NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal Or Possibility?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
University of Calgary PRISM: University of Calgary's Digital Repository Graduate Studies The Vault: Electronic Theses and Dissertations 2016 NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal or Possibility? Zhou, Yi Le (David) Zhou, Y. L. (2016). NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal or Possibility? (Unpublished master's thesis). University of Calgary, Calgary, AB. doi:10.11575/PRISM/27061 http://hdl.handle.net/11023/2872 master thesis University of Calgary graduate students retain copyright ownership and moral rights for their thesis. You may use this material in any way that is permitted by the Copyright Act or through licensing that has been assigned to the document. For uses that are not allowable under copyright legislation or licensing, you are required to seek permission. Downloaded from PRISM: https://prism.ucalgary.ca UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY NATO Infantry Weapons Standardization: Ideal or Possibility? by Yi Le (David) Zhou A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF STRATEGIC STUDIES GRADUATE PROGRAM IN MILITARY AND STRATEGIC STUDIES CALGARY, ALBERTA March, 2016 © Yi Le (David) Zhou 2016 ii Abstract This thesis examines the efforts that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has taken regarding the standardization of rifles and small arms ammunition from the Cold War to the present day and the limitations of these standardization efforts. During the Cold War, NATO was unsuccessful at standardizing a common rifle and its member states only agreed to standardize ammunition calibers. This thesis will discuss the factors that prevented all of the alliance’s militaries from adopting the same rifle models and the problems associated with NATO’s ammunition standardization efforts. Many NATO members intend on procuring new small arms during the 2020s period but there are no plans for the adoption of a common NATO rifle. In the absence of a common rifle for the future, NATO needs to undertake efforts that would both modernize its small arms capabilities and improve the degree of standardization within the alliance. iii Acknowledgements First and foremost, I would like to thank Jim Schatz for everything that he has done to assist me with my thesis. I have learned a great deal from Mr. Schatz and the information and documents that I obtained from him were crucial to my thesis. Thank you Mr. Schatz for your encouragement throughout my research and for taking time from your busy schedule to answer my numerous interview questions and provide feedback on the drafts of my thesis chapters. Many thanks to my supervisors, Dr. Terry Terriff and Dr. Alexander Hill, for offering so much of their time to provide advice and feedback on my research and thesis. Special thanks to my examiner Dr. James Keeley for his insightful feedback and suggestions on my thesis. I would also like to thank Dr. Maureen Hiebert, the Graduate Program Director at the Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, for her advice on preparing for the thesis defence. I would like to express my gratitude to Salvatore A. Fanelli and MAJ James Williamson for the important information that they provided for my thesis and their feedback on the drafts of some of my thesis chapters. I have learned so much from my communications with Mr. Fanelli and MAJ Williamson and appreciate them taking time from their busy schedules in order to help me. Many thanks to CWO (Mr Gnr) John T. Yoshida and COL Miroslaw Zahor for taking time from their busy schedules to answer my questions for my thesis and for helping broaden my understanding of firearms related topics. As well, I would like to thank Cris E. Murray for providing me with detailed explanations about certain technical aspects of firearms via email and for giving me permission to include the iv materials on the 7x46mm cartridge that he sent me during my undergraduate years in my thesis. I have learned a lot from my emails communications with Mr. Murray. Furthermore, I would like to thank Per G. Arvidsson for taking his time to answer many of my thesis questions and for providing me with some NATO documents. I would also like to thank the following individuals for taking their time to answer questions for my thesis: Ola Bøe-Hansen, CAPT Robert Bopp, Michal Kuklik, Angus N. Norcross, Ondrej Podel, R. Blake Stevens, Anthony G. Williams and Jonathan Zyto. Special thanks to Dr. Gary K. Roberts for confirming the information from some of his unpublished online materials on terminal ballistics and providing me with some of his unpublished materials from the public domain for my thesis. Also, I would like to thank Lt. COL Ronald McLaughlin and Jack Leuba for confirming the information that they have posted online for use in my thesis. A Canadian defense industry professional, a Canadian firearms industry professional, a French defense professional and a former Canadian Army infantry reservist wanted to remain anonymous in my thesis. Many thanks to those individuals for taking time from their busy schedules to answer my thesis questions. As well, I am grateful to the French defense professional for providing me with many NATO documents that were crucial to my thesis. v Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. viii List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... ix List of Abbreviations ................................................................................................................... xi Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1: Second World War Logistical Problems and Weapons Developments ................ 6 1.1 Ammunition Supply Problems during the Second World War...................................... 6 1.2 Weapons Development Up To the End of the Second World War .............................. 13 Chapter 2: NATO Ammunition and Weapons Standardization in the Post-War Era ........ 23 2.1 NATO Weapons Standardization Trends ...................................................................... 23 2.2 US and British Post-War Rifle Cartridge Developments .............................................. 24 2.3 Rifle and Ammunition Standardization Efforts ............................................................ 27 2.4 7.62mm NATO Ammunition Standards ......................................................................... 33 2.5 Churchill’s Desire for a Common Anglo-American Rifle ............................................. 35 2.6 US Adoption of the M14 ................................................................................................... 36 2.7 Spanish and German Post-War Rifle Developments ..................................................... 39 2.8 German and Norwegian Adoption of the G3 ................................................................. 41 2.9 Basic Comparison of the FAL and G3 ............................................................................ 42 Chapter 3: US Development of the M16 and NATO Standardization of the SS109 Round 48 3.1 Alternatives to the 7.62mm NATO Cartridge ................................................................ 48 vi 3.2 US Procurement of AR-15 Rifles ..................................................................................... 50 3.3 The Vietnam War and US Adoption of the M16 ........................................................... 52 3.4 NATO Ammunition and Weapons Trials of 1976-79 .................................................... 55 3.5 Weapons and Ammunition Candidates of the 1976-79 NATO Trials ......................... 57 3.6 Challenges to NSMATCC’s Recommendations ............................................................. 63 3.7 Failure to Standardize a Common NATO Rifle ............................................................. 68 3.8 Impact of the 1976-79 NATO Trials and RSI on US Procurement .............................. 72 3.9 Canadian Weapons Procurement after the NATO Trials ............................................ 74 Chapter 4: NATO Standardization Limitations and Post-Cold War Efforts ....................... 78 4.1 NATO Ammunition Interchangeability Procedures ..................................................... 78 4.2 Why NATO Standardization is still needed in the Post-Cold War Era....................... 80 4.3 Limitations of NATO Ammunition Standardization .................................................... 82 4.4 Common NATO Rifle for the Future? ............................................................................ 89 4.5 Eastern European Challenges towards NATO Standardization .................................. 92 4.6 Current NATO Weapons Standardization Efforts ........................................................ 97 Chapter 5: Alternatives to NATO Standard SS109 ............................................................... 103 5.1 Is NATO Standard 5.56mm SS109 Ideal for Rifle Use?.............................................. 103 5.2 The Human Body and Bullet Terminal Performance ................................................