Rifle Combat at Less than 300 Meters

[Roswell 1847]

so I agree with you no doubt.

I believe we see eye to eye on that point.

If not, then I take it thats its been accepted that longer range is not entirely common, needed, nor accurate even with better technology,

Unfortunately the enemy adapts his tactics to your strengths. If you give up long range accuracy for convenience in ammo load and handines he can attempt at least to force you into a long range duel such as the mujahadin ambushing soviets in mountain passes and nailing them at long range using bolt action .303 rifles and 7.62X54 machineguns. When the Stinger started drying up Soviet air cover their troops couldn't operate in the mountains at all because their AKs were outranged, and their BMPs couldn't move up to provide cover. The Muji kept the high ground.
The Taleban have been hoping to fight that war over again with the US in the role of the Soviets, but we ain't biting.

In City fighting you have extremes. Either its close in gunfights or longer range sniping and motar and rocket fire.
Though much of a city is crowded there are always areas that are wide open and roof top to roff top duels can measure out to even longer distances than you'd find in some countrysides. Firing on a road block for example could be done from a half mile down the street.

I say a more powerful round with close in penetration of cover and the ability to engage at longer ranges.

If the AR-10 were as reliable in combat as an FAL it would be a perfect choice. Its true utility would rest on alternative ammo types available to the individual trooper.

The three round burst option of the present 5.56 AR types could be done away with. Why carry twice as much ammo if it takes three times as many rounds to do the job?
If you're gonna miss once why miss three times in a row.


PS

As far as effectiveness, after action reports from Vietnam showed that the 5.56x45mm was 11% more lethal than the 7.62x51mm. This was do to the performance of the 5.56 bullet in tissue. While the 7.62 tends to go through the target with little deformation, the 5.56 (at shorter ranges typical of jungle combat) tended to fracture at the canneleur, producing several submunitions.

unfortunately it did the same when it encountered any sort of substantial foliage.
Wound studies of enemy casualties can only be done by postmortem examination of bodies found. Those Enemy that crawl away into the bush to die can't be examined if you can't find them.

If a 7.62 NATO from an M14 hits an enemy at a greater range than the bullet from a 5.56 the extent of the wound would appear less.
Modern European manufactured 7.62 NATO using a brittle steel jacket will also break up inside the body, in fact they've adapted the principle from the 5.56 bullets.

Now if you want a truly hideous wound using a 7.62 bullet copy the .303 Mk 7. It has a lightweight nose insert, variously of aluminum, wood, or paper, according to the manufacturer. I've fired a lot of the paper nose Mk7.
The gilded steel jacket is brittle from work hardening during manufacture.
When fired the rifling marks weaken the jacket. As the bullet begins to tumble inside the body it makes a half turn then the exposed soft lead core opens the base like a bore diameter soft point , the jacket peels back into thins slicing edges and the expanded core travels through the body in a wad of lead as the jacket either spins like a buzz saw or breaks up into slivers.
I've seen photos of a pile of Poachers hit by the Mk7 and you could see the next body through the wound in ones chest, while all the meat had been blown off a survivor's upper arm leaving the bone exposed from shoulder to elbow.

The Mk7 has poor penetration on car bodies through.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Roswell, you are arguing with people who are actually fighting the battles you only hypothesize about. From my perspective you do not appear to know much about the subjects you are discussing.

 

[GunTech]

Wound studies of enemy casualties can only be done by postmortem examination of bodies found. Those Enemy that crawl away into the bush to die can't be examined if you can't find them.

Are you suggesting that those hit by 7.62 crawled away and died and only those hit by 5.56 dies in place? Whether true or not, it still seems to favor 5.56

Modern European manufactured 7.62 NATO using a brittle steel jacket will also break up inside the body, in fact they've adapted the principle from the 5.56 bullets.

Not true. Only an experimental West German round had that ability, and it wasn't adopted. 7.62 NATO of all makes is distinguished by the fact it rarely fragments.

 

[RP88]

I cant really say much for the war scenarios you offered, Roswell. However, I can comment on the guns. Those guns used in the soviet war were specifically designed for those ranges. From what I gather, the problem with the M16 and its 5.56 is that it was designed for all-purpose applications, or at least adapted in a way that made it so. The problem there is that being well-rounded is only good until you go up against something with a specialty, whether if its an AK at 100 yards or an old Mauser at 500 yards.

Which also leads me to jump on that info on the 5.56's 11% improvement. That was all info pulled from 40 years ago, where an NVA soldier (or any soldier for that matter) with body armor was as common as seeing a leprechaun.

That then leads me to my next thing. Rifle fire against troops in Iraq or against forces with crappy or no body armor (unlike us and our dragonskin or defend-x plating) is pretty much effective regardless. If we were to get into a fight with, say, ourselves...then pretty much any kind of gun outside of a heavy MG bullet will not drop anyone unless its a hit to the face or extremeties

If you were to get into a war with someone with similar good armor, then I wonder how redefined rifle combat and ammo would be then. Probably means very soon we may see something along the lines of stronger and more expensive metals used in construction

 

[HorseSoldier]

People die waiting for rocket launchers and armor to show up.

40mm HEDP does more to structural walls than 0.30" ball ammo, and grenade launchers are liberally issued in combat arms units. To say nothing of the vastly superior effects of lobbing one 40mm grenade through a window or doorway rather than trying to blindly guess where the bad guy is.

And if you think no US Troop had ever encountered similar circumstances you don't know much about house to house fighting. General George Patton wrote a pretty good guide to the subject.

Just curious, how much time do you spend in MOUT sites? I spend entirely too much in then.

The reporter who described the incident you're referencing points out in his article that basements in Iraq are almost unknown. I'm sure Patton could teach us all something about moving heavy divisions along unimproved road nets in the middle of a European blizzard . . . but who cares in the context of Iraq?

Couldn't find any instance where I said that wounding rather than killing was deliberate design function of any military rifle in use now did you.

Semantic tap dancing.

If you give up long range accuracy for convenience in ammo load and handines he can attempt at least to force you into a long range duel such as the mujahadin ambushing soviets in mountain passes and nailing them at long range using bolt action .303 rifles and 7.62X54 machineguns.

The mujahedin were getting there backsides handed to them when their main rifle was the SMLE, and the relative effectiveness of this weapon against the Soviets (who issued PKMs and SVDs very liberally, we should recall) is probably aptly summarized by the fact they switched to AKs as fast as they could get them.

I say a more powerful round with close in penetration of cover and the ability to engage at longer ranges.

My ACOG makes my issue M4A1 a 600 meter weapon with boring ease on the range. Not sure how much further we're aspiring for guys to shoot, but regardless, in combat, range for effective engagements is mostly going to be < 100 meters whether we issue 5.56mm weapons, 7.62mm weapons, or .338 Lapua weapons. It's not the limits of the weapons that make longer range shooting difficult under actual combat conditions, it's the limits of the shooters and the human animal.

If a 7.62 NATO from an M14 hits an enemy at a greater range than the bullet from a 5.56 the extent of the wound would appear less.

Not a meaningful claim as far as observed wounds and terminal ballistics, since troops with M14s (and M1 Garands) were still mostly only hitting bad guys inside the usual 100/300 meter ranges.

 

[Roswell 1847]

From my perspective you

I have my doubts about you as well.
Do you doubt the wounding characteristics of the Mk 7 .303?
They are well documented.

Do you doubt the published shortcomings of 5.56 AP at Close range?

Do you doubt eye witness accounts of German Atrocities against their own wounded?

I'm probably old enough to be your grandfather and I've seen men die from gunshot wounds and treated minor gunshot wounds and spoken with survivors of some pretty awesome gunshot wounds to hear how they got them.

As for the terrorist and insurgents prefering to use 7.62X54 whenever they can thats been reported for years now, maybe all the reports from the field are lies but doubt that.

When someone blithly suggested planting demo charges on the floor or walls which the enemy is firing full auto through at the time it just doesn't seem very realistic.

I've fired just enough 5.56 at car bodies, and wood including tree stumps to recognize that its a poor penetrator.
As the specs for 5.56 AP round show it would not penetrate the book cases in any room of my house at close range.

And read up on it, the US Army in WW2 encouraged the troops to take full advantage of the Garand's power and rapid fire by firing at where they believed the enemy to be rather than waiting for a clear shot. And it worked.

Not spray and Pray but filling the enemy's position with lead in sufficient volume as to make that position untenable and produce casualties.

Now as for the attempts to justify the use of the M16, the Wound rather than kill theory was one I never subscribed to, so this bull about demanding that I post evidence to support a theory I don't support is ridiculous.
After looking around they net I find that this has become a new meme, that somehow no one ever tried to claim that the M16 was designed to wound rather than kill. Having been an adult at the time I can remember that they certainly claimed that just about anytime the subject came up. Thats their argument not mine, and as I said it only looks good on paper not in the real world of today.

Since you folks decided you wanted more background on the theory I gave it some thought and I'm looking into where the idea originated.

Sun Tsu recomended that a retreating army be left an avenue of escape, that a defeated and demoralised enemy would demoralise the population when they saw wounded and defeated soldiers. Then Applegate's book was mentioned, I read some of his stuff years ago, I do seem to remember what he said about wounded and maimed coming back demoralizing the civilian population.
Certainly the huge numbers of Mustard gas victims had a demoralizing effect in WW2. Of course the opposite applies to Fanatics, and to some extent the professionals of long ago.

Now if the attempt to build a strawman argument against me had not taken place I might be less suspicious of some of the information posted here.

Since most of what I know about ammunition and shooting comes from hands on experiance over a period of a half a century rather than from reading last months Soldier of Fortune or cruising Youtube my figures may not be exact.

I was not pertrubed to find that the 06 AP was Tungsten Steel (electric furnace whatever)rather than Tungsten carbide as I'd thought, I come to learn not to teach, so finding out something I had not heard before is a plus not a minus. i'd always heard it was tungsten carbide, and I've used AP cores stripped of the jacket by passage through concrete foundations as center punches, pretty hard stuff.

Any way get off my back and either respond in a civilized manner or don't respond at all, My tolerance for bull**** is at low ebb.

PS

Semantic tap dancing.

Thats a Laugh your entire posts amount to little more.
As for a 600 yard shot with an M4 "At the Range" try it with a a stiff and variable crosswind and on a slope.

The mujahedin were getting there backsides handed to them when their main rifle was the SMLE

Because the Soviets had overwhelming air support.

Also just exactly how after WACO could anyone doubt the effectiveness of firing through walls roofs and floor to kill or wound opponents you know to be on the other side?
I'd think the videos from that incident would be a common teaching tool for anyone who'd likely be engaged in house to house fighting.

PPS
This just occurred to me

I'm sure Patton could teach us all something about moving heavy divisions along unimproved road nets in the middle of a European blizzard . . . but who cares in the context of Iraq?

Patton won his spurs fighting in pre WW1 Mexico in close combat among homes and building much like those of Rural Iraq. He shot it out with Pancho Viva's best men at point blank range.
In WW 2 his troops beat the pants off the NAZIs in both open battle and house to house fighting in European cities not unlike much of the more substantial structures in Iraq.
Now who's words would I be expected to trust, some faceless poster on the net that thinks the M4 is a 600 yard gun, or one of the greatest warriors of all time ?


M4 a 600 yard gun, what a laugh. If you managed to hit someone at that range the striking power would be in the pocket pistol range at best considering all the velocity you give up with the shorter barrel, even the full length M16 barrel would give no more than 9mm level energy and that in a .22 bullet that is far below the velocity necessary for fragmentation. A jihadi would be ashamed to show a wound no worse than that much less let it put him out of the fight.
A .30/06 at that distance could go through two men and kill or disable both.

Personally I'll trust those I've known most of my life and of known accomplishments before I'll trust the words of a stranger.
Far too many of my friends and kinfolk ended up on the short end because the M16 couldn't cut the mustard in any way shape or form.

 

[Warbow]

Also just exactly how after WACO could anyone doubt the effectiveness of firing through walls roofs and floor to kill or wound opponents you know to be on the other side?

Becasue they've actually been to Iraq and noticed that the structures there don't follow Texas building codes? That's my guess.

 

[Jenrick]

Any way get off my back and either respond in a civilized manner or don't respond at all, My tolerance for bull**** is at low ebb.

Way to take the high road. Not that my vote counts, but I vote that this thread be closed. I've learned a few interesting things, and saw a lot of ego on all sides go flaring.

-Jenrick

 

[chieftain]

No one is using an ACOG to shoot to 1200 meters in combat. A four power scope helps with target acquisition and PID, but it certainly doesn't help that much. The number of guys making shots in combat at the bottom of the ACOG reticle at 600 is pretty close to negligible, even if you can hit steel at 600 all day long on the range. Despite going in enthusiastically for the issue of the ACOG, the USMC is still the agency that found average engagement range in Iraq was 100 feet (and I don't think anyone else is finding anything much different).

Really beginning to ramble horse. I sure didn’t say anyone is using an ACOG for a 1200 yard shot. You bring up the matter of 1200meter shots. Okay, I am talking about the coincidence of the numbers, just like I stated.

Not being kool like you, I have no idea what PID means. Remember I ain’t kool.

Maybe in your outfit no one is engaging at 600 yards. I believe that 100 feet or 33 yards is probably accurate. Half of the fights are less, half are more.

You do agree with me. The Corps got the ACOG for that half over 100 feet/33 yards.

Nope, sorry. I know the Corps is culty about its long range target shooting, but in combat Marines aren't engaging/shooting any further than Army troops. And neither are engaging much at all at ranges beyond 300 with individual rifles/carbines with any frequency, and mostly at much, much closer range. GunTech's point, which I know may be painful to some, is that all the NRA style shooting in the world over nicely mowed grass on a KD range translates to exactly zero improved performance in combat shooting. The only real innovation in small arms training in decades has been to recognize how useless that stuff is and to focus on trying to approximate actual combat conditions -- ranges, stress level, etc. -- as much as possible.

Sigh, lets repeat it again. Just so you don’t have to try to say it again. I agree most combat is at closer ranges. You seem to be arguing with your self about this. It is that category you seem to define at “not much at all” or “any frequency” is where we differ.

The Marines because of their, to use your term, ‘Culty’ long range target shooting, do successfully engage at those longer ranges WHEN IT HAPPENS. Just another tool in the tool box.

The Corps Marksmanship, which has always been over a KD courses and yes the grass is usually mowed, has been going on for over 200 years. For over 200 years the Marines have been noted, world wide for their excellent long range musketry and rifle marksmanship in COMBAT. That continues today. Some of people don't think it is useful. A lot of Marines do. Most of the folks that think it is a waste of time, never did train in that manner. Interesting.

I do believe a lot of the new concepts in CQC are useful and needed too. The KD range is not used exclusively. It is used along with the new techniques. I ain't bright like you, but I have found in my experience, more training with additional techniques will usually be 'better' than less training.

You know, if you train for it, you are ready for it. If you don’t train for it, well…….. I guess you think that is a culty.

"Blurb in newspaper with no supporting numbers" does not equal "proof." An especially salient issue would be what ranges this alleged rash of head shots occurred at. Making head shots at 50 meters with a four power scope does not mean every Marine is a steely eyed sniper, or that the Corps' insistence guys waste time shooting past 300 meters under sterile range conditions makes much difference in combat.

It happened. You don't seem to like stuff that doesn't agree with your view of the world. It's America. You are as entitled to be wrong just like anyone else. And for the record, the ranges that the head shot were made varied. That normally happens in combat.

Interesting response though. No one I know has ever claimed the average Marine is a, how did you put it, “steely eyed sniper”. Just our line units are trained, you know that “waste of time shooting past 300 meters under sterile range conditions.” So a platoon of Marines can send some reasonably accurate small arms fire out to 500 meters. THEY TRAIN FOR IT. Radical concept.

Actually, it does make a difference in combat. Unfortunately, you apparently were not trained that way, and seem to resent those of us that are/were.

Just understand, I agree the long range rifle fight is not common, but does happen. I am glad Marines have the capability to engage in them effectively if and when they need to. You know, something like Amphibious operations.

Go figure.

Fred

 

[Roswell 1847]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Roswell 1847
At the end of WW2 while retreating from the Russians the NAZI actually scuttled a number of river freighters and barges loaded with their own wounded in order to used the remaining land transport for troops that could still fight.

How about a documented example of this since you were unable to provide any documented example of the 5.56 "wounding" theory?

Thats what got my goat right there.
I've seen far too many holocaust deniers in the last few years and skinheads trying to paint the NAZI as better than they were.
Roberts' strawman remark made, and still makes, me wonder if he falls in that category.

As for Texas Building codes I doubt the WACO compound would have met them either. But it doesn't change the scientific fact that 5.56 AP can't shoot through cover that any decent .30 load would walk through and that Jihadis have put that to work as an advantage in street and house to house fighting.

Now its a historical fact that saturating an enemy position produces results whether you can see individual enemy or not.
Its also a fact that if bullets are coming through a wall inside a house then someone is on the other side of the wall.
Whether those who may have been to Iraq were in combat or in the rear with the beer making up stories to tell when they got home facts are facts, they don't change because someone didn't have a personal experiance that brought those facts home to them.

I'm not so cavalier about wounded Marines bleeding out because the 5.56 can't penetrate a bloody floor or interior wall, or the roof and trim around it.
Far too many US troops includin friends and kinfolk have died because the jacked up .22 doesn't do the job its meant to do.

 

[PAOPuke]

"how far can you see?at 300 yards a person looks like a small dot."

That's why my M-4 has an ACOG on it! Most of our effective shooting is done with Machine guns, sniper rifles & mortars over here.

 

[PAOPuke]

"unlike us and our dragonskin or defend-x plating" Where have you seen Dragon Skin worn? By contractors, perhaps??
Most Military are issued E-SAPI and use the new IOTV vest. Dragon Skin isn't issued & weighs several POUNDS more than E-SAPI & IOTV. Belive you me, when humping ammo, water, and mission essential gear in the mountains of the 'Ghan, I have no desire to hump the extra weight of Dragon Skin, too.

 

[KW]

The practical penetration difference between M855 5.56mm and .30 ball isn't that great when you are looking at structures. Most of the buildings in the areas where we are fighting are double or triple brick, thick mud and stone, or 8-10 inch concrete.

The Army's field manual on Combined Arms in Urban terrain has lots of info on this. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch7.htm#par1

For instance, to get an initial penetration of a 9 inch double brick wall with a 7.62mm at 25m requires 45 rounds, or 70 rounds of 5.56mm! Thats over 2 mags from either caliber (or around 1/3 of a standard combat loadout), all to get an initial penetration on the weakest type of structure commonly seen. Rifles just aren't good at defeating heavy building materials.

Of course you will encounter some barriers that can be penetrated by a single 7.62 and not by 5.56. But does that balance out the advantage of having a smaller, lighter weapon, with more ammo, that is quicker on target and easier to shoot? Probably not, especially when 7.62mm medium machine guns, hand grenades, and 40mm grenade launchers are commonly available, not to mention .50 cals on humvees, 25mm cannons on Bradleys, 105-120mms on M1s, air power, artillery, anti-tank missiles etc.

 

[chieftain]

That's why my M-4 has an ACOG on it! Most of our effective shooting is done with Machine guns, sniper rifles & mortars over here.

Of course. They have been the most effective weapons at range since their existance. Very effective, When you have them, or have enough of them with you. In most wars one underlying factor is you never have enough of the good stuff with you. Just plenty of the bad stuff.

For instance, to get an initial penetration of a 9 inch double brick wall with a 7.62mm at 25m requires 45 rounds, or 70 rounds of 5.56mm! Thats over 2 mags from either caliber (or around 1/3 of a standard combat loadout), all to get an initial penetration on the weakest type of structure commonly seen. Rifles just aren't good at defeating heavy building materials.

Even CBS block, when set in a proper wall in a structure is much tougher to defeat than just shooting at a few CBS blocks piled on each other at a range.

The wall contributes tensile strength to each block. Add paint or other coverings both inside and out, and the strength is increased.

Of course you will encounter some barriers that can be penetrated by a single 7.62 and not by 5.56. But does that balance out the advantage of having a smaller, lighter weapon, with more ammo, that is quicker on target and easier to shoot? Probably not, especially when 7.62mm medium machine guns, hand grenades, and 40mm grenade launchers are commonly available, not to mention .50 cals on humvees, 25mm cannons on Bradleys, 105-120mms on M1s, air power, artillery, anti-tank missiles etc.

If the guy who shot you is behind such a barrier that can stop a 5.56 NATO round but not a 7.62 Ball or better an AP, YES it does outweigh the negatives. Almost everything in life is a trade off, or balancing act. Combat is particularly such.

I realize in Iraq the supporting arms, hummers, Bardley's, strykers, Abrams, tend to be close by. In Afghanistan it is more like my war was. You usually didn't have your supporting arms with you. Now your radio's become much more important. Can't call that Close air support, Artillery, choppers etc, if for some reason Comm goes down, or is seriously compromised. It happens.

One of my favorite wars stories.....We were trying to get Spooky (C117 dragon ship. first generation, they carried their own flares.) to work out on some NVA in open IIRC North of Camp Carroll one night. I was TACP. The guy kept going trying to start orbiting us. The guy communicating with me, had a heavy spanish accent. He finally told me to make up my mind, about where I wanted the fire placed. I finally figured out the NVA were talking to this guy too.

Well one of our radio operators was a hispanic from Tucson. Gave him the mike and had him hook up with spooky in spanish, and it was off to the races. After that the NVA just tried to jam us by making noise. Spooky got a good body count that night. NVA lost that one big time.

As to supporting arms, About the only thing you could be sure of was the M79. Most patrols did not have guns attached or if you did, it was one gun. No CAS at night, and the artillery requests were prioritized.

 

[TimboKhan]

The three round burst option of the present 5.56 AR types could be done away with

Roswell, I may disagree with some of what you have to say, but on this point, we are in complete agreement.

"how far can you see?at 300 yards a person looks like a small dot."

Let me also add that at 300 yards, the average human is hardly "just a dot", and certainly does not require an ACOG to make hits. A smallish target, to be sure, but by no means an unhittable one with iron sights. I think what comes into play with this attitude is an overestimation at how far 300 yards is. My guess is that you regularly see people at distances up to and over 300 yards, but you don't think about it in terms of range: You look up, see some guy walking along, and look back down at your iPod or whatever.

Think I am wrong? Go to a golf course. A 300 yard par 4 hole is a pretty short hole (and might even be a par 3), and you can easily see players on the green from the tee box. Not just see them, but see exactly what they are wearing, maybe make out a design on the shirt, and you might even be able to see the golf ball get putted if you have really good vision. Now think about the fact that you can stand on the tee box at ANY hole (provided it is straight) and see the people on the green, from short par 3 to a long par 5. In none of those cases are the people "small dots". Greater range certainly decreases the chance of a hit, and certainly makes it harder to acquire a man-sized target, but you have to be pretty far away to be a "small dot". Under perfect conditions (which, granted, are very rare) the average Marine rifleman would be able to make hits consistently at that range, as evidenced by the fact that USMC rifle qualification requires shots to 500 yards. It's a whole different story in combat, and very few Marines are going to take shots at that range (even with the ACOG), but it is possible. Unlikely, but possible.

The ACOG, in my own opinion, is a nice tool to have, represents an advance in rifle combat, and is overall pretty great. What it isn't and never will be is necessary.

Also, let me mount up on my high horse here and say that this thread has veered drastically off course, and should probably be locked. I am as guilty as anyone in doing that, and it's a fun discussion, but no one has addressed the OP's question in about 3 pages or so....

 

[Grendelizer]

I have absolute proof that shooting "blindly" through walls is effective! Didn't everybody see Saving Private Ryan whereby our guy gets shot in the neck after the German shoots "blindly" through the wall?

Seriously, if we agree that almost all infantry firefights take place at less than 300 meters, who is willing to lay their cards on the table and make a concrete and specific recommendation about what our general-purpose rifle cartridge (for use from Iraq to Afghanistan to Colombia to China) should be?

It should be obvious to everybody that I have my own opinion and could go on for days advocating it, but I already know what I think and would rather hear from the many thoughtful and knowledgeable posters in this thread.

We've spun our wheels enough: does anybody dare to actually come up with a specific recommendation?

John

 

[Evil Monkey]

We've spun our wheels enough: does anybody dare to actually come up with a specific recommendation?

A flatter shooting 7.62x39mm with a rifle that has multiple recoil reduction systems.

 

[chieftain]

We've spun our wheels enough: does anybody dare to actually come up with a specific recommendation?
John

I did earlier, but to many religious fanatics here to listen. Folks who 'believe' are very hard to bring light to. Particularly when they choose not to see.

Go figure.

Fred

Fred

 

[Evil Monkey]

I did earlier, but to many religious fanatics here to listen. Folks who 'believe' are very hard to bring light to. Particularly when they choose not to see.

You could have used that post to repeat yourself, or at least quote what you said.

 

[Bart Noir]

the huge numbers of Mustard gas victims had a demoralizing effect in WW2

Something just seems wrong in that statement. Let's see, I almost have it. No, slipped away. Oh well, I'll just keep Googling and trying to find mustard gassing in the Second World War.

Bart Noir

 

[Grendelizer]

I reread Chieftain's posts and I think this is his position:

Our adaptation of the 5.56 was a compromise. I believe the compromise we made was a bit to much on the light side. I believe one of the new 6.5 or 6.8 cartridges, would probably be closer to the compromise balance that is needed in an ideal assault rifle.

I think it's great to examine an issue from all sides, to get the input from all players (because no one person sees the whole "elephant"), but when everyone's had a chance to say their peace, I think you gotta come to a conclusion and make a recommendation. And then the person in charge needs to make a decision.

Congrats to Chieftain for being the first in this thread to cut to the chase. I find these threads most fascinating when a guy says what he thinks and why. Giving the "why" is when the rest of us learn something.

What does everybody else think? Given all the studies in the twentieth century about infantry combat, what should the ideal combat cartridge look like?

John

 

[RP88]

if you could combine the 5.56's range and flat trajectory with the 7.62's consistent power and penetration without gaining too much recoil or losing any rate of fire, then you'd be set.

Or, in other words, something along the lines of an intermediary that follows with the idea of the Grendel 6.5 or 6.8 SPC...or just find a way to make a railgun the size and weight of a normal rifle, and not cost 60,000 dollars a piece

 

[Evil Monkey]

Well, considering the 5.56mm was an interim solution until the Project Salvo SPIW/ACR was perfected, we must ask, is the salvo approach still valid?

I see the US military teaches soldiers to fire virtually 99% of the time in semi auto. Therefore, we apparently do not subscribe to the salvo concept anymore.

Result? There is demand for a bigger round. What kind of round?......

That'll be the new chapter in this thread.

 

[Grendelizer]

Is the salvo approach still valid?

Can we debate the validity of the "studies"? In other words, do these studies truly invalidate aimed small arms fire?

If a study shows that casualties are as much the result of random shell fragments as aimed small arms fire, does that tell the whole picture? I don't think so, because consider that supporting arms are also "aimed." You've got spotters directing air and artillery to their targets. Thus, even casualties from supporting arms are not as "random" as the studies would have us believe.

Sure, a 95 lb. 155mm artillery shell creates "random" fragments, some of which create casualties. But how many casualties would 95 lbs. of small caliber rifle projectiles create?

So, the conclusions of the studies bear closer examination. My gut feeling is that there is still a place for aimed small arms fire.

Also, it's possible Project Salvo is an attempt to solve with technology a problem that can only be solved with training.

Don't we all agree that combat experience produces "seasoned" veterans that perform to a higher level than "raw" troops? These veterans are better able to perform under the stress and sensory overload of combat. Perhaps it's possible to train soldiers to deal with the stress and sensory overload of combat and thus make them better shots than the studies have traditionally found.

Surely all the MOUT "shoot houses" that have sprung up are not an invalid approach to the problem, are they? Another example: I thought that giving fighter pilots more realistic training via a program like "Top Gun" had a positive effect on their "shooting" scores?

The studies show that soldiers who are normally good shots on a calm, known-distance range are very much worse when stresses are introduced. What if we train soldiers from the start to shoot under stress and then we might find that they're not that much worse when other stresses are introduced?

Sure, you can introduce rifles with magnified optics that fire at a high cyclic rate with zero recoil, but I bet hit probability will be solved on the personnel, rather than the materiel, level.

John

 

[TimboKhan]

I was asked to post a correction to a statement Roswell made, and being a swell guy, here it is:

"The mention of Mustard Gas casualties in WW2 was a Typo due in part to all the other references to WW2, it should have read WW1.
Mustard gas was in fact used in the early stages of WW2 by the Italians against the Ethiopians and by the Japanese against the Chinese, Japanese Mustard gas has been found in recent years in China. The worst accidental gassing before the accident at Bopal India occurred when US transports carry a cargo of Mustard gas to use in case the Germans decided to use nerve gas, was bombed in the harbor at Bari Italy."

There you have it. The only thing different about that qoute is that one of the "2's" in WW2 was accidentally made a @, so I corrected that. Other than that, those are the exact words that I was asked to post.