2 ms·

It's not really a chicken / egg issue, and the tactical logic of fire and maneuver long predates WWII. Yes, the StG 44 was a revolutionary weapon and certainly

It's not really a chicken / egg issue, and the tactical logic of fire and maneuver long predates WWII. Yes, the StG 44 was a revolutionary weapon and certainly influenced the AK and Stoner designs, but I'm not sure I buy the argument that it influenced tactics per se. FWIW, the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised that wounding Soviet soldiers would be a better way of slowing their advance across the Fulda Gap than would killing a similar number. With regard to SLAM being a fraud -- there is indeed debate as to whether his stats about what % of men in WWII fired their weapons are accurate. However, to the extent that any of SLAM's writings influenced the rollout of the M16, it was Soldier's Load, the TLDR version of which is, "our gear is too heavy". He had a point there, and we shouldn't ignore the significance of the 5.56mm round's light weight, and not just for the M16. Being able to carry 5 drums of SAW ammo on patrol can come in handy.

hga 12y ago
"the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised...." The story you've heard is dead wrong on many particulars: The '50s "generals" were fixated on creating 7.62 NATO and the M14 upgrade of the M1 Garand (and BTW it was another TFX/JSF one long arm to do everything semi-debacle). The AR-10 (the parent of the AR-15 that used 7.62 NATO) was part of the "competition" that somehow ended up selecting the Army's very own M14, through expedients like replacing screws and/or pins with coil springs while the rifles where in the custody of the Army. An early limited use of the AR-15 in Vietnam produced outsized reports of extreme stopping power and lethality, explained by the very high velocity of the the 55 grain bullets of the time (3,250 fps in something I just looked up, which matches my memory). From my research, before the civilians in the DoD forced it on the Army and Marines, mere wounding was never a selling point, that sounds more like excuses after real experiences showed how bad it really was. SLAM was a fraud, his schedule could not have produced the data he claimed to have collected then, a scholar reviewed his appointments calendar and noticed the discrepancy. It appears he did a limited number of bullshitting sessions and pulled his results out of his ass. Read e.g. the completely unrelated Hackworth About Face for a bit more on his feet of clay, in Vietnam. My counterpoint to the soldier's load argument is that the tradeoff went too far, e.g. I've read some accounts of SAW operators who really wished the round was more effective. I submit there's a case to be made for fewer but more effective rounds, but not battle rifle level. E.g. would 3-4 more effective drums do as well or better? Have to run, maybe more later.
- leroy_masochist 12y ago
  Thanks for setting me straight, do you have any sources for the account of what happened in the 50's? I'm a history nerd and would love to read up on it.
  - hga 12y ago
    You're very welcome. For the '50s, nothing off the top of my head, although it's really just a synthesis of a bunch of things I've observed and learned over decades: First is the obvious, that the M14 is a Garand with a detachable box magazine and a much better gas system in the front end, but it still has an op rod and the same exposed bolt on top. Compare to the other major designs of the 50s: The AR-10 wasn't exactly, except it inspired the AR-15, then there's the FNH FAL and the H&K G3/91: the only exposure the action gets is the necessary ejection port. And of course the M14 officially won the US competition. The corruption in that should be searchable both directly (e.g. search for "sabotage" of the alternatives, but you'll also find hits alleging sabotage of the M16), and indirectly in the much studied history of the adoption of The Black Rifle, as one of the major books on it is titled. Some of those accounts should detail why the civilians in the DoD took this out of the Army's hands (and I gather terminating with extreme prejudice that unit of the Army, and of course closing down Springfield Armory in 1968; the M60 debacle probably also played a role). It's also self-evident that something major happened to establish 7.62 NATO. E.g. I just read in Wikipedia that the British were going forward with their own rifle design using their own intermediate .280 British (which looks to be noticeably better than 7.62x39, a bit hotter than 6.8 SPC but probably wouldn't travel as far), then Labour lost the 1951 election...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL

hga 12y ago

"the story I've heard behind the introduction of the 5.56 round is that it was designed to wound, not kill. Supposedly the generals in charge of doctrine in the 50's surmised...." The story you've heard is dead wrong on many particulars: The '50s "generals" were fixated on creating 7.62 NATO and the M14 upgrade of the M1 Garand (and BTW it was another TFX/JSF one long arm to do everything semi-debacle). The AR-10 (the parent of the AR-15 that used 7.62 NATO) was part of the "competition" that somehow ended up selecting the Army's very own M14, through expedients like replacing screws and/or pins with coil springs while the rifles where in the custody of the Army. An early limited use of the AR-15 in Vietnam produced outsized reports of extreme stopping power and lethality, explained by the very high velocity of the the 55 grain bullets of the time (3,250 fps in something I just looked up, which matches my memory). From my research, before the civilians in the DoD forced it on the Army and Marines, mere wounding was never a selling point, that sounds more like excuses after real experiences showed how bad it really was. SLAM was a fraud, his schedule could not have produced the data he claimed to have collected then, a scholar reviewed his appointments calendar and noticed the discrepancy. It appears he did a limited number of bullshitting sessions and pulled his results out of his ass. Read e.g. the completely unrelated Hackworth About Face for a bit more on his feet of clay, in Vietnam. My counterpoint to the soldier's load argument is that the tradeoff went too far, e.g. I've read some accounts of SAW operators who really wished the round was more effective. I submit there's a case to be made for fewer but more effective rounds, but not battle rifle level. E.g. would 3-4 more effective drums do as well or better? Have to run, maybe more later.

leroy_masochist 12y ago
Thanks for setting me straight, do you have any sources for the account of what happened in the 50's? I'm a history nerd and would love to read up on it.
- hga 12y ago
  You're very welcome. For the '50s, nothing off the top of my head, although it's really just a synthesis of a bunch of things I've observed and learned over decades: First is the obvious, that the M14 is a Garand with a detachable box magazine and a much better gas system in the front end, but it still has an op rod and the same exposed bolt on top. Compare to the other major designs of the 50s: The AR-10 wasn't exactly, except it inspired the AR-15, then there's the FNH FAL and the H&K G3/91: the only exposure the action gets is the necessary ejection port. And of course the M14 officially won the US competition. The corruption in that should be searchable both directly (e.g. search for "sabotage" of the alternatives, but you'll also find hits alleging sabotage of the M16), and indirectly in the much studied history of the adoption of The Black Rifle, as one of the major books on it is titled. Some of those accounts should detail why the civilians in the DoD took this out of the Army's hands (and I gather terminating with extreme prejudice that unit of the Army, and of course closing down Springfield Armory in 1968; the M60 debacle probably also played a role). It's also self-evident that something major happened to establish 7.62 NATO. E.g. I just read in Wikipedia that the British were going forward with their own rifle design using their own intermediate .280 British (which looks to be noticeably better than 7.62x39, a bit hotter than 6.8 SPC but probably wouldn't travel as far), then Labour lost the 1951 election...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_FAL