources (One example, on the 602) talking about the troubled adoption process, but looking into it does seem to suggest it was not common. No weapons were marked as such, anyway. Fair.

The XM16E1's timeline matches what I said; 39 months after first procurement included "two years of full on combat experience and wide scale adoption."

RE: XM4--You're right, I was going off of Big Army adoption date, rather than when it was redesignated. Some inconsistencies though, the dates I've seen indicate the M4 wasn't typified until '87, and the beginning dates for the program being in '82. Granted, this is from Wiki, so I do take it with a grain of salt, but it's interesting that they seem to be so far off.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M4_carbine

There is only one document that makes reference to an "XM16," it is from the US Army Infantry Board's "Product Improvement Test of XM16 Rifle." The report follows the US Army Test and Evaluation Command's "Test Results, Product Improvement Test of Armalite AR-15 Rifle". These PITs were to evaluate the two different forward assist designs and field test the better of the two. So, this report is actually about the XM16E1.

The USAF refers to the rifle as the "AR-15" up until they get them contracted , then they are "M16s."

In reports that deal generally about the M16, they usually refer to them as "M16 and XM16A1".

---

From “XM4 Carbine Development Program,” James F. Taylor & Harold Waterman, Colt Industries, Firearm Division, Sept 1987:

“Short barreled variations of the Colt M16/M16A1 rifle have been around almost as long as the rifle itself. Names such as the Colt XM177E2 and Colt CAR-15 are familiar to all who have followed United States small arms development. These were most prevalent, and used in significant numbers, in the late 1960's and through the 70’s.

“As early as mid-1982 an interest was developing to redesign and upgrade the carbine with features satisfactory to meet redefined U.S. Government missions. In September, 1984, a meeting was held at the Colt facility in Hartford that began to detail features and requirements of the carbine known as the XM4. A series of meetings ensued, each one further defining and clarifying the task, until a contract (DAAA21-85-C-0192) was signed on 12 JUne, 1985.

“The basic task of the contract was to furnish, by 7 February, 1986, forty XM4 carbines for use in development tests. Colt, in addition to the hardware fabrication, was required to conduct a series of engineering tests in accordance with an approved Government test plan.”

As typical, Wiki is close, but not quite right.