Why did the 7.62x51 cartridge come out of the WW2 era?

[Vern Humphrey]

This is not the actual report but a comment on it. Missing are the images of the trajectories and the targets.

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/index.php/firearms/long-range/sandy-hook-1879

The trajectories at extreme distance were so vertical that tiny differences in aiming elevation would leave someone standing shaken, but not stirred!. And yes, the penetration in sand and wood was of interest, because it showed that the bullets could kill far out. But, what was of higher priority for future development, flatness of trajectory, or penetration in wood? I would say flattening the trajectory would result in more hits at distance, and it is hits that count.

Depends on the target -- the British, who had lots of combat experience in colonial wars used volley firing. An officer would announce the range, a third of the troops would set that range on the sights, one third add 50 yards and one third subtract 50 yards. Then on command, they would fire as rapidly as possible, showering a massed formation with bullets. They used that system right into WWI, and when the Germans encountered it, they thought the British had huge numbers of machine guns.

Of course, once troops learned to spread out and go to ground, that system didn't work any more. In January, 1916, the British moved to the No. 1 MK III*, which did away with the volley sights.

 

[MistWolf]

This is not the actual report but a comment on it. Missing are the images of the trajectories and the targets.

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/index.php/firearms/long-range/sandy-hook-1879

The trajectories at extreme distance were so vertical that tiny differences in aiming elevation would leave someone standing shaken, but not stirred!. And yes, the penetration in sand and wood was of interest, because it showed that the bullets could kill far out. But, what was of higher priority for future development, flatness of trajectory, or penetration in wood? I would say flattening the trajectory would result in more hits at distance, and it is hits that count.

As the face of war changed, so did the requirements. When the tests of the 45/70 were performed, they were concerned with penetration to maximize the killing power against cavalry horses. Trajectory could not be flattened until the advent of smokeless powders.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The grease was on the bullets to prevent steel on steel contact within the barrel.

I put you on ignore because there is nothing you have to write that I want to read, and there is nothing that I put out there, that I care for you to read or comment on.

The fact you search for and comment on my posts just shows what a manipulative and controlling individual you are. Typical of Ordnance Department employees.

"Ordnance Department"? That bunch disappeared years before I was born.

In any case, lubrication of steel jackets is not required. One, artillery has been sliding steel projectiles down barrels without grease since, I dunno', they stopped making bronze cannon barrels. (And, with anti-tank guns, at generally much higher velocities as well.) Two, 15mm, 20mm, 30mm, and 35mm projectiles are steel and do not have problems requiring grease. Three, the Germans, in WW2 were using sintered steel projectiles, without grease. Four, in 1970, Nosler made 100% sintered steel bullets for testing in the M16. (The project was shelved due to the higher cost of manufacture, and the bullets being the approximately the same volume as the M193 bullet weighed 25% less and did not stabilize at low temperature.) And five, ALL US manufactured 5.56mm tracer since 1970, and about 60% of M2 and 7.62 Ball (T65 through M80) since the early 1950s have been steel jacketed. (Yeah most people say they are copper clad and that's for lubrication, but testing has shown, with or without the copper cladding, barrel wear remains the same. It is mainly corrosion prevention.)

And:

. . .The fact you search for and comment on my posts . . .

????

Big enough ego? Don't flatter yourself.

 

[entropy]

1) How many rounds get shipped to theater
2) How many enemies get shot with those rounds

Question for you-What percentage of those rounds shipped to theater are actually aimed at individuals? As previously stated by many here, including some who have actually seen combat, not all rounds expended in combat are aimed at individuals. Most are expended for other valid reasons.

When you compare those two numbers for various wars, you learn two things:

A) General rifle fire is ineffective (and given the total lack of marksmanship skill it's obvious why)
B) It's getting worse, going from 10,000 rounds/casualty in WWII to closer to a quarter million in the current wars

Or you could learn the the increased use of the machine gun in all aspects of warfare greatly increased the number of rounds shipped to a particular theater. Aircraft used rounds, to the tune of 2 MG's up to 14 one one plane. (Flying Fortress in WWII) Small cannon also. Ships used MG rounds for anti-aircraft defense. Tanks use MG rounds for both offense and defense, both in co-ax and hatch guns. (and front individual turret on WWII tanks) Support vehicles usually have a machine gun mounted on them. Infantry firepower is based on man-portable and vehicle mounted Machine Guns. M-2's M-240's, M-249's. None of these are expected to be used "One shot-one kill. (though Hathcock did use a scoped M2 as a sniper rifle in VN)

You can talk all you want. The facts - it's easy to count rounds and bodies -

You are however attempting to prove a correlation from this in an attempt to proved a point already disproved here. There are three kinds of lies, my Statistics professor said; Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics. You are trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to convert the third type in to the first two. If you are doing this in earnest, it is born of ignorance. If you are doing doing it for any other reason, there is a word for that.

 

[cdb1]

If you are doing this in earnest, it is born of ignorance. If you are doing doing it for any other reason, there is a word for that.

Amen.

 

[Slamfire]

As the face of war changed, so did the requirements. When the tests of the 45/70 were performed, they were concerned with penetration to maximize the killing power against cavalry horses. Trajectory could not be flattened until the advent of smokeless powders.

No doubt, as they learned more, they wanted more. Tests indicated the 500 grain bullet penetrated better at 2 miles than the 400 grain bullet. But you know, this weapon



penetrated better at 10 miles. And it fired fused explosive shells. So which one would be better at eliminating a lot of infantry and cavalry at long range?

 

[MistWolf]

Yes, artillery could pound cavalry (and other targets) effectively at longer ranges. While an interesting topic, it has little to do with discussing penetration testing of infantry rifle ammunition.

 

[Texas10mm]

Even the garand had its issues. WWII noted the Japanese would hunker down and listen for the ping of clips. They over came it by having clips on strings they would fire a few rounds then tap the clip with metal like a bayonet. Japs would hear it and try to advance only to be met by heavy fire.

BS. If you think you can hear the ping of a Garand clip during combat you're a total moron.

 

[Jim Watson]

But one doesn't always have one's arty along, which is why volley fire at extreme long range was a doctrine.

 

[Slamfire]

Big enough ego? Don't flatter yourself.

Knowing that I have you on ignore, to what purpose do you think you are achieving by providing inane comments to my posts?

 

[Slamfire]

Depends on the target -- the British, who had lots of combat experience in colonial wars used volley firing. An officer would announce the range, a third of the troops would set that range on the sights, one third add 50 yards and one third subtract 50 yards. Then on command, they would fire as rapidly as possible, showering a massed formation with bullets. They used that system right into WWI, and when the Germans encountered it, they thought the British had huge numbers of machine guns.

We all saw the movie "Zulu", I don't know if the British used volley fire at Rorke's Drift but it made for an exciting movie moment. Reading a book on the battle of Chickamauga, one Union Division was trained to fire and advance in the same volley fire technique, and it worked till the unit lost cohesion. (I highly recommend going to Chickamauga and walking around in the thick woods, where most of the combat took place.) And these were techniques developed to maximum the output of single shot rifles. Most of the British Colonial experience was against sword and spear waving opponents, and yet even then, at Omdurman, when the British had time to prepare they used artillery, rifles, and machine guns, in addition to one of the last great cavalry charges. Without Winston Churchill's account of the cavalry charge, I think the battle would have passed into total obscurity, as what happened to most of the slaughters of native peoples .

Yes, the British were trained to a high level of marksmanship entering WW1. It was very unfortunate that the British deliberately decided against the machine gun and were woefully armed with machine guns compared to the Germans. That rapid fire incident, which has been used again and again as a justification of aimed rifle fire, is hard to prove, and may be one of these events that is only true because it has been repeated endlessly. The BEF were pushed out of Mons, so in terms of deciding history or turning the war, if the massed machine gun event happened, it was just a blip. And, Sir John French used up all those highly trained Regulars in losing offensives, before he was replaced. (Someone will argue "all", but they ought to make a case about the chances of surviving four years of war. Very few made it all the way through, compared to those who were there at the start)

Anyone remember the Movie "Saving Private Ryan?". Remember the snipe dude? He was plinking German infantry left and right, from his hiding place in the tower. And remember what happened to the tower once the SdKfz 138 Marder turned its 75 mm cannon on his hiding place? I believe that was quite realistic, and what happens when a guy with a rifle takes on an armored vehicle.

 

[cdb1]

We all saw the movie "Zulu", I don't know if the British used volley fire at Rorke's Drift but it made for an exciting movie moment.

My favorite scene in the movie.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, the British were trained to a high level of marksmanship entering WW1. It was very unfortunate that the British deliberately decided against the machine gun and were woefully armed with machine guns compared to the Germans. That rapid fire incident, which has been used again and again as a justification of aimed rifle fire, is hard to prove, and may be one of these events that is only true because it has been repeated endlessly. The BEF were pushed out of Mons, so in terms of deciding history or turning the war, if the massed machine gun event happened, it was just a blip. And, Sir John French used up all those highly trained Regulars in losing offensives, before he was replaced. (Someone will argue "all", but they ought to make a case about the chances of surviving four years of war. Very few made it all the way through, compared to those who were there at the start).

In the Infantry School library at Fort Benning, there is quite a collection of English military literature. I remember reading a book by a signaler who was one of the "Old Contemptibles" and served throughout the war. But as you say, there were damned few of them.

The British Army in 1914 is proof that a good big man can always beat a good little man -- and if the little man is little enough and the big man big enough, "good" doesn't matter. All the other nations of Europe had mass armies -- every young man was drafted when he reached military age, and when he completed his time with the colors he was discharged into the reserves and trained at a local caserne, with periodic training periods each summer. The Germans could field a battle-worthy reserve corps for every active corps -- the British had nothing like that. How they built a mass army "under fire" as Keegan puts it, is fascinating.

The British were driven from Mons to Ypres, the "Red Retreat" and were only able to hang on to a tiny sliver of Belgium.

On the German side, however, the Active Corps led the offensive, with the Reserve Corps following. When the older men of the Reserve Corps came onto the battlefield, they found it littered with the bodies of the younger men. The Germans called this the "Kinder Mort" or "Child Killing."

 

[Slamfire]

The British Army in 1914 is proof that a good big man can always beat a good little man -- and if the little man is little enough and the big man big enough, "good" doesn't matter.

That is an excellent statement, and a good summary of modern war. Perhaps it is good we have not been through a meat grinder like WW1, or WW2 for so long that we have forgotten the horror. Regular fatalities of 5,000 to 7,000 per week, reaching peaks during offensives. Or, maybe it is bad, every day our Press and Military/Industrial Complex are trying to start a war with someone. One of these days, they will get us into a fight that we can't shouldn't be in, and can't win. The Germans have been through that twice. Modern warfare will rack up the deaths even faster than WW1 or WW2. One strafing run from an A-10, and the whole column is gone. It is so laughable, people believe what they see in the movies. I saw Katniss, in the Hunger Games, shoot down not one, but two jet fighters with her bow and arrow! I will tell you, get bounced by a jet fighter, the pee won't make it out of your shorts by the time it is out of sight.

You know, the Arisaka had sight bars to provide lead in shooting down aircraft. One American fighter pilot ran into a column of Japanese, who he said, were well disciplined, and stood in the road shooting at him. Undoubtedly they were using the sight bars. He got multiple passes with his propeller plane before most of them were shattered pieces of meat!

 

[Vern Humphrey]

That is an excellent statement, and a good summary of modern war. Perhaps it is good we have not been through a meat grinder like WW1, or WW2 for so long that we have forgotten the horror. Regular fatalities of 5,000 to 7,000 per week, reaching peaks during offensives. Or, maybe it is bad, every day our Press and Military/Industrial Complex are trying to start a war with someone. One of these days, they will get us into a fight that we can't shouldn't be in, and can't win. The Germans have been through that twice. Modern warfare will rack up the deaths even faster than WW1 or WW2. One strafing run from an A-10, and the whole column is gone. It is so laughable, people believe what they see in the movies. I saw Katniss, in the Hunger Games, shoot down not one, but two jet fighters with her bow and arrow! I will tell you, get bounced by a jet fighter, the pee won't make it out of your shorts by the time it is out of sight.

You know, the Arisaka had sight bars to provide lead in shooting down aircraft. One American fighter pilot ran into a column of Japanese, who he said, were well disciplined, and stood in the road shooting at him. Undoubtedly they were using the sight bars. He got multiple passes with his propeller plane before most of them were shattered pieces of meat!

It is a mistake to stand on your hind legs when someone else is shooting at you -- particularly if he's in an airplane.

 

[Texas10mm]

One of these days, they will get us into a fight that we can't shouldn't be in, and can't win.

Something like Afghanistan?

BTW, the last war we won was WW II.

 

[Slamfire]

Something like Afghanistan?.

Recently I saw an American four star General, on TV, claim that there was light at the end of the Afghanistan tunnel.

I think I saw his Dad say the same thing on television, when we were in Vietnam.

Nothing changes.

 

[cfullgraf]

Even the garand had its issues. WWII noted the Japanese would hunker down and listen for the ping of clips. .

I've shot Service Rifle matches where a competitor was shooting a Garand at the position next to me. I never heard the "ping" during any particular stage of the match.

 

[ether]

It's basically a 30-06 in a smaller, lighter, more reliable package.

 

[Kano383]

It’s a good question, and I’m sure almost all the reasons behind it are for logistical reasons. I’ve always liked the Swiss 7.5x55 GP11 cartridge. I think in some ways it’s superior to the 7.62x51, though very similar. I think it could have been a perfect NATO round, But even the Swiss switched over to 7.62x51. not for ballistics, but for logistics.

The Swiss Army switched to 5.56x45, not 7.62x51.

But in shooting competitions (national sport in Switzerland), rifles in 7.5x55 still reign. More accurate, better ballistics.

 

[jski]

Despite popular belief, the parent case of the .308 or 7.62x51 is NOT the .30-06. It’s the 300 Savage.

And when people say its ballistics are close to the .30-06. Only if you consider military loads for the .30-06. Full house .30-06 rounds were never used by the military. They cause barrel burn issues and were definitely too much for the M1 Garand action.

Othius, on C&Rsenal, has a complete and lengthy report on the development of the .30-06. Let’s just say, in some ways, the Army got more than it bargained for with the .30-06.

 

[Robert]

Let's stop at the one post on this page that is actually on topic.