U.S. Military: Next Assault Rifle

[sarongsong]

Senators get involved...July 11, 2008
...possible alternatives to the M16 (http://www.colt.com/mil/M16.asp) and M4 (http://www.colt.com/mil/M4.asp) once the exclusive contract with Colt (http://www.colt.com/)...ends in the summer of 2009...the Army -- which is responsible for procuring small arms for all the services -- continues to stand by the M4 and M16...
military.com (http://www.military.com/news/article/hill-aides-to-test-m4-alternatives.html?ESRC=dod-b.nl)

[Neverfly]

Would have been nice if the article could have covered what the alternatives are.

Realistically, the only way they are going to convince the Army to switch over is to either offer a drastically reduced price, or a weapon that is superior to everything known to man.
And how can you beat the M16 and also manage to beat the price?
And not without reason either...

The M16/M4/M4A1/M203 is easy maintenance (In spite of what the article claims, they are easy to disassemble/clean and reassemble), lightweight, rugged, versatile and, in spite of being only 5.56 mm (about the size of a .22 cal) -powerful.
Powerful because of the velocity at which the round travels. An M16 is more lethal than the 7.62 mm rifles carried by other nations armies.

In my opinion, they don't have a case, they're trying to invent one. But if it ain't broke- Don't fix it. The article had to claim inaccuracies just to make it even appear that they had a case to present.

[pzkpfw]

An M16 is more lethal than the 7.62 mm rifles carried by other nations armies.

Is it a myth that they are not trying to be as lethal?

(i.e wound, instead of kill, enemy to tie up resources)

[Neverfly]

Is it a myth that they are not trying to be as lethal?

(i.e wound, instead of kill, enemy to tie up resources)

There are 5 General Rules to combat.

The fifth rule is- when Threatened- Eliminate The Threat.

[BigDon]

To bad good fleshettes are expensive to engineer.

The opitome of long rifle lethality was supposedly a weapon than had a clover shaped muzzle opening that fired a round which consisted of three seperate osmium fleshettes. Each fleshette retaining the same kinetic energy as a .30-06 round out to 500 yards. But with all the same rate of fire as an M-16 with less recoil. Fleshettes being special that way. Just very, very expensive to make.

Even cheap aluminum fleshettes for 12 guages are devastating in their effect. The Army did studies, again using osmuim instead of much, much cheaper aluminum due to osmuim's ballistic characteristics. (IIRC harder and denser than lead) Osmium fleshettes, which were packed 12 to a 12 gauge and only had a meter spread at 300 meters would most assuredly cause lethal injury with only three fleshettes hitting the target.

[BigDon]

To bad good fleshettes are expensive to engineer.

The opitome of long rifle lethality was supposedly a weapon than had a clover shaped muzzle opening that fired a round which consisted of three seperate osmium fleshettes. Each fleshette retaining the same kinetic energy as a .30-06 round out to 500 yards. But with all the same rate of fire as an M-16 with less recoil. Fleshettes being special that way. Just very, very expensive to make.

Even cheap aluminum fleshettes for 12 guages are devastating in their effect. The Army did studies, again using osmuim instead of much, much cheaper aluminum due to osmuim's ballistic characteristics. (IIRC harder and denser than lead) Osmium fleshettes, which were packed 12 to a 12 gauge and only had a meter spread at 300 meters would most assuredly cause lethal injury with only three fleshettes hitting the target.

[captain swoop]

The M16/M4/M4A1/M203 is easy maintenance (In spite of what the article claims, they are easy to disassemble/clean and reassemble), lightweight, rugged, versatile and, in spite of being only 5.56 mm (about the size of a .22 cal) -powerful.
Powerful because of the velocity at which the round travels. An M16 is more lethal than the 7.62 mm rifles carried by other nations armies.

Well lethality depends on range. A 7.62 Nato round is certainly more lethal at longer ranges than the 5.56 round. If it wasn't the case then the GP Machine guns and sniper weapons would use the same round. In the British Army the 5.56 is used in the SA80 (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1458.aspx) Personal Weapon, Light Support Weapon (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1461.aspx) and the LMG (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1462.aspx).

It makes for weapons that are lighter to carry and gives an accurate weapon for a relatively short barrel length and is the most useful for the kind of ranges that infantry usualy fight at.

Bigger rounds are needed for longer ranges though, the L115A3 (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1459.aspx) Long Range Rifle uses an 8.59mm round and the Genral Purpose Machine Gun (http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1460.aspx) uses the 7.62 Nato round.

7.62 was the standard round for the British army up until the 80s but is over powered for most Infantry fighting uses.

[Stuart van Onselen]

Just recently the army was looking at some over-the-top super-weapons, as well as a more modest M-16 replacement. The XM29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM29_OICW)super-weapon was too darned heavy to carry, and was scrapped after years or work and huge sums of money were spent on it. The status of smaller weapon, the XM8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM-8), is still in limbo. Tests, more tests, competitions, more competitions, and probably a lot of under-the-table payments from the various competing manufacturers.

With respect to the XM29: The US arms industry has produced some truly awesome weapons since the 20th century. But they've also got carried away and tried to make some real stinkers! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Abandoned_United_States_military_projects )

I would guess there are several reasopns for this, one of which seems to be an almost child-like fascination with technology for technology's sake. Too many top brass seem to have been big Buck Rogers fans as kids, and can't wait to see soldiers packing ray-guns! Just look at the XM29 or the Commanche (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAH-66_Comanche)

And when the "cool toys!" types collide head-on with more pragmatic and conservative types, the feathers must surely fly!

Of course, with something like the Sergeant York (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M247_Sergeant_York), a love of high-tech is not to blame. There simply are no excuses for Sergeant York!

[matthewota]

Hmm, I used an M16 when I was in the Air Force. Despite teething problems when it was introduced in the Vietnam War, it has proven itself in combat. When I was on active duty from 1976 to 1980, they still had full auto selection available. We used to call that mode "rock and roll". It sure ate up a lot of ammo, though.

Generally we in the United States build the world's best killing machines...kind of sad, but that is the way it is.

[captain swoop]

The British SA80 had problems when it was introduced, it had jamming problems in the desert and the plastics on the LSW version fell apart. It was reworked by H&K and the A2 version is very reliable.
Changes included internal machining to clear feed and extraction paths, new breech block and bolt, new extractor and ejector with spring, new recoil springs, new firing pin, entirely new magazine made from pressed steel, new gas plug and cylinder and a new hammer.



With the SUSAT Optical sights the LSW is accurate outto over 600 metres.

[BigDon]

With the SUSAT Optical sights the LSW is accurate outto over 600 metres.

Boy, that will let you "reach out and touch someone"!

Never heard of a SUSAT Optical sight. What's so special about it?

[Stuart van Onselen]

Changes included internal machining to clear feed and extraction paths, new breech block and bolt, new extractor and ejector with spring, new recoil springs, new firing pin, entirely new magazine made from pressed steel, new gas plug and cylinder and a new hammer.I'm no expert on assault-rifle internals, so if you could help me here:
What didn't they change?!?!?
The trigger mechanism? Presumably they also changed the material of casing, if not the actual design.

Sounds to me like by the time they finished, you couldn't really call it an SA80 anymore.

I didn't know much about the re-designed SA80, but I had heard that, despite a lot of promise, the original SA80 was loathed by the troops even more than the original M-16 was hated at first in Vietnam.

I find it quite disturbing that "The Powers That Be" are so detached from the front lines that they can force troops to use systems that lousy. Soldiers die because of half-baked ideas making it on to the front lines.

A better way of doing it would be to do extensive field-testing before anything goes into production. For example:

The US Land Warrior program was recognised as a miserable disaster before it even saw the front lines. It was cancelled, but only after one unit was sent to Iraq to test it. And it sucked in combat just as much as its detractors had predicted.

But the funny thing was: Now that the troops had to use it, they got some clever ideas about how to use it. Many superfluous functions were ignored. Many relatively easy-to-implement changes were suggested. The kit wasn't used at all in the way the DARPA geeks had planned, but it did get used in new ways that brought benefit to the troops, while largely mitigating the problems with the kit.

So, almost by accident, a potential cluster- . . . bomb of a product became very useful indeed. In fact, moves are now underway to have the program un-cancelled.

Now, if the M-16 had originally been given to just a few conscript troops (the type of soldier who would be using it the most) things would have been different: They'd quickly have seen the need for better cleaning kit, before they'd shipped tens of thousands of them! It's not like the troops were naked while waiting for their new rifles: They could have used the previous generation (What was it? Still the Garand?) and wouldn't have had their lives risked by superior-performing, yet unreliable kit.

Of course, this whole "field testing" idea works better for small, relatively cheap pieces of personal kit. It would be a lot more costly for things like new fighting vehicles. There, the designers had better get it right the first time!

[Kaptain K]

BigDon,
FYI, the word is fletchette, root - fletch, feathers on an arrow!

[BigDon]

Now Stuart, if I may call you Stuart, you are missing something.

In the above, all the problems were corrected! That shows the system works. You want a mistake proof system of developing weapons of war for use against opponents who shoot back.

Dude, don't take this as hostile, but I'd like to see your idea on how to improve weapons R&D.

[BigDon]

Thanks Kapt. it looked funny but I didn't spell check it on Google like I usually do.

[RalofTyr]

The US military switched to the 5.56mm because they do more damage against flesh than the 7.62mm rounds. The smaller round tends to tumble through the body whereas the larger round goes right through. So, unless fighting against a heavily armored opponent, the 5.56mm is superior.

[Neverfly]

Stuart, you brought up some excellent points in your first post.

The seeming desire for technology for technologies sake is a good one. And a frustrating one. Simple truth is that you want a simple tool in combat- one that won't jam up or require a mechanic to fix it when your life is on the line.

Sergeant York (The Man Not the Machine) is a good example of a marksman using a simple machine and how effective that can be.

[Ronald Brak]

A lot of large weapon systems are self aiming and better at it than doing it manually, so I'm wondering if there are any plans to make light weapons self aiming?

[Frantic Freddie]

The US military switched to the 5.56mm because they do more damage against flesh than the 7.62mm rounds. The smaller round tends to tumble through the body whereas the larger round goes right through. So, unless fighting against a heavily armored opponent, the 5.56mm is superior.

You've never read the accounts of the "Blackhawk Down" incident? The biggest complaint about the 5.56/.223 (SS109) was that it would take 2-3 shots to put down one of the "Skinnies" whereas the 7.62/.308 would put them down with one shot.

The small/fast vs big/slow argument was pretty much settled during the Spanish-American War in the Phillipines (not that it still doesn't go on) when it was found that the .38 S&W wouldn't stop the juramentados so the Army re-issued the Colt 1873 in .45 Long Colt,a 255 gr bullet at 950 fps.It worked.

The problem with the 7.62x51/308 is the recoil,that's why the M-14 (full-auto) was a limited issue,in full-auto it quickly became an anti-aircraft weapon as the muzzle climbed.But in semi-auto mode it's an excellent weapon,that's why it's still used today as the M1-A.

Col.Jeff Cooper decried the .223 as a "poodle shooter" & there's been many firearms experts that agree.

The reason for the switch to the smaller,lighter .223 was to enable soldiers to carry more ammo & the thinking that a wounded soldier takes 2-3 others out of the battle to care for the wounded soldier.That thinking no longer applies.

The M-16 platform is an excellent design,as is the AK-47,but both have their drawbacks: The M-16 is highly accurate but requires more maintenantence,the AK-47 can be full of dirt & still work,but it's accuracy is on the ragged edge.

A bigger bullet makes a bigger hole,that's really the bottom line,the 7.62x39 wins in that regard,there's no guarantee that the .223 will "tumble",it's just that our soldiers are trained in marksmanship & putting your bullet where you aim is the most inportant thing.

I'd like to see our guys armed with the 6.8 that they've been looking at,it fits the M-16 platform & has a lot more punch than the 5.56.

[korjik]

A lot of large weapon systems are self aiming and better at it than doing it manually, so I'm wondering if there are any plans to make light weapons self aiming?

Aimers take mass and energy, and at the standard engagement ranges, the Mk1 eyeball and a pair of arms can get you 75% accuracy with pretty trivial ease. Heck, I was MI and I could shoot that well out to 250 m.

For the stuff that has to be carried, lighter is better.

[Neverfly]

I'd like to see our guys armed with the 6.8 that they've been looking at,it fits the M-16 platform & has a lot more punch than the 5.56.

Frantic Freddie, have you actually SEEN what those little 5.56's do to the human body?
I'm guessing not.
I have. I've seen what they do- I have seen what 7.62 does as well.

These are those same characters that dog on the baretta 9mil. Why? Because it isn't Dirty Harry's .44 mag (Which I'll take a .44 mag over a .45 anyday.)
I don't think the Baretta is especially good or fancy or anything- But when you are trying to supply a hundred thousand people- It helps to have a simple, functional firearm that is effective, reliable and isn't going to break the bank.
I would not buy myself a baretta for putting under my pillow at night. Or for carrying in the woods, But if I was in charge of the Army supply, I would order them. They are very easy to take apart, put back together, easier to load and reload than a revolver and they pack enough punch.
At the velocity those rounds travel, the 5.56 is a bone shattering punch. Literally. Bone fragments left behind of the Femur. It's also a shredder. Long and narrow, they tend to tumble and bounce around, shredding tissue and organs as they go.
I saw one go in someone once and it came back out again in a different place- but on the same side of his body.

I like reading "Guns & Ammo" too, but let's face it: Many of those authors are stuck on the "Bigger is always better" rule.

[RalofTyr]

You've never read the accounts of the "Blackhawk Down" incident? The biggest complaint about the 5.56/.223 (SS109) was that it would take 2-3 shots to put down one of the "Skinnies" whereas the 7.62/.308 would put them down with one shot.

Dunno. I've got physics on my side. Maybe the Blackhawk downs had bad shots. Or maybe they're full of it. Physics proves that the smaller rounds tumble though the body, leaving far more damage then a bigger hole...

[Stuart van Onselen]

Now Stuart, if I may call you Stuart,Please! It's actually embarassing when guys much older and wiser than me use my full name, like I was important or something. And my surname is such a clumsy one anyway :)

In the above, all the problems were corrected! That shows the system works. You want a mistake proof system of developing weapons of war for use against opponents who shoot back.
My point was, they did make a mistake by releasing the weapon in the state they did. And it did fail against an enemy that shot back - It jammed due to lack of cleaning.

Now, I know they tested it before releasing it, and I'm not suggesting they replace that testing with an immediate release to the troops. What I'm suggesting is that after they're darn sure that the weapon is ready, they release it to just a few troops, to effectively double-check their assumptions. Because as we see, they're often wrong when they think they've covered all the bases in lab-testing.

In the case of the M-16, they might have discovered that it does still need cleaning, and that they, at the very least, should have included a cleaning kit with every gun. Then they wouldn't have subjected thousands of young, nervous, under-trained conscripts to the panic and risk of having their guns jam in the middle of combat.

And yes, after a few quite minor changes, the M-16 became a very good weapon. But if they'd made these changes before general issue, it would have been much cheaper to make those changes, instead of having to make them in a panicky mad rush because the troops were already using a weapon of dodgy reliability.

Much the same thing with the original SA80. Despite all the lab tests and field trials, it still stunk by the time it reached the troops. Just lucky for the British that they weren't involved in a major war at the time. (Or did the new model arrive only after Desert Storm? In which case, they would have had to face a shooting-back enemy with a shoots-if-and-when-it-wants-to gun.)

Dude, don't take this as hostile, but I'd like to see your idea on how to improve weapons R&D.I though I had explained my ideas, but obviously not well enough.

Thinking aloud: I guess technical discussions are often easier to have person-to-person, real-time. While I couldn't order my thoughts as well as if I had the time to write them down, there is the advantage that, as soon as I seem to be going off the rails, the other person can object, and I can either explain myself more clearly, or I can concede the point if I am wrong.

[Neverfly]

Dunno. I've got physics on my side. Maybe the Blackhawk downs had bad shots. Or maybe they're full of it. Physics proves that the smaller rounds tumble though the body, leaving far more damage then a bigger hole...

You gotta factor in the velocity too there Physicist.

Blackhawk down...? The movie? Ok well,it's based on true events...
Which I would need to read up on.
Because in the US Army/ Marines, 5.56 is the M16.
7.62 is the M60. The M60 is larger and belt fed fully automatic machine gun.

So please explain to me... If the 5.56 M16 wasn't cutting it... and they hauled out some larger belt fed machine guns... and that seemed to do the job...
How do they know it was One Shot, One Kill?

Sounds to me like they laid down heavier fire.

[Neverfly]

Stuart, I cannot think of many firearms that don't require cleaning.
In fact, I can't think of any.

Some will tolerate more abuse, but any weapon requires cleaning.
When are you referring to the M16 needing to come with a cleaning kit?
Because they all do come with it. There's even a special little compartment in the butt of the weapon where you stick it. I mean store it.
A lot of guys, when battle fatigued, will slack off on cleaning a weapon. That's why the army drills it into you, even at the risk of you wearing the poor rifle out with over-cleaning it.

In my own experience, the M16 will take a lot of dust and abuse before jamming up. But a good soldier always checks his weapon.

One problem with the M16 when it first cmae out- these kids were used to firing Marlins and Brownings... Elbow out, face slanted toward the buttstock.
They were not used to a pistol grip, elbow tucked in firing position.
Add to that, fully automatic (before three round burst) and they were acting like total idiots, firing from the hip Rambo style and doing a lot of Spray and Pray.
In 'Nam, i think it was some ridiculous 2-5 hundred thousand rounds fired per every enemy kill.
Talk about a waste of Ammo...

[captain swoop]

SA80 was field tested. It was designed to work in Northern Europe. Also the Royal Ordnance Factory made rubbish weapons, their quality was terrible. Added to that the users weren't cleaning properly, over using oil and in the Gulf jams were common and the plastics fell apart. Rebuilds were done by H & K when it was owned by Bae. The LSW version is now replaced by the UK version of the 'Mininmi' as the squad support the LSW is retained as a 'semi sniper' weapon as it's longer barrel and bipod give it high accuracy outy to 600m. A 4 man squad is isssued with 2 SA80, 1 LSW and a Minimi.

In operation the A2 versions are now incredibly reliable. I have friends in the Army and Marines, they tell me it's now more reliable than any other weapon they have operated as long as it's cleaned properly.

As for self aiming weapons the British Army Future Infantry System (FIST) incorperates cameras on personal weapons to give aiming from cover when tied into the helmet data saystem. This gives GPS mapping and video uplinks to HQ and such.

[captain swoop]

Boy, that will let you "reach out and touch someone"!

Never heard of a SUSAT Optical sight. What's so special about it?

SUSAT is only a 4x sight but it's standard on every infantry weapon

SUSAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSAT)

when combined with the high accuracy of the SA80 system (esp the Light Support version with it's longer barrel) it's deadly. Even the Minimi LMG gets one.

There is talk of replacing it with the ACOG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Optical_Gunsight) but to my mind this is more flimsy.

[captain swoop]

Now, if the M-16 had originally been given to just a few conscript troops (the type of soldier who would be using it the most) things would have been different: They'd quickly have seen the need for better cleaning kit, before they'd shipped tens of thousands of them! It's not like the troops were naked while waiting for their new rifles: They could have used the previous generation (What was it? Still the Garand?) and wouldn't have had their lives risked by superior-performing, yet unreliable kit.

It wasn't the Garand it was the M14 i believe.

Unfortunately you can't give it to just a few men in a unit and send them into the field, you have to convert a whole unit otherwise there are probloems with ammo supply etc.

All systems need revision in the field the SLR (Belgian FN FAL) that the SA80 replaced had over 80 revisions in it's service life.

[Neverfly]

Ahh, the Garand...http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/105.gif
Bolt action. I prefer it to the M16, myself...:whistle:

[Stuart van Onselen]

Stuart, I cannot think of many firearms that don't require cleaning.
In fact, I can't think of any.What happened in Vietnam was that this exciting new weapon was touted as not needing any cleaning at all! Didn't even come with a cleaning kit.

The truth was it needed less cleaning than the M14 (thanks for that info, captain swoop), probably because of tighter tolerances and better design. But the belief that it needed no cleaning at all proved to be wildly optimistic, and cleaning kits were rapidly developed and shipped out.

Now, of course, decades later, the cleaning kit, stowage for it, and probably hundreds of tiny, incremental changes have incorporated into the weapon.

So a large part of the problem with the SA80 was plain old bad workmanship, not necessarily in the design? That, plus the old "the only war that will ever be fought will be in Germany against the Russians" short-sightedness, which also proved a problem for the USA's M1 Abrams. That's interesting, and I'll file it away in my head for the next time I find myself discussing weapons.

Aside: Me, who has only ever fired a few dozen rounds from .22 rifle in all my life, discussing military weapons? Talk about "armchair generals"! :)

Oh, and I never intended to imply that a few soldiers in a unit be provided with a new weapon, I meant using a whole unit, like the Land Warrior case. I agree, you'd have risked the wrath of the quartermaster and the troops if you left them struggling to find the right ammo all the time!

Supposedly, one of the problems with the Spanish Armada was that it was a cobbled-together fleet, with an "everything that shoots" armaments policy. And of course, some ships would have ended up with only a few cannon balls of the right type, while having a magazine full of wrong-sized balls that another ship was desperately in need of.

[Neverfly]

What happened in Vietnam was that this exciting new weapon was touted as not needing any cleaning at all! Didn't even come with a cleaning kit.


I'm sorry, it was before my time...
Is this really true? Or rumor?

Did they Actually Claim such Nonsense!?!

[HenrikOlsen]

From what I've read, which admittedly is somewhat sporadic, the argument for the 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm for the infantry rifle wasn't one of theoretical physics, but was rather made by looking at the typical situations it would be expected to be used in.
Analysis showed that the majority of situations would be fairly short range, surprise situations where number of shots fired would be a major factor in who would get up on top.
At that range there's little or no difference in effectiveness of a hit between the calibers while the number of rounds carried and thus shot would be much higher with the lighter caliber.
In longer range encounters there's time to get the heavier caliber equiptment in play so you're relying less on the performance of the personal rifle in that situation.

Note that this is not based on personal experience but on reading various sources on the subject and talking with a couple of people who has experienced combat.

The arguments between proponents of those calibers reminds me of the mistake made by the Danish military planners shortly before 1864.
Tests had proved that the muzzle-loaded rifles then in use had higher accuracy than the breech-loaded rifles that where proposed as replacements. (I've been numbers indicating up to twice the hits for the same number of shots)
Unfortunately the theorists forgot to look at differences in actual use, such as the ability to reload the breech-loader while lying prone vs. needing a kneeling or standing posision to reload the muzzle loader, and a three times faster firing rate for the breech-loader, which adequately compensated for the lower hit per shot rate.
So we lost Schleswig and a few other bits by listening to the arguments of people looking at theoretical performance rather than how the rifle performed in the actual situation it was expected to be used in.

[captain swoop]

Ahh, the Garand...http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/105.gif
Bolt action. I prefer it to the M16, myself...:whistle:

Garand is an Automatic Rifle, it's not bolt action

It is has a fixed 8 shot magazine fed from the top by inserting a clip of 8 rounds. It can't be reloaded until the clip is expelled after the last round is fired.

In action it was common practice to loose off the last couple of rounds in a clip to get a full mag rather than get caught out with an unloaded weapon in an awkward moment.

the British Lee-Enfield(ww1 into WW2) and Enfield Mk IV(WW2 development) had a 10 round removeble box mag that could also be fed from 5 round clips (the clip being left behind rather than inserted into the mag) as well as single rounds. In practice the Enfield could be fired at the same rate as the Garand by a trained infantry man, in fact, at the astart of WW2 the Germans thought that the BEF were armed with automatic rifles due to the high rate of fire.

[captain swoop]

The size of the weapon is a factor as well, the SA80 'Bullpup' format produced a very compact weapon, using a smaller Cal gives an effective longer barrel length. This compactness is an important factor when you are fighting from vehicles and helicopters or are in FIBUA situatuons (Figthing In Built Up Areas) also know as Fish and Chips (Fighting In Someones House and Causing Havoc In Peoples Streets)

The British army have several complete European Villages on their training grounds in Norfolk, Catterick and Salisbury Plain.

[captain swoop]

Aside: Me, who has only ever fired a few dozen rounds from .22 rifle in all my life, discussing military weapons? Talk about "armchair generals"! :)



In my Navy days I did plenty of range work and shooting at oild drums over the side with SLR, GPMG, Browning Pistol and Stirlings. I have used an SA80 a bit back in the late 80s. ALso the Cadet version issued to Army and Marine Cadets is a single shot version of the SA80, it had the 30 round Mag but has to be cocked between shots.

I have a Enfield Govt Mk4 .303 that I use in 'Vintage' shoots at the Rifle CLub I am a member of. I also have a Ruger 10/22 Target Barrel and I have a Southern Gun Company AR15 'Speedmaster' (http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/?page=items&cat_id=1&item_id=107), It has a single shot .223 (5.56 Nato) upper and also a .22 semi auto upper reciever (http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/?page=items&cat_id=1&item_id=105) Making it 2 weapons in one.

[Neverfly]

Garand is an Automatic Rifle, it's not bolt action


WOW How embarrassing!

What (or which) was I thinking of? I'll have to hit the books later now and vindicate myself...:think:

[drainbread]

I really like the Tavor TAR-21.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQpUw5Burl0

[captain swoop]

WOW How embarrassing!

What (or which) was I thinking of? I'll have to hit the books later now and vindicate myself...:think:

Maybe the Springfield or Winchester? (http://www.armchairgunshow.com/otsWBA_Krag_Springfield.htm)

[captain swoop]

Good comparison of WW2 Bolt Action rifles (http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Weapons/boltactionrifles/bolt_action_rifles.htm)

The US did use the Springfield in WW2, it was used to fire the Rifle Grendae and was issued at 1 per squad and it was used as a Sniper weapon.

It was used by the US Marines as well, they took second place to the Army in the issue of the Garand.

[korjik]

Dunno. I've got physics on my side. Maybe the Blackhawk downs had bad shots. Or maybe they're full of it. Physics proves that the smaller rounds tumble though the body, leaving far more damage then a bigger hole...

If you say you have physics proof, cite it.

Wiki disagrees with you. Basically it says that if the round is fast enough, it will fragment, but that slower rounds, like with shorter guns like the M4 have low stopping power.

Look up 5.56 NATO on wiki to see the article

[cjl]

BigDon,
FYI, the word is fletchette, root - fletch, feathers on an arrow!
I feel really overly picky when correcting a correction, but there isn't a T. It's flechette.

[Ronald Brak]

at the astart of WW2 the Germans thought that the BEF were armed with automatic rifles due to the high rate of fire.

Do you mean WW1?

[Kaptain K]

I feel really overly picky when correcting a correction, but there isn't a T. It's flechette.

If that's the biggest mistake I make today I'll consider myself ahead of the game. Thanks

[Krel]

The problem with the M16, is that in the beginning someone, or ones in the government tried to kill it. They changed the bullet weight, and the powder. In addition the bean counters in the administration nixed hard chroming the chamber due to the expense. When Colt went to Vietnam to find out why the Marines were not having the problems that the Army was having, they found out that the Marines were constantly cleaning the weapons. When the other issues came to life, alterations were made to the weapon and the ammo fixing most of the problems. I was watching a show on cable where they interviewed Kalashnikov, and he is still bitter that the Soviet government made him alter the AK-47's ammo to be more like the M16s.

When John Garand designed the M1, he designed it to use a 15 round box magazine. The War Department had him change it to a clip fed design for three reasons. One, there would never be another was as expansive as WWI. Two( and for the same reason the Calvery didn't use the Winchester), they were afraid that the troops would 'waste' ammo in a battle. The main reason though was that the box magazine interfered with the Manual of Arms drill. :lol:

David.

[Neverfly]

and for the same reason the Calvery



Minor Nitpick- but one that drives me NUTS:
Cavalry.

[Kaptain K]

Minor Nitpick- but one that drives me NUTS:
Cavalry.

Second that!

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

I'm not much of a "gun guy," but I do have a few things to add.

If you read Black Hawk Down closely, Bowden says that the problem they were having with the M16 was that they were using the new "green tip" armor penetrating rounds. When they hit an unarmored person, the round would pass through cleanly (he compared it to stabbing someone with an icepick), rather than causing the massive wounds of the regular ammunition. The M60 gunners were having the same problem with their 7.62 AP ammunition. The 7.62 "one-hit kill" refers to one of the Delta Force operators who was carrying an old M14 with standard ammunition.

An interesting (though somewhat flawed) book on the subject of weapons procurement is William H. Hallahan's Misfire. He makes the case that the Army Ordinance Corps, relying on outdated concepts of infantry combat, opposed nearly every new development in small arms. When first invented, breechloaders, repeating rifles, box magazines, machine guns, and assault rifles were all rejected for general issue and decried as "ammunition wasters." The result of this was that until WW2 (and possibly after), the Army was stuck with inferior weapons.

[Neverfly]

I'm not much of a "gun guy," but I do have a few things to add.

If you read Black Hawk Down closely, Bowden says that the problem they were having with the M16 was that they were using the new "green tip" armor penetrating rounds. When they hit an unarmored person, the round would pass through cleanly (he compared it to stabbing someone with an icepick), rather than causing the massive wounds of the regular ammunition. The M60 gunners were having the same problem with their 7.62 AP ammunition. The 7.62 "one-hit kill" refers to one of the Delta Force operators who was carrying an old M14 with standard ammunition.
Excellent fact checking.

An interesting (though somewhat flawed) book on the subject of weapons procurement is William H. Hallahan's Misfire. He makes the case that the Army Ordinance Corps, relying on outdated concepts of infantry combat, opposed nearly every new development in small arms. When first invented, breechloaders, repeating rifles, box magazines, machine guns, and assault rifles were all rejected for general issue and decried as "ammunition wasters." The result of this was that until WW2 (and possibly after), the Army was stuck with inferior weapons.
But I'm going to point out some things here...

For one thing, technically, they all ARE ammo wasters.
Also, define "inferior" weapons?
If our Army was entirely equipped with Single shot Bolt action rifles- But Very Well Trained with them, they can be just as effective as heavy cover fire.
If everyone was a sniper- three round burst or fully automatic would be a waste of ammo and of time.

The simple fact is, the military standard does NOT make every soldier an expert marksman. A "Sharpshooter" badge is sufficient to qualify with your weapon. Sharpshooter means you get a little over half your kills on the testing range.
Just because the past ordnance corp rejected new weaponry, does not mean that they are just following a pattern of behavior now, either. That was then- this is now.

[Ronald Brak]

For one thing, technically, they all ARE ammo wasters.

GDP in 1941 expressed in 1990 US dollars:
US - $1,094 billion
Japan - $194 billion
Germany - $412 billion

In 1941 total allied GDP was 200% greater than Axis GDP.

(Note figures are estimates only. Exactly how do you figure out the GDP of the Soviet Union in 1941 is a tough question, let alone determining the addition to GDP from Nazi slave labour.)

The US can and could afford large amounts of munitions and material, frequently crushing axis forces through brute force. For example, they did things such as sending down an artillary barrage when a single german solider was sighted, which makes sense when you place much higher value on the lives of your soldiers than the cost of the shells.

[Neverfly]

GDP in 1941 expressed in 1990 US dollars:
US - $1,094 billion
Japan - $194 billion
Germany - $412 billion

In 1941 total allied GDP was 200% greater than Axis GDP.

(Note figures are estimates only. Exactly how do you figure out the GDP of the Soviet Union in 1941 is a tough question, let alone determining the addition to GDP from Nazi slave labour.)

The US can and could afford large amounts of munitions and material, frequently crushing axis forces through brute force. For example, they did things such as sending down an artillary barrage when a single german solider was sighted, which makes sense when you place much higher value on the lives of your soldiers than the cost of the shells.

Afford?
Hold on now!
At the beginning of the US's entrance to the war, it was losing.
The US had to spend gobs of money to catch up, equip, recruit and train. We were NOT prepared for war. We were not equipped for war. We had to manufacture firearms and ammo out the Yin Yang. Typewriter factories for example, were converted into arms makers during the war. Because they had the equipment to do the fine machining.
It was a major and massive effort.
You could barely go anywhere without seeing advertisements to buy war bonds. Add to this a large debt. And that the US ended up charging other nations.
Post WWII, the US had learned a lesson about getting caught unprepared again.
And I don't know where you get the figure that the Artillery would lay down steel rain on one soldier. I'm artillery.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

Also, define "inferior" weapons?
Either less effective or harder to use or maintain compared to the weapons of the enemy or to the weapons that they might have been issued. For example, the Army could have started the Civil War with breechloaders (although there were political reasons why this never would have happened) and finished it with repeating rifles and "coffee-grinder" machine guns, instead of muzzleloaders. They could have fought the Spanish-American war with Lee or Mauser box magazine rifles instead of the slow-to-reload Krag-Jørgensen rifle. They could have had Browning, Lewis, or Maxim machine guns in WWI instead of the awful French Chauchat.

The simple fact is, the military standard does NOT make every soldier an expert marksman.
Hallahan claims that the Ordnance Corps thought that it did. They were convinced that carefully-aimed long range fire was what won battles, so they consistently rejected weapons that increased the rate of fire at the expense of long range accuracy.

The historical record seems to indicate that this was misguided. I'm too tired to bother looking up the exact numbers, but the "foxhole surveys" conducted during WW2 and more extensively during the Korean War found that most infantry combat happened at close range (less than 300yds), many soldiers never saw the individuals they were shooting at, a surprising number (somewhere around a quarter, IIRC) of soldiers never fired their weapons at all, and those armed with automatic weapons (submachine guns or the BAR) were more likely to shoot than those armed with semi-automatic or bolt-action rifles.

Just because the past ordnance corp rejected new weaponry, does not mean that they are just following a pattern of behavior now, either. That was then- this is now.
I agree with you on this. The mentality of "every soldier a marksman" seems to have gradually faded away during the past century. There was still enough of it that there was opposition to the M16, but not enough to prevent it from entering service. Hallahan thought that the change in the M16 from fully automatic to 3-round burst was an indication that nothing had changed in the Ordinance Corps, but I disagree. The fact that they would even consider something like the XM29 shows that things are different now.

[Neverfly]

Either less effective or harder to use or maintain compared to the weapons of the enemy or to the weapons that they might have been issued. For example, the Army could have started the Civil War with breechloaders (although there were political reasons why this never would have happened) and finished it with repeating rifles and "coffee-grinder" machine guns, instead of muzzleloaders. They could have fought the Spanish-American war with Lee or Mauser box magazine rifles instead of the slow-to-reload Krag-Jørgensen rifle. They could have had Browning, Lewis, or Maxim machine guns in WWI instead of the awful French Chauchat.
Well, you know... I can't really argue with any of this...


Hallahan claims that the Ordnance Corps thought that it did. They were convinced that carefully-aimed long range fire was what won battles, so they consistently rejected weapons that increased the rate of fire at the expense of long range accuracy.
At that time, they may have tried harder than today.

The historical record seems to indicate that this was misguided. I'm too tired to bother looking up the exact numbers, but the "foxhole surveys" conducted during WW2 and more extensively during the Korean War found that most infantry combat happened at close range (less than 300yds), many soldiers never saw the individuals they were shooting at, a surprising number (somewhere around a quarter, IIRC) of soldiers never fired their weapons at all, and those armed with automatic weapons (submachine guns or the BAR) were more likely to shoot than those armed with semi-automatic or bolt-action rifles.
Those armed with bolt action were more likely to take a clear shot, whereas those armed with automatic were more likely to lay down blanket fire.
Spray and pray- You shoot all over the place and hope you hit something. Thing is- it is not really effective.
And on an astronomy board- folks here should understand why.
If you spray out a bunch of rounds, those bullets are actually ummm... Not very big:neutral:
And when spread apart from sweeping the weapon around firing at the hip- The odds of actually hitting something are pretty slim.
But a marksman Will hit something. Most of the time.

The trouble is that the Army just didn't have many marksman. They had a lot of scared kids. That sounds bad- but it's the reality.


I agree with you on this. The mentality of "every soldier a marksman" seems to have gradually faded away during the past century.
This kind of goes two ways. The Army ( And the Marines even more so) really drills "One shot- One kill" into the troops...
But when time comes to qualify with your weapon, the standards seem pretty low to me. I figured because they figure folks are just going to spray rounds in combat anyway.
Add to this, that we have very little marksmanship training time set aside.
VERY little.
There was still enough of it that there was opposition to the M16, but not enough to prevent it from entering service. Hallahan thought that the change in the M16 from fully automatic to 3-round burst was an indication that nothing had changed in the Ordinance Corps, but I disagree. The fact that they would even consider something like the XM29 shows that things are different now.
My basic concern is that our troops may get equipped with new age techi junk that fails in combat.
And from what I've read- that seems to have happened in the beginning with the M16.
Granted- the bugs were eventually worked out- How many died before they were?

I can't imagine having to reload- going to fire on the guy advancing on me... And then realizing I needed to change my weapons batteries too.

[Delvo]

When first invented, breechloaders, repeating rifles, box magazines, machine guns, and assault rifles were all rejected for general issue and decried as "ammunition wasters."What is the technical invention that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle?

[pzkpfw]

And I don't know where you get the figure that the Artillery would lay down steel rain on one soldier. I'm artillery.

Slightly off topic, but relevant, I think, to the U.S. way of waging war.

I read this in a book of accounts from New Zealand soldiers....

One was commenting how British army equipment was tracked right through use, and if the Germans bombed a truck you still had to go through hoops to explain it. But American equipment was essentially written-off once it left the factory*.

This guy saw some Americans needing to cross a ravine in Italy.

They drove a brand-new Jeep into it. Then two more on top. Then bulldozed a bunch of dirt over all three. Instant bridge, and for whatever reason they wanted to cross the ravine - they now could.


*dumping Hueys off carriers wasn't a new activity. Jeeps and trucks were dumped in the ocean after WWII. New Zealand was made to burn its' Corsairs.

[korjik]

Afford?
Hold on now!
At the beginning of the US's entrance to the war, it was losing.
The US had to spend gobs of money to catch up, equip, recruit and train. We were NOT prepared for war. We were not equipped for war. We had to manufacture firearms and ammo out the Yin Yang. Typewriter factories for example, were converted into arms makers during the war. Because they had the equipment to do the fine machining.
It was a major and massive effort.
You could barely go anywhere without seeing advertisements to buy war bonds. Add to this a large debt. And that the US ended up charging other nations.
Post WWII, the US had learned a lesson about getting caught unprepared again.
And I don't know where you get the figure that the Artillery would lay down steel rain on one soldier. I'm artillery.

That may be from my side :)

I was MI, and if we found someone who didnt look important enough to keep around, we usually called up DIVARTY and got him some 155mm friends to play with.

[DyerWolf]

There is a MAJOR misunderstanding about the efficacy of the 5.56 in combat.

This centers around the design of the rifle, round and employment by the troops.

The current version of the M-16A2 was heavily influenced by the USMC in the mid 1980s. They specifically designed the length of the rifle to work with the 5.56 NATO round; which in turn created the fragmentation and tumbling effects previously mentioned. They teach this stuff to Marines in Boot Camp. I'm not sure the other services get this info.

In the 1990s some 'elite' units in the Army decided that a carbine would be cooler and easier to use, thus the introduction and adoption of the M-4.

What was not realized at the time, was that the M-4's shorter barrel reduced the muzzle pressure and velocity of the round enough to change the ballistic characteristics of the 5.56 NATO round - effectively eliminating fragmentation and tumble.

Hence the "BlackHawk Down" and some street-fighting in Iraq reports that it takes several hits to take down an enemy soldier, and thus 'the round sucks' mentality. The fact is, with an M-4, all you're really doing is punching someone with an ice-pick. Sure it hurts, but it doesn't kill.

Hit someone with the same round fired from a full-sized M-16A2, where the fragmentation and tumble are in full-effect, and he's not getting up to tell you what a weenie rifle you're toting.

[captain swoop]

Do you mean WW1?

yes, that's exactly what i mean lol.

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

What is the technical invention that makes an assault rifle an assault rifle?

An assault rifle is a shoulder-fired rifle capable of some form of automatic fire (burst or full auto). The technology that made it possible was the combination of an automatic fire mechanism (found in machine guns and submachine guns) and recoil reduction, by reducing the bullet size (length or diameter), powder charge, or both.

Without reducing the recoil, the rifle will either be too heavy to be fired from the shoulder (the BAR) or be nearly uncontrollable (the full-auto M14).

It's not a revolutionary change. All the elements needed already existed, it just took someone to put them together.



P.S. Before anyone writes to nitpick, yes, I know many people have shoulder-fired the BAR, but it's not something you'd want to do all day.

[korjik]

There is a MAJOR misunderstanding about the efficacy of the 5.56 in combat.

This centers around the design of the rifle, round and employment by the troops.

The current version of the M-16A2 was heavily influenced by the USMC in the mid 1980s. They specifically designed the length of the rifle to work with the 5.56 NATO round; which in turn created the fragmentation and tumbling effects previously mentioned. They teach this stuff to Marines in Boot Camp. I'm not sure the other services get this info.

In the 1990s some 'elite' units in the Army decided that a carbine would be cooler and easier to use, thus the introduction and adoption of the M-4.

What was not realized at the time, was that the M-4's shorter barrel reduced the muzzle pressure and velocity of the round enough to change the ballistic characteristics of the 5.56 NATO round - effectively eliminating fragmentation and tumble.

Hence the "BlackHawk Down" and some street-fighting in Iraq reports that it takes several hits to take down an enemy soldier, and thus 'the round sucks' mentality. The fact is, with an M-4, all you're really doing is punching someone with an ice-pick. Sure it hurts, but it doesn't kill.

Hit someone with the same round fired from a full-sized M-16A2, where the fragmentation and tumble are in full-effect, and he's not getting up to tell you what a weenie rifle you're toting.

At least in '89 they didnt pass on how the round worked to us in basic. They might have in combat arms AIT.

I dont think that the 'Blackhawk down' troops used M-4s. Wiki says 1994 for in service date. Looking through the wiki on the battle of mogadishu, it is possible that some had M-4s, but I think I would have heared if 75th ranger regiment had been upgraded.

I also noticed that if I had gotten out of the army a year later, I so would have gotten stop-lossed to go with 1-64th armour. As it was, I almost was anyway. They were talking about sending a brigade of the 24th infantry division shortly before I got out.

[mugaliens]

I'm qualified on the M-8, M-9, M-16 (A2), and M-4.

Don't ask.

I've fired a lot of other armament, too.

The ONLY way we'll "get it right" is if we correctly detail, from the ground up, what the weapon should have, capabilities and limitations (weight, mobility), and provide a fair incentive for them to be really creative:

1. x% of the contract for everyone who submits a contender which meets the design specifications.

2. y% of the contract for the top three contenders.

3. z% of the contract for the winning bid.

4. On top of that, each and ever submitter agrees to allow the government to divvy out the contract to all who met the initial design specs (subject to standards of performance rules).

Few real losers (except those which really are losers), most are winners, if not the winning design, then the rights to churn out copies).

Let's make it more interesting - let's go three rounds with this, round-robin design inputs and changes throughout, including input from end-users at each step.

If it's done right, with the same management style of General Groves, it'll probably get done right.

[captain swoop]

In the 1990s some 'elite' units in the Army decided that a carbine would be cooler and easier to use, thus the introduction and adoption of the M-4.

What was not realized at the time, was that the M-4's shorter barrel reduced the muzzle pressure and velocity of the round enough to change the ballistic characteristics of the 5.56 NATO round - effectively eliminating fragmentation and tumble.

The SA80 gets around this by reducin g the overall length of the weapon while keeping the long barrel.

As for the M4, Carbine versions of the M16 have existed for a long time. There are various reasons for employing them, limited space ina vehicle, compact size for use in confined areas etc.

[captain swoop]

As for ammunition wasters. It's all very well giving an infantry man a weapon with a huge mag and capable of high cyclic rate of fire, where you get the problem is in the number of rounds he can carry, this hasn't changed much over the years. Infantry sections carry extra belts for the guy with the Support weapon and he can still whip through it faster than you can supply it.

[Larry Jacks]

My infantry days ended long ago. Most of the time, I carried an M-16 A1 model but I didn't like it very much. It just took too much maintenance to keep working due to the tight tolerances and the fact that the combustion gases used to operate the bolt tended to foul the mechanism. I've heard the A-2 model was greatly improved but never had a chance to try one.

They aren't using the M-4 carbine because it's cool - they're using it because a shorter weapon is handier for urban fighting.

Personally, I've long believed that an militarized version of the Ruger .44 Magnum Carbine would make a fine infantry weapon for close quarters combat. I'd change the tube magazine to a detachable box magazine and make it selective fire. I'd also tailor the ammo to take advantage of the carbine's longer barrel length (compared to a pistol). A weapon like that would combine great knock-down power with a good rate of fire.

One of the things I didn't like about the 5.56 mm round was how easily it was deflected. I remember watching the tracer rounds get deflected 20-30 degrees simply by hitting the target during night fire exercises. A .44 wouldn't be deflected, leaves a big hole, and has a lot of knock-down power. Sure, it wouldn't be the best weapon for longer range shots (I'd guess the effective range would be on the order of 100-200 meters) but then, I've never cared for the one-size fits all approach to anything.

[korjik]

My infantry days ended long ago. Most of the time, I carried an M-16 A1 model but I didn't like it very much. It just took too much maintenance to keep working due to the tight tolerances and the fact that the combustion gases used to operate the bolt tended to foul the mechanism. I've heard the A-2 model was greatly improved but never had a chance to try one.

They aren't using the M-4 carbine because it's cool - they're using it because a shorter weapon is handier for urban fighting.

Personally, I've long believed that an militarized version of the Ruger .44 Magnum Carbine would make a fine infantry weapon for close quarters combat. I'd change the tube magazine to a detachable box magazine and make it selective fire. I'd also tailor the ammo to take advantage of the carbine's longer barrel length (compared to a pistol). A weapon like that would combine great knock-down power with a good rate of fire.

One of the things I didn't like about the 5.56 mm round was how easily it was deflected. I remember watching the tracer rounds get deflected 20-30 degrees simply by hitting the target during night fire exercises. A .44 wouldn't be deflected, leaves a big hole, and has a lot of knock-down power. Sure, it wouldn't be the best weapon for longer range shots (I'd guess the effective range would be on the order of 100-200 meters) but then, I've never cared for the one-size fits all approach to anything.

A2s are nicer than A1s. Heavier tho. I got to use A1s in basic then A2s at my permanent station.

[captain swoop]

One size has to fit all, you can't have members of the same squad needing different ammo types. Any standard military rifle has to be a compramise between cost, ease of use, range, weight etc.

The Lee-Enfield Mk3 was hated by the Infantry,compared to its predecessor it was very short as it was decided to have a common weapon for both Cavalry and Infantry. One needs a short weapon that can be fired from horseback the other a weapon long enough to balance when fired prone and long enough to be an effective 'spear' with a bayonet. It wasn't the optimum weapon for any of its users on the Western front but with the different tactics and conditions of WW2 it was ideal.

[captain swoop]

Southern Gun Company (http://www.southern-gun.co.uk/) (UK) make prob the best M16/AR derived weapons. I have their Bushmaster MkV with an alternate .22 LR Upper Reciever (The only Semi-uto round allowed in the UK)

I load my own 5.65 (.223) it's a very accurate round.

[Larry Jacks]

One size has to fit all, you can't have members of the same squad needing different ammo types. Any standard military rifle has to be a compramise between cost, ease of use, range, weight etc.

Actually, they still have a mix of ammo types in many squads (or at least they did when I was in the infantry). For example, the guys carrying M-16s and M-4s use 5.56 mm ammo mounted in strips of 10 (not hard to load the magazines). The SAW gunners use 5.56 mm ammo on belts. If you have an M-204, you need 7.62 mm belt fed ammo. If anyone is carrying a sidearm, then you also need ammo for that. Same for the guys with grenade launchers.

I was referring to trying to make one weapon (such as the M-16) do everything from jungle/urban close-quarters fighting to relatively long range desert warfare. While it simplifies logistics, you end up with a weapon that may be ill suited to many types of warfare.

I completely agree that an infantry weapon has to be a compromise between many factors. One thing that shouldn't be compromised is combat effectiveness for the war you're currently fighting.

[One Skunk Todd]

Personally, I've long believed that an militarized version of the Ruger .44 Magnum Carbine would make a fine infantry weapon for close quarters combat.

Or they could just start issuing Thompsons again. :)

[captain swoop]

Deleted content. changed my mind about this one

[Larry Jacks]

Or they could just start issuing Thompsons again.

They could do a lot worse! I've heard the Thompson was a pretty expensive weapon in its day but it was effective at close range. The .44 carbine would have even more take down power and might even have a longer effective range and penetration power. There's something fundamentally good about a weapon that can knock down the enemy with a single shot and is easy to use in tight quarters.

[DyerWolf]

The modern version (of the Thompson) is the MP-5. It's a great weapon.

The only problem is that it won't overpenetrate modern body armor.

A truly nasty close-range weapon would be a lighter, carbine version of the M-240 (like the M249E4 SAW variant).

The 240 is one of the best, most reliable weapons I've ever fired.

[captain swoop]

P90 is what you want or the FN2000 (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as41-e.htm) There is talk olf this being the replacement for the SA80.

[Krel]

The Tavor TAR-21 is a great looking rifle, but it has the same problems that all bullpup designs have. Even when you can change which side the casing ejects out of, you have to take the weapon apart to change it. This can limit you in some situations where you may need to switch from one should to another. The M16 types don't have this problem, as there is a brass deflector at the ejection port. This means that if you have to switch shoulders to fire around corners, you can with no problem. With a bullpup design if you have to switch shoulders, then your face is going to be in front of the ejection port. Not nice. Another big problem that usually isn't talked about, it that your head is closer to the chamber. This means that you receive a greater noise level from the round firing than with a conventional design. The FN F2000 solves the ejection problem, but there is still the noise factor.

David.

[Ronald Brak]

Afford?
Hold on now!
At the beginning of the US's entrance to the war, it was losing.
The US had to spend gobs of money to catch up, equip, recruit and train. We were NOT prepared for war. We were not equipped for war. We had to manufacture firearms and ammo out the Yin Yang. Typewriter factories for example, were converted into arms makers during the war. Because they had the equipment to do the fine machining.
It was a major and massive effort.
You could barely go anywhere without seeing advertisements to buy war bonds. Add to this a large debt. And that the US ended up charging other nations.
Post WWII, the US had learned a lesson about getting caught unprepared again.

The US was not prepared for WW2, but by the end of the war they were producing a new aircraft carrier almost every week. Japan wasn't able to produce a single new carrier during the entire war and only managed to convert four existing ships or hulls into carriers. That's the advantage of having the world's largest GDP.

And I don't know where you get the figure that the Artillery would lay down steel rain on one soldier. I'm artillery.

http://www.amazon.com/Brute-Force-Allied-Strategy-Tactics/dp/0670807737

[Graybeard6]

Random experience:
Drafted Jan '57 - only weapon fired was M1 - our rifles were so worn out that some of us had to borrow others to qualify.
Light Weapons Infantry training at Ft. Benning - 1st day issued brand-new M1, zeroed it in, didn't see it again for 4 weeks - qualified expert on BAR, air-cooled .30 MG, water-cooled .30 MG - familiarized with .45 pistol, M1 carbine, M3 SMG.
Assigned to Ft. Benning as a postal clerk- weapon was M2 carbine fired 199 out of 200, loved the weapon.
Became a technician, armed with carbine or .45 for next few years. The carbine was ideal for support troops, sling it across your back and you could do just about anything, with an M1 you had to put your rifle down tho do anything.
In 1961 had additional duty as .50 gunner - loved it! Also familiarized on M14, M15 and M60 MG. Unit was deactivated and I spent six months as a marksmanship instructor, qualifying recruits on M1 and familiarization on M-14.
1962 - sent to Germany, back to my career field. 1st interview with CO; "What's your experience?" "Blah, blah blah, but for the past six months I've been teaching marksmanship." "Great! We just got these M14s; you're in charge of of the transition from carbines." I thought it sucked; I had been assigned to the same unit I had been in in '57 - '58, still remembered my carbine's serial number, as was looking forward to a reunion. I grew to like the M14, it was great to fire, but award and heavy to carry.
For most of the rest of my Army career I carried a pistol, but still took every opportunity to qualify on different stuff; I really liked the M79 grenade launcher - very easy to use.
Maybe more later, if anyone's intrested.

[Kaptain K]

It has been mentioned earlier that the US was woefully unprepared for WWII. I'd like to expand on this a little bit. At the start of the war, the US was 18th in the world militarily and was proud to not be involved in the affairs of the rest of the world. If the Japanese had been prudent and left us alone, we might have waited too long to get involved to make a difference. Most people in the US do not realize how close the Allies came to losing the war even with our help. I know it wasn't taught when I was in school. I had to learn it on my own, much later in life.

When we did, finally, get involved, we had several advantages.

The biggest was probably the fact that with the nearest fighting being 3,000 miles and an ocean away, nobody was bombing our factories!

The second was those factories, our "industrial might" if you will. Not only did we have, as was mentioned, sewing machine factories capable of fine machine work and companies like Colt, Winchester, Remington, Browning, etc. able to design and build weapons. We also had the big three auto makers that could and did make the heavy machinery of war and some of the best aircraft designers and builders - Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas, North American, McDonald, etc.

Third, a "can do" attitude. Every American man, woman and child assumed that we could beat the Krauts and Japs.

[pzkpfw]

We also had the big three auto makers that could and did make the heavy machinery of war...

Absolutely; the Germans left Tank production to their heavy industries and were never able to make enough*. (I think the M4 and T34 were each produced in greater numbers than all German tanks put together).

(*though towards the end I'm not sure they'd have had the fuel to put in them, if they had...)


Third, a "can do" attitude. Every American man, woman and child assumed that we could beat the Krauts and Japs.

And the Krauts and Japs didn't think they'd win?

[Neverfly]

I understand that it's in the sentiment of the War but... I think it would be best if the "names" were avoided.

[Nick Theodorakis]

And the [Germans] and Jap[anese] [edits mine- NT] didn't think they'd win?


Yamamoto didn't:

I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success.


Nick

[DyerWolf]

I've never understood the need to 'demonize' your enemy. As a former military professional, I had no problem going to combat and engaging enemy forces on the ground. I didn't have to 'hate' them or demonize them to kill them (when required).

I firmly believe racism is a weakness born of ignorance. Thus, in training my Marines to fight in the Middle East, I never used any of the perjoratives for Iraqis or Arabs. I think its important to remember that the enemy you fight today may be your trading partner or ally tomorrow. Furthermore, it helps your soldiers and Marines to treat the civilian populace better and recognize that the true enemy is the government (or terrorist) forces you're fighting - not the people themselves.

I recognize this sentiment was not fully realized in the 40's and 50's. Racism was commonplace (segregation, anyone?) and we actually fought WWII in a way that would be inexcusably indiscriminate by today's standards (i.e. firebombing and carpetbombing) based upon our limited ability to conduct precision bombing - in effect we went to war against the entire country.

War has become correspondingly more difficult in the last few years. At the end of WWII, the Axis countries were defeated and the people themselves war-weary - where the functions of government and security were controlled by sufficient numbers of combat veterans who occupied the secured countries. Contrast this with the end of the war in Iraq (the point when the government forces ceased any coordinated resistance (i.e. June 2003) where the people were not war-weary, and in fact began the 'insurrection' really as a bald power-grab and civil war between civilian factions harboring years of mistrust and hatred for each other. Our returning of combat forces to the United States in late 2003 (and introduction of smaller forces that had not fought during the invasion) left a power and security vacuum that gave the 'insurgents' (really a mixed bag of faction fighters, militias and terrorists) a chance to cause chaos and resist order. We, in effect, became the referrees of the civil war (and no-one ever roots for the refs!) rather than occupiers and providers of security and stability.

Nevertheless, I think our soldiers and Marines today do a better job of isolating and identifying who the various enemies are than their predecessors did in the last century - which in turn contributes to their success - but makes the job harder - and decidedly more difficult to explain via a press/editor corps that only reports soundbytes and hype rather than providing informative reporting.

Regardless, it is not as acceptable for the press or the government to demonize whole peoples any more, which I think is a good thing.

[korjik]

I've never understood the need to 'demonize' your enemy. As a former military professional, I had no problem going to combat and engaging enemy forces on the ground. I didn't have to 'hate' them or demonize them to kill them (when required).

Not everyone feels the same. Add in the way WWII and the current war started, alot of people can be bound up by their emotions.

I firmly believe racism is a weakness born of ignorance. Thus, in training my Marines to fight in the Middle East, I never used any of the perjoratives for Iraqis or Arabs. I think its important to remember that the enemy you fight today may be your trading partner or ally tomorrow. Furthermore, it helps your soldiers and Marines to treat the civilian populace better and recognize that the true enemy is the government (or terrorist) forces you're fighting - not the people themselves.

Perjoratives do not equal racism. Sometimes it is a friendly or not-so friendly insult. I think it is more important to teach people to know the difference.

I recognize this sentiment was not fully realized in the 40's and 50's. Racism was commonplace (segregation, anyone?) and we actually fought WWII in a way that would be inexcusably indiscriminate by today's standards (i.e. firebombing and carpetbombing) based upon our limited ability to conduct precision bombing - in effect we went to war against the entire country.

If you want to get technical, the people of Dresden werent firebombed because of the color of their skin. Not only that, but carpet bombing was no where near the first choice. B-17s were designed to do precision bombing in daylight against defended targets. The desire was to limit casualties, unfortunately the tech wasnt quite up to it.


War has become correspondingly more difficult in the last few years. At the end of WWII, the Axis countries were defeated and the people themselves war-weary - where the functions of government and security were controlled by sufficient numbers of combat veterans who occupied the secured countries. Contrast this with the end of the war in Iraq (the point when the government forces ceased any coordinated resistance (i.e. June 2003) where the people were not war-weary, and in fact began the 'insurrection' really as a bald power-grab and civil war between civilian factions harboring years of mistrust and hatred for each other. Our returning of combat forces to the United States in late 2003 (and introduction of smaller forces that had not fought during the invasion) left a power and security vacuum that gave the 'insurgents' (really a mixed bag of faction fighters, militias and terrorists) a chance to cause chaos and resist order. We, in effect, became the referrees of the civil war (and no-one ever roots for the refs!) rather than occupiers and providers of security and stability.

Nevertheless, I think our soldiers and Marines today do a better job of isolating and identifying who the various enemies are than their predecessors did in the last century - which in turn contributes to their success - but makes the job harder - and decidedly more difficult to explain via a press/editor corps that only reports soundbytes and hype rather than providing informative reporting.

Regardless, it is not as acceptable for the press or the government to demonize whole peoples any more, which I think is a good thing.

pretty close to politics here. I would like to respond, but I dont think it is a good idea.

[sabianq]

I had always wondered if it would be possible to have a weapon that can create "ball lightening" then accelerate the ball of charge using a type of rail gun.

[mugaliens]

One size has to fit all, you can't have members of the same squad needing different ammo types.

The phrase "one size does not fit all" means that different requirements lead to different equipment. Sniper teams don't use the M16 or M4. While certain units, such as those in SOCOM, SF, and SEALs, have standardized on the M4, they still carry other armament.

On the other side of the coin, the M4's RAS renders the weapon somewhat multi-purpose, although it's still primarily a close-quarters weapon.

[RalofTyr]

I've never understood the need to 'demonize' your enemy. As a former military professional, I had no problem going to combat and engaging enemy forces on the ground. I didn't have to 'hate' them or demonize them to kill them (when required).

It's psychological. If you can equate your opponent to sub human, then you aren't really murdering him, because he's not human, so it's only a killing. A simple chore that needs to be done.

[HenrikOlsen]

I've never understood the need to 'demonize' your enemy. As a former military professional, I had no problem going to combat and engaging enemy forces on the ground. I didn't have to 'hate' them or demonize them to kill them (when required).
I think it's partially because a lot of soldiers are not actually professionals and thus there's a need for a way to break the taboo against killing so they can actually shoot rather than get shot when the time comes.

Dehumanizing the enemy is a well-explored fast way of accomplishing this, especially if the majority of the soldiers come from a not very educated background and are not really used to intellectualizing moral choices.

Unfortunately it has side-effects such as Abu Graib.

[korjik]

I think it's partially because a lot of soldiers are not actually professionals and thus there's a need for a way to break the taboo against killing so they can actually shoot rather than get shot when the time comes.

Dehumanizing the enemy is a well-explored fast way of accomplishing this, especially if the majority of the soldiers come from a not very educated background and are not really used to intellectualizing moral choices.

Unfortunately it has side-effects such as Abu Graib.

Too True

[captain swoop]

The carbine was ideal for support troops, sling it across your back and you could do just about anything

The SA80 sling allows the weapon to be carried 'hands free' in a number of positions. As standard it is carried across the chest, by releasing a snap buckle the weapon can be slung down alongside the body. By slackening off the sling it allows the weapon to be carried down the centre of the back ('ski carry'), either muzzle up or muzzle down. When it's across th chest it can be pulled up into a fire position.

[stutefish]

One thing that always seems to get overlooked in these discussions is that an assault rifle isn't just a Weapon: It's also a highly integrated component of a vast and complex Weapon System.

A Deer Hunter cares about "stopping power".

An Army cares about weapon weight, training requirements, rate of fire, manufacturing costs, ammunition weight, ammunition costs, logistics capacity and throughput, weapon maintenance and storage requirements and costs, weapon reliability, weapon failure modes, etc.

By the time they're done ensuring that the average soldier can carry it along with all his other gear on an extended march, can put holes in people and other thin-skinned targets with reasonable accuracy at typical engagement ranges, and can be trained to keep it clean enough to operate, "stopping power" may not even make the list.

The infantry field manuals I've read lately all seem to strongly imply that the real point of infantry is to keep the enemy's head down while the heavy weapons are brought to bear.

[Kaptain K]

Oops! My bad. I should have put the perjoratives in parentheses to indicate that that was the attitude of the American people at the time. I certainly did not mean to imply that it was a current attitude. I am a fourth generation German-American who drives a Honda!

[captain swoop]

The infantry field manuals I've read lately all seem to strongly imply that the real point of infantry is to keep the enemy's head down while the heavy weapons are brought to bear.

And to occupy the ground.

[BigDon]

It's psychological. If you can equate your opponent to sub human, then you aren't really murdering him, because he's not human, so it's only a killing. A simple chore that needs to be done.

Do allow me to point out that Ral's post points out the fastest way to die in action. Unless you are going up against the 104th Light Infants.

Ral, have you even been in a fist fight?

[pzkpfw]

I believe surveys of soldiers after WWII showed that a fair number had not shot at an enemy that they could see and individually identify with. As in, soldier sees single soldier of the "other side" and specifically shoots him.

(I don't remember if conscript vs professional soldier was covered...)

A fairly high percentage of the enemy kills were instead done by relatively more indirect means, on a small scale by spraying machine gun fire at an area, on a larger scale by the artillery and bombs.

(Even fighter pilots tend to talk of shooting the plane, and not thinking about that pilot they are [also / actually] shooting at.)

Demonising the enemy must have some benefit, but it's not absolute and many times the soldier (of both sides) remains "just another human".

----

In regards to my point of the previous page, I was more commenting of the "can do" attitude, which I think is over-rated and ones opinion of ones own nations' ability can be clouded by patriotism and actual propoganda.

Kiwis think they have "can-do" (it's called "number 8 wire technology" - due to the kinds of things made out of that gauge of fencing wire).

Americans think they have can-do. (They do, I'm not saying they don't.)

But the Germans had it too (e.g. see how ME262's were being manufactured). They didn't "lose" through lack of trying. (If anything they tried too much "can-do" when their resources couldn't support it).

Were all human (cue Disney music), we share many of the same traits, including "can do", and so I don't think that's one of the defining things in determining who "won".

[RalofTyr]

Do allow me to point out that Ral's post points out the fastest way to die in action. Unless you are going up against the 104th Light Infants.

Ral, have you even been in a fist fight?

Don, are you not paying attention? One of the first things political leaders do in dehumanize.

Check out war posters.

And I haven't been in a fight in a while. I just don't care about the stupid stuff anymore.

[Neverfly]

Don, are you not paying attention? One of the first things political leaders do in dehumanize.

Check out war posters.

And I haven't been in a fight in a while. I just don't care about the stupid stuff anymore.

He's right RalofTyr.

And may I point out- A lot of the so called "demonizing" is mostly talk with little substance.

[TheHalcyonYear]

We could wish that it would be a flower.

[RalofTyr]

He's right RalofTyr.

And may I point out- A lot of the so called "demonizing" is mostly talk with little substance.

Nope. Check out World War 2.

Don't tell me I know more about war than you two.

If you say you have physics proof, cite it.

Wiki disagrees with you. Basically it says that if the round is fast enough, it will fragment, but that slower rounds, like with shorter guns like the M4 have low stopping power.

Look up 5.56 NATO on wiki to see the article

Discovery Channel.

Tests the 7.62mm when right through, leaving a bigger hole, but not that much of a bigger one whereas the 5.45mm(it was actually about the AK-74) made a smaller hole, but did more damage internally.

[Neverfly]

Nope. Check out World War 2.

Don't tell me I know more about war than you two.
Ral, there is a large difference between propaganda- and what Soldiers on the battlefield think.



Discovery Channel.

Tests the 7.62mm when right through, leaving a bigger hole, but not that much of a bigger one whereas the 5.45mm(it was actually about the AK-74) made a smaller hole, but did more damage internally.

Also Mythbusters.
The velocity of the round is what makes it so datgummed lethal.

[San Pedro]

I've heard of stories from Australian infantry soldier in Vietnam '68-69, that thier first issues where Belgian SLR's 7.62mm NATO round semi auto (but could be modified in field to full auto).

He liked the stopping power and controlled fire.

When the M16 was introduced, ofcourse they were much lighter, he called them 5.56mm armorlites, but alot harder to stop a light framed enemy!

Went straight through like a surgical instrument.

Still hurts either way but 7.62mm round is superior for wild pig shooting but .223 does the job.

[korjik]

Nope. Check out World War 2.

Don't tell me I know more about war than you two.



Discovery Channel.

Tests the 7.62mm when right through, leaving a bigger hole, but not that much of a bigger one whereas the 5.45mm(it was actually about the AK-74) made a smaller hole, but did more damage internally.

Without knowing the muzzle energy of the AK-74, this dosent change anything. If anything, it is more proof of my point then yours, seeing as how the -74 was a -47 redesigned to be more like an M-16.

[mugaliens]

Do allow me to point out that Ral's post points out the fastest way to die in action. Unless you are going up against the 104th Light Infants.

Yep.

Ral, have you even been in a fist fight?

Don't know about Ral. The only serious one I was in was over in less than 5 seconds.

[mugaliens]

Also Mythbusters.
The velocity of the round is what makes it so datgummed lethal.

And so datgummed ineffective at the same time.

The bottom line is what's called "knock-down power." I could reiterate DeYoub's rhetoric...

But I won't.

It's simply the ability to cause your enemy to cease being a threat. Expanding rounds are illegal (Geneva convention). Max damage rounds, if not expanding, are legal. High velocity, narrow-bore rounds punch through anything, while imposing very little stopping power. Heavy, slow, but wide-bore rounds impose tremendous stopping power, even if they never penetrate an armoured vest. It's like getting hit in the chest with a sledge-hammer.

I can keep 1 enemy personnel penned to the ground per second with slugs. If they're not armored, that's one KIA per second.

[Kaptain K]

Expanding rounds are illegal (Geneva convention).
Written specifically to improve the "maim/kill" ratio!
"Civilized" forces take care of their wounded, so wounding a soldier takes several out of the action! Every improvement in small arms design has been an attempt to get around the Geneva convention restrictions without, technically breaking the rules!

[mugaliens]

Which is why I'm a staunch promoter of the "goop bomb," which incapacitates all enemies, foreign and domestic, until they can be chemically sorted out from the immobilizing goo...

[RalofTyr]

Ral, there is a large difference between propaganda- and what Soldiers on the battlefield think.

So I do know more about war than you do...


Without knowing the muzzle energy of the AK-74, this dosent change anything. If anything, it is more proof of my point then yours, seeing as how the -74 was a -47 redesigned to be more like an M-16.


http://www.geocities.com/awatters2002/m1a/comparison.html

Check out the diagrams.

[captain swoop]

Heavy, slow, but wide-bore rounds impose tremendous stopping power, even if they never penetrate an armoured vest. It's like getting hit in the chest with a sledge-hammer.

Hence the Martini Henry (http://www.martinihenry.com/)

[captain swoop]

[QUOTE=RalofTyr;1288540]So I do know more about war than you do...

[QUOTE]

Most of the Propaganda is aimedat the civilian population. In WW2 we didn't need to demonize the Nazis they did a good job themselves.

Soldiers at the sharp end soon develop a respect for each other. I would say you know nothing about war.

[RalofTyr]

[QUOTE=RalofTyr;1288540]So I do know more about war than you do...

[QUOTE]

Most of the Propaganda is aimedat the civilian population. In WW2 we didn't need to demonize the Nazis they did a good job themselves.

Soldiers at the sharp end soon develop a respect for each other. I would say you know nothing about war.

So from your narrow perspective, 50 years of western based warfare, you are confident that no one dehumanizes their enemy?

http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/dehumanization/

It is fallacious to say that propaganda is aimed at the civilian population. Propaganda is for more important to the soldiers, who are actually carrying out the tasks, than to the civilians that contribute little to the effort.

[Neverfly]

It is fallacious to say that propaganda is aimed at the civilian population. Propaganda is for more important to the soldiers, who are actually carrying out the tasks, than to the civilians that contribute little to the effort.

RalofTyr, though some soldiers may have done so in order to justify having had to kill in combat, you are in no position to claim that that is what soldiers do, in general.

I can assure you, many do not.

[cjl]

One quick note: dehumanizing in no way requires a loss of respect for the battle prowess of the enemy. You can think of an enemy as cunning, and worth caution without thinking of them as human.

(note - I am not advocating any specific position, just pointing this out)

[Ronald Brak]

Propaganda is communication designed to prompt an emotional response while bypassing the intellect.

Garth S. Jowett and Victoria O'Donnell define it as: Propaganda is the deliberate, systematic attempt to shape perceptions, manipulate cognitions, and direct behavior to achieve a response that furthers the desired intent of the propagandist.

Those of you who have seen television, listened to the radio, read newpapers or magazines, or been a member of an organization are probably familiar with it.

[Kaptain K]

When I was growing up (late 50s) the Army, Navy, Air Force and the AFL-CIO all had half hour or one hour "informational" programming on Sunday mornings. It wasn't 'til much later in life that I realized that it was propaganda!

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

...the Army, Navy, Air Force and the AFL-CIO...

:eh:

♪ One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you guess which thing is not like the others
Before I finish my song? ♪

[Kaptain K]

:eh:

♪ One of these things is not like the others
One of these things just doesn't belong
Can you guess which thing is not like the others
Before I finish my song? ♪

Hey! Those are the ones I remember!! It was 50 years ago!
BTW, the Navy show was called "The Big Picture"!

[GeorgeLeRoyTirebiter]

Hey! Those are the ones I remember!! It was 50 years ago!
BTW, the Navy show was called "The Big Picture"!

I'm just having a little fun. They would probably run programs from any legitimate organization that wasn't full of Commies. Today, they show infomercials. That's not an improvement.

[RalofTyr]

RalofTyr, though some soldiers may have done so in order to justify having had to kill in combat, you are in no position to claim that that is what soldiers do, in general.

I can assure you, many do not.

You don't know what position I am or not. You don't know what you're talking about. Now acronym removed by moderator, youngin', before you get schooled.

[Tog_]

You don't know what position I am or not. You don't know what you're talking about. Now acronym removed by moderator, youngin', before you get schooled.

So your position is that you actually DO know, not suspect, but know what goes on in the mind of every soldier to ever see combat? And this despite the comments from several soldiers that have seen combat, that say it is not the case with them?

Just want to be clear on what your "position" is.

[Neverfly]

You don't know what position I am or not. You don't know what you're talking about. Now acronym removed by moderator, youngin', before you get schooled.

<chuckle>
Now I didn't see this one coming...

You know Ral... When you face off your opponent, you know that he is a father. Or a brother. Or an uncle, husband, boyfriend, son... To someone- he is Everyone.
And you are about to take that away.
It's quick. It is not at the front of your mind. It's not a rational thought you have to think. It's not even a thought at all... You Just Know.

I know I have mentioned sleeplessness on this board.

But I did not know that this topic could be more sensitive with you than it is with me. Which, I admit, Amazes me.

All of this really is off-topic as well.
The topic is the effectiveness of current weaponry and whether or not a more effective weapon can replace what we have.

[captain swoop]

In my experience the motivation of the average serviceman is loyalty to his unit or ship.

Not letting down your Oppo is far more important than anything else. Just today a Royal Marine was awarded the George Cross to be presented by the Queen for throwing himself in front of a Grenade to protect the other guys in his squad. I know to me the Ship came first. I have friends who were in the Marines or Army and they will tell you the same, what keeps them going is loyalty to their unit. I don't know about foreign forces but the British Army is a collection of individual tribes called Regiments, your regiment comes first above anything. When you are given a job to do you do it, you don't need to hate your enemy to beat him. It's the folks at home who need a reason to want you to keep fighting, that's where the propaganda is most important.

[mugaliens]

Soldiers at the sharp end soon develop a respect for each other.

Well said.

[BigDon]

That ship thing is different (from day to day nine to fives).

During the Iranian hostage crises I was on the night shift as we got into position. You know somebody is in trouble when you wake up in the "morning" and when you went to bed the hangar bay was empty and now both hangar bays are FULL of mines! Those big honking hull shattering bottom mines to boot! Their Navy can't hurt you if it can't leave port, and nobody gets hurt.

We were getting ready for the diversionary strikes for the hostage rescue and it was a quiet 1 AM on a night we had a first light launch. There were going to be 2 back to back scheduled ALPHA strikes from 6 carriers, or at least two from the Connie, I can't speak for the others, then play out any responses.

I was, shall we say, "fully alert". I was walking back to the island from the portside aft after checking my birds yet one more time because they were going to "injun country" and you just want to make sure all the stuff works and things like that "pain in the posterior" circuit breaker issue (you pilots all know THAT one) takes on a new demension.

Now anybody here ever seen a Navy A-6 in kill mode? A very impressive medium bomber. All external stores. This particular one was fully loaded with thousand pound bombs. It was carrying twentyfour of them plus a drop tank. The drop tank had a leak and wouldn't you know it, it was parked over one of the waist cats.

Now the catapult crew was doing its own work in preperation for the strikes and had a bunch of very hot steam lines, yes that hot. (Help me Geo!) and the darn bird burst into flames as I was watching! And the weirdest thing, to this day, is the first adrenaline jolt was me running towards the fire! You have to put the fire out as there is no where to run! Closest solid ground was two miles away, straight down! (Old blue water joke) The whole A-6 was engulfed in spreading flames! Next to it on both sides were similarly laden birds!

Fortunately wiser heads rule the flightdeck and all the loaded birds warrented extra fire watchs with the heavy equipment actively manned by suited damage control crews. That huge fire was out before my 20 year old adreline charged backside could run 500 feet. Even I was empressed. Seems the DC crews didn't want to blow up either. And their engine was out of sight to me initially so the situation looked more potentially disasterous than it was.

Boy, those poor bomber maintenance crews got no rest that night. They were all goosed up out of their racks and people were demanding who and what.





A comment on Rals banning. Was it really so bad as to warrent a lifetime banning? You see without Jerry Lewis, Dean Martin was a drunken lounge singer. What's Gallent without Goofus?

[Kaptain K]

Banning reduced to two weeks!

[BigDon]

Okay cool.

Thanks mods!

Ral, though you occassionally get me to snarl, I don't dislike you.

[cplradar]

I'm jumping in a little late here but here goes,

The U.S. is not a party to Hague Convention Declaration III. Which specifically talks about expanding bullets.

Link (http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:Olj-6VUEdhkJ:www.thegunzone.com/hague.html+us+not+party+to+Hague+Convention+Declar ation+III&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us)

The problem with the 5.56 round is it's lack of "stopping power." The reason is it's "overpenetration." It's too small and too fast, it goes right through. You wan't trauma caused by hydrostatic shock. You want a slower bigger bullet since it does more "damage." Barnes will be more than happy to send you their “Bullet Myths Busted” DVD free of charge, in which they clearly show what hydrostatic shock and stopping power can do for you.

[DyerWolf]

The efficacy of the 5.56 is a delicate balance. The round is not stable: it's weight is in the rear of the round (its a copper-jacketed round with a steel penetrator followed by a lead plug). Were it not spin-stabilized, it would 'boat' around in mid-flight, presenting its heavy end first; and consequently lose accuracy / penetration.

When fired from the right length barrel, with the right level of muzzle pressure (50K)/ muzzle velocity (3100 fps) (M855 Nato Ball) from M-16A2, it's efficacy on the human body is impressive; it tumbles and fragments and causes a LOT more damage than you might think.

When fired from a shorter barrel, it doesn't have the same ballistic characteristics - it doesn't tumble on impact:

...nato rounds produce significant disabling wounds when they strike their targets at about 2500-2700fps or above. At that velocity they tend to penetrate 7-10" within a body before yawing to a vertical position, at which point the unbalanced forces on the bullets tend to break them apart at the cannelure, into two or three large, and several smaller fragments; with the fragments typically penetrating another 2-4"...
...
Unfortunately, at velocities below 2500fps, ...they will tend to simply pass straight through a human body (at least a thin one anyway, and most of our enemies aren't exactly overfed), leaving a very small wound channel, and creating little shock; unless they directly hit a major organ, blood vessel, or bone.

...

With the standard 20" M16A1-A3 barrel, this isn't really a problem, because the 55gr and 62gr nato loads will maintain 2500fps out to around 200m, but every inch you cut off the barrel length cuts something like 25m off the effective range of the loading.

The M4 carbine has either an 11.5" or 14.5" barrel (depending on what generation M4 it is. Most issued today have 14.5" barrels). A 14.5" barrel will produce between 200fps and 400fps less muzzle velocity (yes, it really is that variable depending on loading) than a 20" barrel; which translates into a HUGE difference in downrange performance. The range at which the 62gr load will reliably stay above 2500fps from the 11.5" barrel, is about 80m; from the 14.5" barrel it's about 125m. Source (http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/terminal-tumbling.html)

The increased power of the 7.62 often means that it will simply punch straight through a person, actually causing less damage...

[korjik]

The efficacy of the 5.56 is a delicate balance. The round is not stable: it's weight is in the rear of the round (its a copper-jacketed round with a steel penetrator followed by a lead plug). Were it not spin-stabilized, it would 'boat' around in mid-flight, presenting its heavy end first; and consequently lose accuracy / penetration.

When fired from the right length barrel, with the right level of muzzle pressure (50K)/ muzzle velocity (3100 fps) (M855 Nato Ball) from M-16A2, it's efficacy on the human body is impressive; it tumbles and fragments and causes a LOT more damage than you might think.

When fired from a shorter barrel, it doesn't have the same ballistic characteristics - it doesn't tumble on impact:

Source (http://anarchangel.blogspot.com/2007/02/terminal-tumbling.html)

The increased power of the 7.62 often means that it will simply punch straight through a person, actually causing less damage...

I think someone already mentioned this :)

[korjik]

That ship thing is different (from day to day nine to fives).

During the Iranian hostage crises I was on the night shift as we got into position. You know somebody is in trouble when you wake up in the "morning" and when you went to bed the hangar bay was empty and now both hangar bays are FULL of mines! Those big honking hull shattering bottom mines to boot! Their Navy can't hurt you if it can't leave port, and nobody gets hurt.

We were getting ready for the diversionary strikes for the hostage rescue and it was a quiet 1 AM on a night we had a first light launch. There were going to be 2 back to back scheduled ALPHA strikes from 6 carriers, or at least two from the Connie, I can't speak for the others, then play out any responses.

I was, shall we say, "fully alert". I was walking back to the island from the portside aft after checking my birds yet one more time because they were going to "injun country" and you just want to make sure all the stuff works and things like that "pain in the posterior" circuit breaker issue (you pilots all know THAT one) takes on a new demension.

Now anybody here ever seen a Navy A-6 in kill mode? A very impressive medium bomber. All external stores. This particular one was fully loaded with thousand pound bombs. It was carrying twentyfour of them plus a drop tank. The drop tank had a leak and wouldn't you know it, it was parked over one of the waist cats.

Now the catapult crew was doing its own work in preperation for the strikes and had a bunch of very hot steam lines, yes that hot. (Help me Geo!) and the darn bird burst into flames as I was watching! And the weirdest thing, to this day, is the first adrenaline jolt was me running towards the fire! You have to put the fire out as there is no where to run! Closest solid ground was two miles away, straight down! (Old blue water joke) The whole A-6 was engulfed in spreading flames! Next to it on both sides were similarly laden birds!

Fortunately wiser heads rule the flightdeck and all the loaded birds warrented extra fire watchs with the heavy equipment actively manned by suited damage control crews. That huge fire was out before my 20 year old adreline charged backside could run 500 feet. Even I was empressed. Seems the DC crews didn't want to blow up either. And their engine was out of sight to me initially so the situation looked more potentially disasterous than it was.

Boy, those poor bomber maintenance crews got no rest that night. They were all goosed up out of their racks and people were demanding who and what.





A comment on Rals banning. Was it really so bad as to warrent a lifetime banning? You see without Jerry Lewis, Dean Martin was a drunken lounge singer. What's Gallent without Goofus?

I wonder if they make carrier damage control teams watch the film of the Forrestal?

[DyerWolf]

I think someone already mentioned this :)

Ah, but this time I have internet sources - so it has so much more weight than the first time I wrote it!:lol:

cplradar's post is a common misperception among some troops - mainly because they don't know why their M4's only suppress and annoy the enemy, rather than suppress and destroy the enemy.







(P.S. I only have to say it one more time for it to be true!)

[Nick Theodorakis]

I wonder if they make carrier damage control teams watch the film of the Forrestal?

Is that the one with Public Service Announcement that says "Only YOU can prevent Forrestal fires"?

Nick

[cplradar]

Where are these M4s that everyone loves to talk about? :D The only M4's I've seen being carried were SOPMODs by the SOF guys or MWS models in the hands of contractors. Outside of certain well-funded line units. Read as: combat arms units that have name recognition to the general public-the Hundred and Worst Screaming Chickens, for instance, who still carry the name Airborne, even though their last jump was before most of its troopers were born(silly dopes-on-a-rope). The Air Force, who consider the M16 too heavy for carry (also, extremely impracticle to use a long rifle instead of a carbine if you work in and around airplanes), do use them, and the rest of the military is still using the old M16A2 or the newer M16A4.

5.56x45mm is clearly better than 7.62x39mm and 7.62x51mm in regards to accuracy, heck it's flat out to 300 yards. It also doesn't overpenetrate like a .308 would (less of a problem again if the majority of the military would just use softer rounds) but when it does it's small size means less damage to the person shot.

In CQB, the 5.56 is obviously better than .308 since you don't want to shoot the bad guy and your buddy at the same time, most units around the world that specialize in CQB are moving towards 9mm anyway. Not really a problem even with .308 when used with low powder softer bullets designed for close fire anyway.

The real reason 5.56 is used is because it's cheaper and lighter than .308 rounds and there's less recoil. Recoil is now a large issue since some of the troops having to put rounds down range in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines etc. haven't fired a rifle since basic training. Weight is important, because that kid out at the FOB is a truck driver, not an ammo mule. He's not used to haul a real combat load, so we need to do what we can to lighten it for him. Cost of course drives everything. The military simply does not have the money to spend on ammo.

Bigger, slower, softer bullets make more traumatic injuries on the organs of the unfortunate they hit. Organ trauma from hydrostatic shock is how a bullet is designed to kill (sans the Carlos Hathcocks of world, although, even Lông Trắng himself did use .30-06.)