HK XM-8 - Interesting weapon

[Tgace]

Maybe some of the more wealthier nations can afford to armor their troops with level III or IV armor, but thats not the reason we use hardball. Goes way back to Hague Convention rules against hollow points, and various other rules to make killing more "civilized".

The Hague Convention of 1899 consist of four main sections and three additional declarations (the final main section is for some reason identical to the first additional declaration):
I - Pacific Settlement of International Disputes
II - Laws and Customs of War on Land
III - Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of Principles of Geneva Convention of 1864
IV - Prohibiting Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
Declaration I - On the Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons
Declaration II - On the Use of Projectiles the Object of Which is the Diffusion of Asphyxiating or Deleterious Gases
Declaration III - On the Use of Bullets Which Expand or Flatten Easily in the Human Body

 

[Gaidheal]

True enough... but my point is valid, all the same. Most nations can armour troops to levels I & II (are these terms commonly understood around here then?) at least. As you say, many nations could field up to levels III and IV for battlefield troops if they wished. Bear in mind that when fighting a war, infantry aim is not so much to kill (and there is interesting info on how few soldiers even fire, much less shoot to kill) as wound and intimidate to the point where the conflict ends in your favour, leaving you in control of the ground.

John

 

[Tgace]

Agreed...All the same, Im certain that a soldier with an enemy rushing his position wants to Kill the guy as fast as he can and could care less about how wounding him will occupy 2-3 of his comrades. Our little US tour through Somalia stirred up a lot of complaints amongst the troops about the 5.56 (many the "black tip" steel penetrator rounds) not stopping the BG's.

Im more interested in the 6.8 Remington round. Better terminal ballistics than 7.62, smaller than 7.62. More range and punch than 5.56 and only requires a new upper receiver on the M4/M16/AR and a small magizine adaptation.

 

[Gaidheal]

Actually... the stats say that most soldiers don't want to kill him at all... but that is a topic for an entirely different thread, I think. Especially as a lot of people won't / won' want to believe it.

As for the new round... I agree, as it happens. I'd rather have the new Remington round as I always felt that 5.56mm was just a little too small, even allowing for the fact it was deliberately lighter and smaller than older calibres. In the UK the old SLR is still thought of fondly and not entirely for the fact that it looks a lot better and 'feels like a real rifle'. The round it fired (I cannot remember precisely the designation so I shall admit it rather than make it up!) was about the same as the Russian 7.62 - a significantly heavier round with all the accompanying ballistic performance differences. Soldiers were not at all keen on the switch to 5.56 even though it IS more accurate as fired from the SA-80. After all, they argued, they were not having that much difficulty hitting their targets, they just wanted to be sure they could hit them at range and that the target was not going to be in a hurry get up and take another. Nevertheless, the 5.56mm calibre has proved a success and is certainly not 'ineffective'. I see the similar wishful thinking / bias in the 9mm vs 'insert favourite, usually .45 here' arguments that rage in pistol threads. 9mm is a good choice of round in some circumstances. In LEO work it is actually not bad at all, depending on how said LEOs are trained to shoot. If they want 'one shot anywhere and he is lucky to live' type rounds, the 9mm is not it. However, that seems a long way from "Protect (even from their own stupidity) and Serve" to me...

Bit of a ramble, I know... hit me back ;¬)

John

 

[Tgace]

I believe you are referring to Grossmans work (On Killing). Interesting and has many good points, but has some holes too. Even so, his book ends by saying that through desensitization and modern training methods, most (modern trained) soldiers do indeed engage "targets". At work I just saw some videos he has produced in regards to "Active Shooter" response by LE. I think the issue is as much (or at least significantly) about training as it is about any "natural inhibition" against killing.

 

[Gaidheal]

No, not that at all. Although that is an interesting piece of work... let me see if I can dig up something solid for you over the next couple of days. But in short... a very small number of people will actually shoot to kill and training makes no difference to it - it's psychological in nature and rooted in self-identity, training doesn't alter this even though military does alter psychological make up in some ways.

Cutting to the bottom line, it turns out that only two types of people actually set out to kill in a battlefield scenario - psychopaths and 'guardians' (several terms are in use for this, but I'll explain anyway). Psychopaths is self explanatory, I hope. 'Guardians' are people who are perfectly normal until they are put into a situation where they decide that others must die in order to protect the lives of friends, family, country, etc. At which point they kill without hesitation or remorse, very efficiently and often are applauded as "very brave". It's a sort 'mode switch' and only some people can and will make it as it is 'hard-wired' in the brain/mind somehow. They, with the psychopaths, account for almost all the direct-fire / hand-to-hand battlefield kills as well as (unsurprisingly) tending to be the people who die or get medals.

Interesting, no?

John

 

[Tgace]

Yeah, thats Grossman...
http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/grossm1.htm

Grossman explores the reasons for the soldier's reluctance at shooting the enemy, which has led to the change in his training. Exploring the history of combat, examining hundreds of individual case studies, he shows that fear of death or harm to oneself is not a primary factor; a soldier will often even put himself in mortal danger to avoid having to kill another. And almost all soldiers will crack psychologically if held in constant combat for an extraordinary length of time. Yet, a tiny minority of troops seem predisposed to suffer no such harm, and actually to thrive on killing others. These are described as psychopathic personalities or, as Grossman puts it, alternatively, sheepdog-guardians for their fellow troops.

Like I said, the guy does have some good points, but the history of human slaughter kinda shows that we dont have too much trouble doing the deed....

 

[Gaidheal]

He uses a similar term, but that is not the work I was referring to, I am sure of it. I'll re-read him to make sure I am not confusing myself about who said what, where, but I am pretty sure.

As for slaughter... most of it is done by or under supervision of people are sociopaths / psychopaths. E.g. many SS were not [the above] and did not in fact engage in murder of civilians, etc. Those units that did were made up of a really unpleasant bunch of mentally and socially unblanced misfits. Just the kind of people for remorseless killing of.. well... anybody, but preferrably the unarmed - don't want to risk being hurt yourself, after all..

OK, Marshall is one of the sources he [Grossman] references, which is also referenced by the work I am actually referring to. I really will look and try to find something solid to post / link here. Grossman I've read but it is not what I was actually referring to. Although it bears re-examination if I am going to dredge this one..

John

[edit] added paragraph on Marshall, Grossman, etc.

 

[Tgace]

Just to clarify, by slaughter I was implying the long history of humans killing each other, not specific incidents of "slaughter". The "Art" of military leadership has always been basically about gathering people and equipment and putting them in situations where they have to fight. To really butcher Sun Zu... "one who utilizes force employs his men as if rolling logs or stones down a hill. It is the nature of logs and stones that on level ground they remain still, and on a slope they move. So the force a commander creates is like a log or rock plunging downward from a thousand feet up." Its also the reason most (US) military leadership is on the "follow me!" concept. People will follow and fight for leaders when they apply certain principles and training methods.

SLA Marshalls "Men Against Fire" is another "Grossmanlike" book ( actually Grossman is probably more "Marshall-like" if you get my drift ). Again, good book , good points, but IMO too simplistic and all based on premises that seem more opinion than "fact" to me. Marshall's been hacked on his sources and method of data collection, however that dosent mean that what they say has no merit or isnt of value in the field of military/martial science...not by a long shot.

 

[Gaidheal]

Well, the reality of historical conflict is that very often there was a lot less killing than people think. Breaking the will to fight is a) easier b) more effective than trying to kill a lot of people, per se. That aside...

I remember the Grossman crap now.. it's a favourite with dickheads who try to argue that 'violent videogames / films' turn people into killers. This has been repeatedly falsified so I shan't go over it again. However, he referenced a lot of material that is relevant, such as the figures for the number of combat troops who fire their weapons. More recent research has shown that even when the weapons are fired it is often not at a target but rather 'in a general direction to show willing' and that even when pressed into firing at an actual opponent people try and shoot either 'near enough to force him to back off / back up' or 'at a location that won't kill him, necessarily.. just put him out the fight and stop him shooting at me / rushing me'. Very few soldiers, the same proportion, it seems, shoot to kill even now. Those that do appear to fit the two categories I outlined above - they are either psychopaths (sometimes sociopaths) or they are 'guardians' who in any situation other than a "this is a real me/my friends/my family/my country or them scenario" will be just as unwilling to kill and seriously injure as the majority of the rest of humanity. I just wish I could find the paper detailing all the above stuff which is not found in Grossman, Marshall, etc.

John

P.S. Humans are the only species which regularly deliberately kills members of its own species on any appreciable scale. Our history does reflect that, as you alluded, but in general 'at war' we killed each other a lot less than the cinema might suggest. E.g. Gladiatorial combat was often not to the death and was still, it seems, far more violent and bloody than actually serving in a foreign campaign with the (Roman) legions.

[edit] corrected minor spelling/typingerror which confused the sense

 

[Gaidheal]

Further to the above.. it has been theorized that the reason soldiers act this is that when we have adrenaline flowing our higher functions shut down (undisputed) and that this leads to us reverting to more primitive 'primate' reactions - we go for posturing and violent 'antler locking' type responses designed to intimidate and injure but not outright kill. After all, we want our species to succeed and that means we want as many individuals alive as possible... we just want to be on the top of that pack of individuals not the bottom. This last stuff is theory, for the most part and is a lot of what I want to find the source for *sigh*

John

 

[Tgace]

The thing is (again strictly IMHO), poor training and leadership could be argued to be the cause for those mentioned phenomena as well as "human nature". And units with more and better training do consistently show better performance. I think its a blend of many issues in the end. Nothing is strictly a "one cause" answer.

Nice discussion here though.

 

[Gaidheal]

Well... the interesting thought that occurs to me is.. are the 'guardian' types people who have learnt to deal with adrenaline better, so lose less cognitive ability and so make a rational choice to kill not posture? I suspect that trained Martial Artists who are serious about 'realistic' self-defence and so on would turn out to be MUCH more likely to show up as a 'guardian' than a control sample of non-martial artists.
If anybody wants to fund my research in this field..... <weg>

I personally do believe the stuff about the 'hard-wired for posturing' though. Look at a typical "Saturday-Night-Fight" in a pub/bar/club. It's all about exactly that and although sometimes the line is crossed, often it is crossed by people who we would class as psychopathic in the real clinical sense. Seems to back it up, no? But hardly valid empirical evidence, I admit.

As for my introspection.. I should point out that I very nearly became an officer in the British Army recently. I actually withdrew from the entire thing because of the politics of a recent 'conflict' and my own views being incompatible with my government's position. In good conscience I could not continue.. but back to the point.. I tested, years ago before some serious counselling, as 'borderline psychopath'. Now, this one is contentious because if you test anyone in the way these tests are typically done they have a much higher likelihood of showing up as just that (this is a whole other topic fit for a psych forum not here so I shall leave it there) but it's certainly true that even non-academics referred to me as 'a bit pyscho' at this time. I had absolutely no compunction about harming, even seriously, another if they in some way conflicted with me and my choices. This is precisely what led to me being advised to seek help, which I did. [Apologies if this is a bit close to 'Soul bearing' for the comfort of some] Now, my point is that this behaviour was considered abnormal but is exactly what is needed for 'the perfect soldier' from the perspective of those who want a soldier who will kill on order without hesitating, agonizing, subverting the techniques/tools, etc. This would seem to lend some support to the theory outlined earlier about the majority of people, regardless of experience and training being unwilling to kill, but a small minority being willing and efficient. Today, I suspect that I fall into the 'guardian' group. Just as I imagine a lot of other tactically aware self-defence oriented MAs do.

Kind of a winding ramble... but I hope I managed to make some sense.

John

 

[Tgace]

Enjoying this discussion, and it hasnt developed into an arguement, imagine that!

Another issue that wasnt addressed in Grossmans or Marshals works (as far as I can recall) was the issue of experience. How different was the performance of veteran soldiers compared to green ones?

Grossman liked the example of Civil War era muskets being found double, triple or quadruple loaded. He theorized that that was due to the soldiers not wanting to fire and reloading to appear that they had. Not saying this was entirely wrong, but I have seen people do some odd things under stress. Typically inexperienced or untrained people. Hunters ejecting 3-4 rounds at a deer without firing and honestly wondering how they missed. Soldiers/Cops loading magazines in backwards, dropping magazines instead of firing and on and on. Id be willing to bet that soldiers who had been through a battle or three were less likely to have double loaded their guns.

Just to clarify my point, the "human factor" IS an issue in this topic, I just think that its part of the puzzle.

An interesting US military report on this issue...
http://www.usafa.af.mil/jscope/JSCOPE00/Kilner00.html

 

[Gaidheal]

I agree about the double loading. Inexperienced English soldiers in the Napoleonic era often loaded double or fired their 'ram-rod' at the enemy, under stress. Both situations were 'bad' - the first could easily kill the firer, as the barrel ruptured. The second lost a necessary tool for reloading, leaving them with an expensive club. But Muskets were often used as such anyway..

As for the experience question more generally, though - the paper I am searching for clearly showed that in the sampling they did, experience did not affect it. This is part of why I think it was so interesting. It suggested that the soldiers really did 'have it' or 'not have it'. I suspect it is more fluid in that I rather think the experience of combat itself could alter someone's psychology to the point where they become a 'guardian' type. Equally, we know that people have 'become' psychopaths after combat experience. Argument rages over whether they were 'latent psychopaths' or 'normal' people altered by an horrific experience - i.e. PTSD victims.

I shall go read the link now...

John

 

[Gaidheal]

As a tangential to the original thread, but much more relevant to our [Tgace & I] discussion..

If you have not already read Larry Niven's Forever War do so. It's one book anyone interested in combat/combatives should read as part of their philosophical education. The most directly relevant part is at the beginning, when they [main character's unit] first face their enemy.

John

[edit] typo ;¬)

 

[Tgace]

I would say there ARE those who "have it" and some who "dont have it", but there are also those who can be "lead into having it". I think a lot of it depends on the battle situation too. Taking long range fire from a hard to see enemy is going to result in a different ratio of "performers" than a close ambush where its "kill or be killed". Variable after variable. I agree with the premise of that .mil source I posted too...a lot depends on the psychological "justification" situation the soldier is in as well.

 

[Tgace]

Back on the XM-8. Heres a thorough study of it...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm
H&K makes great weapons and this looks promising. Like I said before, I think the optics are too high. Dont see any iron BU sights. Dont like the carry handle thing (pure cosmetic preference) and would have designed a more ergonomic pistol grip. Besides that HK's are tops for quality and reliability.

This guy dosent like it and has a LOT of interesting opinions on military firearms...
http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/21stcenturyrifle.htm

Cross link to another thread on 6.8 Remington
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14160

 

[Gaidheal]

OK, all links read and digested.

Yes, the .mil page on morality of killing and the understanding of it being necessary for troops to be truly effective at killing as well as able to live with it afterwards was interesting. Not sure I have anything to say on it right now because I'd want to put my thoughts together properly. Perhaps my next topic.

As for the XM-8.. I think it is a very good solution. Your man with the interesting opinions has... well... interesting opinions ;¬)

On 6.8 Remington: I think it is straying into the territory of "solution to a problem that is not there" 5.56mm is an appropriate round for what it was designed for - AR ranges in jungle / urban warfare. M4 is inadequate in many cases because of the reduced muzzle velocity due to reduced barrel length, not because the round it fires is deficient, per se. M4 should be firing something more like 9mm for what it is trying to do, but that being the case why not just use an MP5 like most other nations do in that role?

John

 

[TonyM.]

During combat in '70 and '71 in the RVN, my experience was that the5.56mm did not drop people. My Colt Python did.