Pentagon Confirms Move to 6.8mm
- Thread starter ed308
- Start date
- Status
That's not contested. In fact it's quite common that Special Operations inserts prior to a full scale ground invasion. Still doesn't negate the fact that there were hundreds of thousands of "Regular Army" (and other branches) that were engaged in combat extensively from 2003 - 2008 in Iraq and 2002 - ~2014 or so in Afghanistan. Getting shot at, shooting people, being wounded, earning silver stars and COMs, etc.
I admittedly didn't ride into Kabul with the Northern Alliance in November 2001. I came along 2 years later. I never saw any M193 out in the wild... but I won't dispute that it was. Heck there was a M60 mounted to one of the defensive positions in Asadabad in 2003/2004, and those were supposed to have been replaced by the M240 years prior.
Last edited:
There were not hundreds of thousands in combat. Sitting in a FOB attending meetings and making Power Point presentations is not combat. Hundreds of thousands in theater maybe for both conflicts. Of those troops, less than 10% are in a unit that is committed to the fight and of those about ~3% will see a shot fired in anger.
Most Casualties in both conflicts were from IED's. Those casualties never fired a shot or even saw the enemy to shoot back.
None of that takes away from our experience or Aberdeen's testing. You can search the forums and the report is posted.
I carried an M60 in 1/75th. In combat units the M240B did replace the M60 by then I believe. That does not mean Service Support and Support units did not soldier on as their combat power is not about launching bullets at bad guys.
We had M60E4's as well as the USMC/SEALS.
The Army spent 92 million in 2021 to add even more M240B's to the force, btw.....
https://www.guns.com/news/2021/06/09/fn-wins-92-million-army-contract-for-m240-machine-guns
stagpanther
New member
That FN factory tour video is great.
Ahh but that's not at all accurate, there were. There were more than 300,000 ground forces in the invasion of Iraq alone. I absolutely recognize that much of this was support personnel *some of which took wrong turns, failed to maintain their weapons, saw combat anyway, and paid for mistakes with their lives or capture* at any given time there were several RCTs or BCTs on the ground in iraq from 2003 - 2008, usually at least 5. Thats not including the "green zone people" who largely went to meetings. Many Soldiers and Marines did their one enlistment, got out, and fresh recruits stepped in. I work with a man who deployed to Afghanistan his first time in 2012, and he did the same things other direct action troops did before him. He was in 5th grade when I was on my first deployment. Between the invasion of Iraq and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, plenty of folks got their piece of that pie. Admittedly, I would put the number of door kickers shoot at from within to be much lower. There just simply isn't a place to find that number. Even many guys that didn't have that experience still participated in CQB engagements outdoors.
IEDs did inflict a very large number of casualties. Many who did see "combat" didn't get shot at a whole lot. Many did. It largely depends on where you were, and when you were there. The fact remains, no one has a monopoly on reporting experience from the GWOT.
As a side note, I hope that DOD does not muck around with the M240 and M80 ammo. Many, even without combat experience, has seen what happens when you take one of the best medium machine guns ever designed and try to scale it down to fire a cartridge with lesser energy. Look no further than the M240 vs M249, and reliability of each.
Ignition Override
New member
What happened to the ammo discussion?
Don't get me wrong.
I'm glad to see comments (here) by veterans who have various experiences with fielded weapons.
A younger fellow student (he is 60) in my Krav self-defense class was in an armed escort unit in Iraq.
Don't get me wrong.
I'm glad to see comments (here) by veterans who have various experiences with fielded weapons.
A younger fellow student (he is 60) in my Krav self-defense class was in an armed escort unit in Iraq.
Ahh but it is accurate.
Tooth to tail ratio 5.6 to 1 Support to Warfighter or 15% of those deployed are warfighters as members of Combat Arms MOS in a Combat Unit.
300,000 x .15 = 45,000 deployed Warfighters
Of those warfighters in any war, about 2% will actively engage the enemy. Most soldiers might hear gunfire or witness battle in a combat unit but circumstances do not permit their active engagement.
45,000 x .02 = 900 soldiers
So, in a typical war, 300,000 soldiers means less than 1000 will get the opportunity to actively engage with the enemy.
That first tour, we had ~90 guys on the ground in Afghanistan. That first tour recorded just over 1700 engagements with the enemy. Yes, the unit recorded every engagement and DA6'd every engagement.
It is kind of like the Cherries doing a Military Free Fall.....
30 seconds of Freefall = Hours of conversation
There is a lot of legacy built upon the backs of just a few when it comes to combat. That does not negate the experience of those soldiers who fired their weapon at close range nor does it negate our documented experience confirmed by Aberdeen. Of the two groups, the unit whose job was actual CQB probably weighs more than a Clerk Typist who got nabbed to be an extra rifle on a convoy just because the amount of statistical data gained from exposure to CQB. That does not take away from the actions of the Clerk Typist but it seems to me it amounts to an Operator trying to tell a Clerk Typist about proper memo formats. One has more experience and training than the other not as an ego thing, just a fact.
Ask anyone on the Teams about submitting CONOPS and you will get the joke.
No such thing exist. Just because the fight happens at arms length does not make it CQB.
I do see that the Regular Army has tried to morph the definition to include fighting at close quarters. That is not CQB nor does it use the same tactics, equipment, training, or objective. What you learn in 7-8 for MOUT is not what is used in Initiative Based CQB or even older tactics for CQB operations.
It refers to those who have not jumped the fence and part of SOCOM. There is very different Command Relationships, Interagency Relationships, funding sources, and authority. Hence, The Regular Army vs those who are not.
Last edited:
This is where I have a problem with your statistics. Not the actual math but the assumptions used.
Show me a "typical war" as you see it.
Another point I have an issue with. A fight in your foxhole (or in my generation, Charlie through the wire) was absolutely close quarters battle on the most personal level. The fact that it might not meet the current definition of CQB for SOF operators doesn't mean it doesn't exist or isn't a very real thing.
Typical War refers to COIN in Vietnam and GWOT. Statistics come from USAJFKSWCS Historian's office.
It is not some mystery. All units turn in a status report every single day. That data is compiled, tracked, and recorded.
In your generation there was no such thing as CQB tactics at least not in modern terms. It was developed in the late 1970's after Munich with Operation NIMROD being the worlds first real exposure.
https://www.nam.ac.uk/explore/iranian-embassy-siege
I am sure it was close, desperate, and dangerous. That does not make it CQB nor did you ever use CQB tactics. There maybe some crossover in that I am sure engagements happened at room distances. That is not a typical engagement nor is it the same as a unit whose primary engagement is that close quarters environment. That close quarters is not the exception, it is the rule, and a specifically sought after environment.
It would be like me talking about Surface Warfare or Anti-Submarine Warfare. I know about it, I rode on a Sub to work a few times but that does not mean I know all that much about submarines except how to get out and into them, lol.
Last edited:
https://thegunzone.com/what-percentage-of-the-military-sees-combat/
This article puts the percentage of soldiers deployed who mission is combat as 1% to 2% of the soldiers deployed.....
Agrees very well with USAJFKSWCS Historian's Office numbers.....
30 seconds of Freefall = Hours of Conversation
There's the rub. Just because we didn't do it the way you're taught to do it today, or use the same terms used today doesn't make it accurate to say we didn't do it, or "there's no such thing".
One is simply wrong to make statements like that. I put it in the same class as saying the Red Baron never engaged in aerial combat, because he didn't get target lock on his radar before launching a Sidewinder..etc....
2damnold4this
New member
From 2001 to early 2006, the Marine Corps awarded 68,000 combat action ribbons. After early 2006, the Corps started including IED attacks in the award but up until then the Corps had not.
I don't know how many of the types of awards the Army issue for being in combat were awarded but someone could look that up.
https://www.stripes.com/news/marines-can-now-earn-combat-action-ribbon-for-ied-response-1.45946
I don't know how many of the types of awards the Army issue for being in combat were awarded but someone could look that up.
https://www.stripes.com/news/marines-can-now-earn-combat-action-ribbon-for-ied-response-1.45946
That is news. Thanks for sharing! When did you start doing Initiative Based CQB? Would it be okay if the SWC Historian contacts you?
Not what I said. The percentages apply to ALL combat units not just SF. Once more, the relevant experience is about the lethality of 5.56mm at CQB distances. Those percentages are those who would be exposed to conditions to experience direct combat of all Forces deployed.
And the "Taliban" shot a rocket over Kandahar one night. Missed the base completely landing miles away in empty desert.
The next day the SGM's from all the units on Kandahar were out making list's because every soldier on Kandahar just earned a CIB or CAB. Thousands were awarded to soldiers who slept in their bunks.
It is a worthless metric for the specific conditions of shooting the enemy at CQB distances.
https://www.stripes.com/news/marines-can-now-earn-combat-action-ribbon-for-ied-response-1.45946
2damnold4this
New member
I'm sorry but claiming the Taliban shooing a rocket over Kandahar one night got 68K Marines a combat action ribbon before 2006 is nonsense. Clearly more than 900 US military saw combat. Making nonsensical claims that only 900 Americans saw combat in the WoT undermines your arguments
If you could actually produce some statistics or a study you could link, you'd have something other than assertions.
If you could actually produce some statistics or a study you could link, you'd have something other than assertions.
It is not 900 saw combat. It is not my fault you misunderstand the conversation. It is 900 actually closed with and destroyed the enemy in actively killing enemy combatants in a direct fire engagement.
What is patently ridiculous is the idea 68,000 support guys were out slaying the enemy. The war would have been over in a week, LMAO. It is irrelevant to the fact 5.56mm is being replaced because of lethality issues. Factually, that is happening. Nor does it invalidate the documented experience of those whose primary mission was direct fire engagements at close quarters.
What is fact is that vast majority of CAB are given out for reason other than direct fire engagements with the enemy.
Interesting quote from the document.
"...the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range"
"...the one 7.62mm round that received the full evaluation, the M80 fired from the M14 rifle, performed in the same band of performance, which would indicate that for M80 ammunition at least there appears to be no benefit to the larger caliber at close quarters range"
- Status