Weapons review from Iraq veteran

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I suppose the 'best' body armor 'insurgents' can have is one that scrubs enemy bullet velocity enough to reduce/cancel temporary-cavitation. That is, reduce the hit to a permanent cavitation. I suppose that crude body armor, and even hiding behind inner walls, might be effective.

This way they can perhaps still fire a weapon's magazine out or get to a grenade pin. Since there will be no quarter, they will die fighting.

If exploding bullet technology is 'illegal', I suppose that the 5.56mm does the next best thing.

Unfortunately, the troops fighting in Iraq have run into a police scenario. And cops shoot to kill.

[MikeyD]

Geez, I hope Battlefront throws the group another bone pretty quick so we can return to discussing the game (remember the game?). I have a high threshold for being creeped-out but I've pretty much reached it on this particular thread.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

So you do not want to see pictures?

[aka_tom_w]

yes please

[Thomm]

What I find strange is that when we last practiced defense (Jiu-Jitsu) against strangling with objects my partner was a little bit careless about tensioning the belt she used around my neck.

I was on my way to the ground already, when she realized the mistake and released the choke. We are talking split-seconds here.

Although I recovered almost instantly I am convinced now that *I* will not be conscious for 15 secs after my heart stops beating.

Best regards,

Thomm

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I actually wonder if water or other viscous fluids might not be a viable 'static' body armor.

If something, like thick bubble-wrap, could be handily field expedited such that it was filled with a fluid; it might make an acceptable 'armor' that would offer some protection from bullets. A vest made of aluminum that was covered by this 'fluid-matt' is what I picture.

It is, of course, heavy and something that could be 'donned' while in a static position. It might offer some protection from white phos also?

Not that I want to help the insurgents, but it just seems that bullets striking fluid undergo a tremendous 'energy-scrub'. Best they do this outside a body.

The fluid in the bag could be antiseptic also.

I do notice troops wearing sports type 'canteens' lately. These are just rubberized bags of course. They are worn on their backs (like bikers wear) but I wonder if any benefit could come from wearing it on the front outside the usual body armor.

[aka_tom_w]

that was immediate lack of oxygen and blood flow to the brain simulating something like instant decapitation.

(I have had some personal experience recieving Jiu Jitsu chokes like that as well, very effective when corectly executed)

The shot to the body they are talking about (Not the spinal cord or the brain) however may still give you that 15 seconds of the oxygen to the brain that the poster or the articles are refering to resulting in the time the enemy needs to pull the pin or unload his magazine in full automode on you. If I understand the point correctly.

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

The fluid in the bag could be antiseptic also.

LOL

is that not akin to "inventing" cans of tuna with mayo and relish already in them so the tuna salad is ready to eat out of the can?

Maybe what is needed is antiseptic ballistics gelatin in VERY tightly packed bubble wrap (large over lapping 2-4 cc bubbles) sandwiched between layers of bullet proof kevlar in the form of a vest or body armour!

NOW we are on to something!

-tom w

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Someone mentioned earlier that high velocity rounds striking water do not penetrate deeply. Since troops need great quantitys of water, having 'water-armor' around humvees and trucks would be worthwhile also.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

Someone mentioned earlier that high velocity rounds striking water do not penetrate deeply. Since troops need great quantitys of water, having 'water-armor' around humvees and trucks would be worthwhile also.

Water is pretty heavy, approx. 8lbs per gallon, plus it sloshes around when momentum is applied. Might be OK for stationary barriers and such, but as armor on moving vehicles, not too practical I would think.

[Nerd King]

I personally believe that given the right amount of tequila and correct circumstances, we can all become bullet-proof AND invisible.

[Nerd King]

Your description on cavitation was correct, BTW, I had misread your post and thought you were saying something else. My bad!

My solution to the 5.56 problem: Move to a 5.56 round that does massive soft-tissue damage. They are out, our military just doesn't use them.

As for someone saying to trust the collective experience of the Army: Am I trusting the same Army that wastes billions and billions of dollars on weapons platforms that were designed to fight the Russians?

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

If I were in Iraq, I would alternate the rounds in my M16A2 so that they were shooting a FMJ followed by a softer round. I would not give a damn about what anyone would do to me. Court Martial or such.

If I had to be the first to enter a room, the first living target would get multiple 3 round bursts in them.

If the M4 has a lower muzzle velocity, then I wouldn't use it.

Do the combat shotguns have any high velocity flechette rounds for them?

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

My solution to the 5.56 problem: Move to a 5.56 round that does massive soft-tissue damage. They are out, our military just doesn't use them.

I believe the temp-cavity IS soft tissue damage.

As far as the lungs, have you ever had the wind knocked out of you playing football or such? It would be a hundred times worse with tissue/blood/etc spritzing out of your mouth and nose.

If you do the math, and look at the pic posted earlier ragrding cavitation, the actual volume of displaced tissue from temp-cav is much larger than perm-cav.

As far as water-armor, as a personal protection, its limited and can only hope to scrub some of the velocity. As a vehicle 'applique' armor, it could have self-sealing, an inner mesh (this reduces HEAT rounds also) and compartmentation so that it can be fully filled. Under explosive attack, it might reduce flash burns also.

[J Ruddy]

mD

I think if you dig into it, you'll find Canuckian grunts are trained to incapacitate. I think this is where the 'shoot to wound' phrase comes from. I know I've even used that phrase myself to stir it up on another board...

But we don't shoot to wound. We don't specifically try not to kill someone. You know as well as I that we are trained to aim for the centre of mass - the abdomen, someone shot in the thigh, guts or chest is likely to be killed or even more likely, incapacitated.

If the average grunt were to shoot to kill, he'd be aiming for key vitals: heart & brain. Of course, for the average grunt, aiming for a head shot (or even a high chest shot) has a lower percentage chance of hitting a vital than a centre of mass shot. Someone shot in the arm, shoulder/collar bone area is more likely to not be incapacitated/killed than someone shot in the guts, liver, kidney, hip, thigh, lung, stomache etc...

That's why you don't specifically shoot to kill.

Snipers and marksmen are a different breed and are well known for hitting the 2 main vitals.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

mD

I think if you dig into it, you'll find Canuckian grunts are trained to incapacitate. I think this is where the 'shoot to wound' phrase comes from. I know I've even used that phrase myself to stir it up on another board...

But we don't shoot to wound. We don't specifically try not to kill someone. You know as well as I that we are trained to aim for the centre of mass - the abdomen, someone shot in the thigh, guts or chest is likely to be killed or even more likely, incapacitated.

If the average grunt were to shoot to kill, he'd be aiming for key vitals: heart & brain. Of course, for the average grunt, aiming for a head shot (or even a high chest shot) has a lower percentage chance of hitting a vital than a centre of mass shot. Someone shot in the arm, shoulder/collar bone area is more likely to not be incapacitated/killed than someone shot in the guts, liver, kidney, hip, thigh, lung, stomache etc...

That's why you don't specifically shoot to kill.

Snipers and marksmen are a different breed and are well known for hitting the 2 main vitals.

Nonsense. We aim for centre of mass because it is easiest to hit. Whether or not he is wounded or killed is inconsequential really - incapacitated in some way, yes, is the immediate concern. But we did not adopt the 5.56mm round just so we could get the enemy to employ more stretcher bearers.

Centre of mass is the largest target; that is why we aim for it. Pure and simple. Location of brains, heart or spleen is irrelevant to the training. Aim for the biggest target, and hit what you aim at.

But what are the drills for attacking a trench? I did that when we were still training to fight the Red Hordes. Seems to me that you put rifle and LMG fire on the enemy's trench, then followed up with a grenade, then assaulted with fixed bayonet. (Fix bayonets is in Battle Procedure). you don't eviscerate someone with the intention of sending him back to his medical services.

The training is to kill the enemy, or accept his surrender if he is smart enough. Shooting for the biggest target area only makes sense - but it isn't the end, only the means to the end, where you get in close with grenade, close range fire, bayonet, e-tool...whatever it takes.

I don't think we went from the sword bayonet of the SMLE to the spike bayonet of the No. 4 in order to "just wound" the Germans.

[Nerd King]

MD is straight on. I want you to go on a forced march, run around in 80 lbs of gear, have adrenaline and pure terror running through you, and then try to shoot accurately. It is NOT happening. That's why we aim center of mass. Easiest to hit.

[Nerd King]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

It IS soft-tissue damage, but it isn't what I need RIGHT HERE AND NOW, as in within the next few seconds.

Have you ever seen someone shot in the lungs? I have, more than a few times. You'd be surprised how they react. As blood coming out of mouth / nose, that just tells me you are getting your observations from movies. Nuff said.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I would claim that aiming for center of mass is the ONLY way to shoot when entering a room. Given the short range, and the ability of the enemy to quickly change position (forcing a re-aiming), you must shoot to hit and rehit quickly.

I have read some disparaging remarks about 3 round burst (I have only fired full auto and single shot M16A1). My understanding is that the three rounds come out quicker than a typical full auto weapon.

If this is so, bullet groupings at 5 meters or less is tight?

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Originally posted by Nerd King:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

It IS soft-tissue damage, but it isn't what I need RIGHT HERE AND NOW, as in within the next few seconds.

Have you ever seen someone shot in the lungs? I have, more than a few times. You'd be surprised how they react. As blood coming out of mouth / nose, that just tells me you are getting your observations from movies. Nuff said. </font>

Ive shot large animals through the lungs. I didn't take home movies though.

I have noticed that I have never seen a lartge animal go strait down from using arrows (low velocity in comparison to bullets).

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Centre of mass is the largest target; that is why we aim for it. Pure and simple. Location of brains, heart or spleen is irrelevant to the training. Aim for the biggest target, and hit what you aim at.

er.. isn't that what I said? The highest percentage chance of achieving an incapacitating wound is achieved through aiming for the centre of mass. If the average shooter tries specifically for a kill-shot (Head/Upper Torso) they have a much lower chance of hitting anything vital (or anything at all) which reduces the chance of killing/incapacitating the target.

What I'm saying is that when you shoot for the Centre of Mass, you aren't specifically trying to wound or kill the target, simply stop it from shooting back via total incapacitation. I believe that aiming for C.o.M. increases the chance of achieving this versus trying for a clean 'kill shot'.

You won't be disciplined for incapacitating the enemy in a combat situation, so I don't understand how you believe that soldiers are trained specifically to "shoot to kill".

Hunters, like myself, aim for the sure kill zone, which is not the centre of mass on Deer and Moose. We sacrifice the odds of hitting the target in order to improve the odds of a clean kill. That is shooting to kill.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Nerd King:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

It IS soft-tissue damage, but it isn't what I need RIGHT HERE AND NOW, as in within the next few seconds.

Have you ever seen someone shot in the lungs? I have, more than a few times. You'd be surprised how they react. As blood coming out of mouth / nose, that just tells me you are getting your observations from movies. Nuff said. </font>

Ive shot large animals through the lungs. I didn't take home movies though.

I have noticed that I have never seen a lartge animal go strait down from using arrows (low velocity in comparison to bullets). </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

[qb]Centre of mass is the largest target; that is why we aim for it. Pure and simple. Location of brains, heart or spleen is irrelevant to the training. Aim for the biggest target, and hit what you aim at.

er.. isn't that what I said?</font>

[J Ruddy]

I agree mD. Although it does put a strain on your enemy's logistics system to have to deal with wounded, if you capture the wounded, it puts a strain on your own logistics system instead...

I think the real reasons to go to 5.56 from 7.62 for Nato standard issue were weight and recoil. The average Joe doesn't want 20 ft-lbs of recoil kicking back on them. They also don't want a 10lb rifle and another 4 lbs in spare ammo.

It is my opinion, though, that the powers that be went a little too far. We should say 'Sorry Charlie' to NATO and assuming we are going to retain the C7, C8 and C9 for any length of time, we should contract Diamaco to refit them to 6.8 SPC.

I also think it is crazy that the Northern Rangers are still using .303..! We really need to get them modern 7.62 rifles suitable for arctic use. I have other idea's for the Northern Rangers, but this probably isn't the place and time to discuss it...

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

I agree mD. Although it does put a strain on your enemy's logistics system to have to deal with wounded, if you capture the wounded, it puts a strain on your own logistics system instead...

I think the real reasons to go to 5.56 from 7.62 for Nato standard issue were weight and recoil. The average Joe doesn't want 20 ft-lbs of recoil kicking back on them. They also don't want a 10lb rifle and another 4 lbs in spare ammo.

It is my opinion, though, that the powers that be went a little too far. We should say 'Sorry Charlie' to NATO and assuming we are going to retain the C7, C8 and C9 for any length of time, we should contract Diamaco to refit them to 6.8 SPC.

I also think it is crazy that the Northern Rangers are still using .303..! We really need to get them modern 7.62 rifles suitable for arctic use. I have other idea's for the Northern Rangers, but this probably isn't the place and time to discuss it...

I can't wait to mod the US Army Rangers from a future CM:SF module into Canadian Rangers, with their red ball caps and Lee Enfields.

Number 99...who shall swoop in for 100...?