Weapon effectiveness curiosities

[Sgt Joch]

of course, many of the Syrian troops in CMSF use the AK-74 which fires 5.45x39mm ammo, so to a large extent, this discussion is moot.

[Apocal]

Most of them use it. It's the insurgents that use AK47s.

[acrashb]

As AKD points out, the 5.56mm does not necessarily yaw or fragment consistently either.

[...]

but you can't avoid basic physics.

[...]

The 7.62 round will develop more Kinetic Energy and hit harder than the 5.56 round.

1) that statement is mostly true at extended ranges. At close ranges (<100yards or so) it's reasonably consistent. Perfection is not required, we need only compare typical behaviours.

2) physics includes terminal ballistics, which includes bullet behaviour in the target.

3) KE is not the wounding mechanism: terminal ballistics is, of which KE is only one part. A volkswagen at 10mph has more than three times the KE of a 7.62x39... but I'd rather take my chances with the volkswagen. "hit harder" has no meaning.

Or put it this way: would you rather be hit with a baseball bat, or a sword of equivalent mass and speed?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of old articles relating how this or that weapons system posesses 'optimal characteristics' - until its replacement comes out. Then it magically becomes wholly inadequate! In the early-eighties there was a push for a new high-tech rifle for the army. According to the press reports the new caliber was needed to address glaring inadequacies with 5.56. That project then got cancelled and 5.56 was back being 'optimal' again. Same goes for the 140mm tank gun project of 10(?) years ago. The user could barely pierce tissue paper using 120mm - then that project got cancelled and 120mm smoothbore was back to being the 'optimal' design.

[Battlefront.com]

Secondbrooks,

I don't find info supporting this. US had two BARs as BAR was insufficent giving firepower needed. MG42 was very well sufficent. Today why two LMGs and such is favored is more idenpendent teams able to support each of other in more flexible manner. During ww2 it was more situation based and the team without LMG wasn't as able to provide firesupport to enable LMG-team to start moving.

Not quite true. Yes, the BAR was an insufficient weapon for the task compared to a belt fed MG. The Bren was better than the BAR but still not the optimal design to center on. No question there.

Where you are wrong is about the functionality of 2x LMGs per Squad. The original concept was to have a small base of fire built around a single LMG and have the larger mass of the Squad maneuver and/or try to pick off the guys cowering or running away from the LMGs. The thing is the US Squad was so HUGE that, basically, the base of fire was too small proportional to the numbers of riflemen. I think that's your point. However, I suggest even a MG42 would be too small for supporting 10 other soldiers. It's not simply a matter of volume of fire but of being in more than one place simultaneously.

Think about leap frogging. How quickly would maneuver require the base of fire to relocate to keep up with the others? Often. What would the Squad do for a base of fire when the single LMG was on the move? Not have a base of fire

The solution developed was quite elegant. Instead of having 2 teams where one is base and the other is maneuver, why not have 2 teams where each one has its own base of fire? That way if leap frogging there is *always* a base of fire can relocate forward as quickly as the leg infantry.

This is how nearly all modern combat units are organized, with the apparent exception of Finland.

If you need more evidence of this, look at many of the WW2 German Squads. Arguably they had the most advanced LMG of its day, but they increased the count from one to two even though often times the squad size was slightly smaller (8 men vs 9). If you look at CMBB you'll see that most of those formations have dedicated transport, so I'm going to guess that one of the reason they didn't issue 2x LMGs to everybody is this might not have been terribly practical given the strain on logistics which was acute through most of the post 1942 theaters. Cost, training, etc. likely were the remaining reasons. However, a fairly large range of Squad types were issued with 2xLMGs instead of the 1xLMG which most "vanilla" Rifle Squads had.

More interesting now days is the fact that there seems to be quite lot of questionicing is todays 9-men squads being far too overpowered when it comes to firepower, and far too underpowered (after casulites) when it comes to CQB capacity and also inability to work in teams.

The reduction from Squad size of 11 to 9, 8, and even 7!! has more to do with mechanization rather than anything else. There's a practical limit to how many soldiers you can cram into a single armored vehicle, and 9 seems to be about it. The only way around this is to go HUGE like the Marines have done with the AAV. But the concept of the Marines as a fighting force is distinctly different from most country's fighting forces (including the US Army), so it's a bit of an odd exception. However, note that they are organized around 3x LMGs. This gives the Marines an edge over all smaller forces in terms of firepower, ability to maneuver, and capability to sustain casualties and remain effective. Anybody playing CM:SF Marines knows this already

To make it clear i don't care is rifle M16/M4 or AK the thing i'm interested more is: Does rifle have anykind bonus in CQB. Does it make soldier to perform better at some situations compared to guy armed SAW or rifle+M203 (and sh*tloads of grenades)?

The general consensus is "no", which is why as the world has urbanized over the decades the combat forces have gone with smaller and lighter weapons with more capacity for short range firepower vs. long range. Other weapons are tasked with greater combat ranges so that, in theory, there is a net gain of combat potential and little loss in any specific way that could get a force into serious problems.

Steve

[Apocal]

...but I wonder if that round is large enough (or the 7.62) to start firing through larger blocks of covers (entire houses) the way a .50 cal can cut through.

Both 5.56 and 7.62x39 Soviet pale in comparison to the potential penetration of .50BMG and 12.7x107. Anything in that size/mass range is closer to autocannon than rifle.

[Sgt Joch]

to continue the 5.56x45mm v. 7.62x39mm ammo debate:

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56 x 45mm

NATO cartidge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and

power of the SS109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and

more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range

documented in actual battle (ORO studies): (2) the lower recoil

generated by the 5.56mm cartridge allows more control during full

automatic fire and therefore provides greater firepower to the

individual soldier; (3) the lesser weight of the 5.56mm

ammunition allows the individual soldier to carry more ammunition

and other equipment; (4) the smaller size of the 5.56mm

ammunition allows the use of smaller, lighter, and more compact

rifles and squad automatic weapons and; (5) the lethality of the

5.56mm projectile is greater than the 7.62mm projectile at normal

combat ranges, due to the tendency of the lighter projectile to

tumble or shatter on impact. In summary, the 5.56mm NATO

provides greater firepower and effectiveness than the larger and

heavier 7.62mm NATO. This concept of more for less appears very

convincing, however upon careful analysis, this idea loses its

credibility. Let's examine each of the advantages of the 5.56mm

NATO, compare them to the qualities of the larger 7.62mm NATO,

and discuss some critical factors not addressed by proponents of

the smaller cartridge.

The penetration results obtained by the NSMATCC with the

5.56mm SS109 cartridge are impressive. The SS109 can penetrate

the 3.45mm standard NATO steel plate to 640 meters, while the

7.62mm ball can only penetrate it to 620 meters. The U. S. steel

helmet penetration results are even more impressive as the SS109

can penetrate it up to 1,300 meters, while the 7.62mm ball cannot

penetrate it beyond 800 meters. These comparisons however, do

not consider the fact that the SS109 uses a semi-armor piercing,

steel-cored projectile, while the 7.62mm ball uses a relatively

soft anti-personnel, lead-cored projectile. A semi-armor

piercing 7.62mm caliber projectile, using second generation

technology as the SS109, would easily out-perform the smaller

SS109 projectile in penetration tests at all ranges.22 With

respect to barrier and fortification penetration tests, the

7.62mm ball projectile can consistently penetrate two test

building blocks, while the SS109 semi-armor piercing projectile

cannot penetrate a single block. In light of these

considerations, the idea of SS109 penetration superiority over

the 7.62 x 51mm is not valid.

The concept that greater firepower can be achieved by provi-

ding as much infantrymen with a full automatic fire capability is

not realistic. Battle experience has shown that full automatic

fire from light assault rifles is largely ineffective and only

resutls in the expenditure of large quantities of ammunition.

Even with the lower recoil generated by 5.56mm ammunition, auto-

matic fire dispersion is still too large to be effective.23 Fire

power is normally equated with maximum "steel" on target, not with

maximum steel in the general direction of the target. Full

automatic fire with the 5.56mm NATO just as wasteful and

Confirming this view is the fact that second generation assault

rifles, such as the U. S. M16A2 and Belgian FN FNC, are not

employing a 3-shot burst control in lieu of a full automatic

capability.24 With this burst control feature, a thirty round

magazine produces only ten bursts. Do we need thirty rounds to

successfully hit and incapacitate ten enemy targets? Even with

3-shot burst control and the lower impulse of the 5.56mm

ammunition, shot dispersion is still too large to be effective.

Perhaps a single well-aimed 147 grain 7.62mm bullet would have

more effect than three rounds of 5.56mm fired in the burst

control mode. As a result, the lower recoil and impulse of the

5.56mm ammuntion does not provide greater fire power since full

automatic fire from an individual assault rifle is largely

ineffective and only wastes ammunition.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed, during the

development of intermediate power ammunition, on ammunition

weight. It is a fact that 5.56-mm NATO ammunition weight only

47% as much as 7.62 mm NATO ammunition. This weight reduction

advantage however, comes with a corresponding disadvantage in the

power and effectiveness of the ammuntion. The 5.56mm NATO

cartridge was originally derived from commercial small game and

varmint cartridges used by hunters throughout the United States.

In most States, the .223 Remington cartridge, the commercial

version of the 5.56 x 45mm NATO, is outlawed for use against

deer-sized or larger game. This restriction even includes the

explosive hollow-point versions using 68-grain projectiles.

Years of hunting experience has shown that the small 5.56 x 45mm

cartridge is incapable of consistently stopping deer-sized or

larger game. Consequently, this cartridge is limited to game

such as woodchucks, gophers, turkeys, and prairie dogs.25 Is

this cartridge really adequate for human-sizes targets?

Soldiers can definitely carry more 5.56mm ammunition, but will

they be carrying more effective ammunition? As a case in point,

battle experience in the Philippines, between government troops

(armed with the 5.56mm M16A1) and Communist rebels

(armed with vintage .30 Caliber M1 Garand and Browning automatic rifles),

has shown that the greater penetration capability of the older full

power cartridge gave the rebels superior effective firepower.26

Another stated advantage of the smaller 5.56mm NATO

cartridge concerns the employment of shorter and lighter weapons.

Current versions of the Israeli Galil and FN FAL Paratroop rifles,

however, both in 7.62mm caliber, weigh only nine to ten pounds

fully loaded with twenty-round magazines. These 7.62mm NATO

weapons also have shorter barrels and folding stocks that make

them very compact. The new U. S. M16A2 and the new Belgian FN

FNC, both second generation 5.56mm NATO assault rifles, weigh

approximately eight27 and ten pounds,28 respectively, when fully

loaded with thirty-round magazines. The purported reductions in

weight and improvements in compactness are really not significant.

The lethality of the original M193 5.56mm projectile is

awesome, at ranges under 200 meters, due to the tendency of the

marginally stable 55-grain bullet to tumble or shatter on impact

with any target. Lethality of the M193 5.56mm projectile beyond

200 meters, however, falls very sharply as range increases and

velocity decreases.29 The lethality of the new SS109 5.56mm

projectile on the battlefield is questionable. The SS109

projectile is longer and heavier than the M193 projectile and is

more stabilized in flight with the faster rifling twist used in

second generation assault rifles. The emphasis, in the develop-

ment of te SS109 projectile, was to increase stability and

therefore penetration at longer ranges. The increased flight

stability of the new SS109 projectile does effectively enhance

penetration at longer ranges, but this same stability reduces the

projectile's tendency to tumble or shatter upon target im-

pact.30 As a result, the emphasis on penetration in the new

SS109 projectile may result in a sharp decrease in lethality, as

compared to its predecessor M193 cartridge.

The adoption of intermediate power ammuntion by a large

number of countries was based on the limited ability of the

average soldier to discern and identify targets under battle

conditions. The U. S. Army's ORO studies during the 1950's,

confirmed these ideas and established 300 meters as the practical

range limit for rifles under battle conditions. The ORO studies,

however, failed to consider the technological advances of the

1970's and 1980's in the area of optical weapons sights. The

battle proven British Trilux optical sight, with a four power

magnification, has been employed by the British effectively on

their 7.62mm FN FALs for many years.31 Their newly adopted 5.56mm

NATO individual weapon, the SA 80, utilizes a built-in version of

the Trilux called the SUSAT.32 The Austrian developed 5.56mm

NATO assault rifle, the AUG, employs a 1.5 power optical sight

built in to the weapon's carrying handle.33 The U. S. Army is

also considering a new optical sight for its version of the

M16A2. These improved optical sights greatly increase the

average soldier's ability to see and identify enemy targets at

longer ranges. As the soldier's ability to engage targets beyond

the 300 to 400 meter NATO limitation increases, the long range

accuracy limitations of the 5.56mm SS109 projectile will become

evident. The 62-grain 5.56mm NATO projectile is significantly

more affected by weather conditions than the heavier projectile

of the 7.62mm NATO. For example, at 400 meters the required

windage adjustment for a 10 mph crosswind for the SS109 cartridge

is approximately 9 clicks into the wind using the M16A2 sights.

Under the same conditions, the required windage adjustment for

the 7.62mm NATO cartridge is only 4 clicks using the M14 sights.

The larger sight adjustment, required for the SS109 projectile,

produces a greater margin of error that increases as distance

increases. As the potential rifle engagement distances

increase, due to improvements in optical sights, the limited

accracy potential of the small 5.56mm NATO projectile will

severely limit any benefits that may be derived from such optical

improvements.

New technological developments in body armor and individual

protection, such as kevlar and other light-weight ceramic and

composite armor, may soon defeat the penetration capability of

the small 5.56mm SS109 projectile. For example, the new Soviet

5.45 x 39mm ammunition cannot now penetrate a relatively light

5.8 pound flak jacket composed to Kevlar and a 4.8mm (.19 inch)

sheet of hardened steel plate, even at point blank range.34 The

SS109 however, with its steel penetrator still has this

capability. The primary question is how long will the 5.56mm

SS109 retain this capability? As a second generation

intermediate power cartridge, further improvements in the small

5.56mm SS109 may not be sufficient to defeat new technological

developments in body armor. The 5.56mm SS109 projectile is too

small for much significant improvement.

It has also been maintained, by intermediate caliber propo-

nents, that the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge has proven itself in battle

since its adoption by the U. S. in 1963. In most of these

conflicts, however, the 5.56mm weapons were employed against

opponents armed with Soviet weapons also using

intermediate power ammunition. When the 5.56mm weapon

comes up against an opponent armed with weapons using

full-power ammunition, such as in the Philippine example

cited previously, the 5.56mm armed soldier finds himself at

a severe disadvantage.

The "obvious" advantages of the 5.56 x 45 mm NATO are not

obvious at all. The SS109 is a definite improvement over the

first generation M193 cartridge however, at best it will serve

only as an interim standard. As technological improvements in

optical sights extend the practical engagement distances for

rifle fire, and as improvements in body armor require greater and

greater power from the rifle cartridge, the SS109 and other

5.56mm caliber ammunition will have to give way to improve and

more powerful ammunition, such as the 7.62mm NATO. The 7.62 x

51mm NATO has not been improved or modified since its adoption by

NATO in 1953. This larger cartridge has a greater capacity for

growth and technological improvement and should be developed to

its potential now. The large size of the 147-grain 7.62 mm

projectile is more than sufficient to incorporate significant

improvements in lethality and penetration. We must capitalize on

the Soviet trend toward their 5.45mm caliber weapons by improving

our full power 7.62mm NATO ammunition and designing better and

more efficient weapons to use it. We have a chance to totally

outclass Soviet small arms in the area of individual and squad

weapons. Let's do it by upgrading the existing 7.62 mm NATO to

its full potential.

from:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1986/MVT.htm

this is from a 1986 U.S. military report discussing the distinction between the NATO 5.56mm and 7.62mm ammo, although many of the conclusions could also apply to a comparaison versus the Russian 7.62x39mm round.

[acrashb]

debate

[...]

A semi-armor

piercing 7.62mm caliber projectile, using second generation

technology as the SS109, would easily out-perform the smaller

SS109 projectile in penetration tests at all ranges

[...]

Years of hunting experience has shown that the small 5.56 x 45mm

cartridge is incapable of consistently stopping deer-sized or

larger game.

[...]

many of the conclusions could also apply to a comparaison versus the Russian 7.62x39mm round.

1) it's not a debate, it's a search for accuracy - two different things. The permanent wound channel comparisons are facts, not debating tactics.

2) this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The 7.62x51 is a completely different animal than 7.62x39 - see below.

3) this old saw has no relevance. Animals are psychologically and physiologicaly tougher than humans - that's why hunters occasionally see three-legged deer (one having been removed by a bullet) thriving and why a common household dog can run full-tilt into a wall head-first and just shake off the impact.

4) no they couldn't. Bullet design, weight, and velocity are completely different. The coincidence of a common diameter is meaningless.

[Sgt Joch]

1) it's not a debate, it's a search for accuracy - two different things. The permanent wound channel comparisons are facts, not debating tactics.

2) this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The 7.62x51 is a completely different animal than 7.62x39 - see below.

3) this old saw has no relevance. Animals are psychologically and physiologicaly tougher than humans - that's why hunters occasionally see three-legged deer (one having been removed by a bullet) thriving and why a common household dog can run full-tilt into a wall head-first and just shake off the impact.

4) no they couldn't. Bullet design, weight, and velocity are completely different. The coincidence of a common diameter is meaningless.

do you have any backup for your assertions?

[YankeeDog]

It seems to me that modern firearms technology has done a very good job of maximizing the capabilities of the 5.56mm cartridge, But it it also seems pretty obvious to me that, broadly speaking, a heavier round with more KE is always going to have better lethality, penetration into cover, and accuracy at range, assuming similar levels of technological development.

However, in all the reading I've done, the proponents of moving up to a larger, more powerful cartridge seem remarkably unwilling to confront one issue: What do they think should be dropped from the modern soldier's kit, in order to carry the heavier ammo, and the heavier weapon required to fire it? The modern infantryman is carrying about the maximum combat load practical, and there is even more additional weaponry and equipment that soldiers may be asked to carry in the near future. As it is, there is a lot of debate about the trade-off between weapon and ammo load, and other systems like body armor, electronics, remote sensing devices, advanced comm equipment, etc.

So, assuming the modern joe rifleman would be better off something heavier and more powerful than NATO 5.56mm, to me the next important question is what does he drop to carry it, and is it worth the trade-off?

[akd]

The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56 x 45mm

NATO cartidge are summarized as follows: (1) the penetration and

power of the SS109 version are superior to the 7.62mm NATO and

more than adequate for the 300-meter average combat range

documented in actual battle (ORO studies)

I'd be interested to know what exactly they defined as "power." I can't think of any definition that makes this statement true. Also, they conflate general penetration with armor penetration.

The .223 "deer hunting bans" are also a bit of a red herring. Military FMJ is seldom used in hunting, so we are likely comparing here the performance of controlled expansion .223 to controlled expansion .308. The latter obviously offers superior terminal effects by simple virtue of its greater mass and diameter. This leads to a larger wound channel and more rapid "bleeding out" (if the central nervous system is not struck). The last thing a hunter wants is a bullet that fragments into tiny pieces and creates a huge permanent wound cavity, because while that may rapidly kill the animal, it also destroys the meat he is intending to harvest.

And I do not think it can be assumed that the conclusions apply to 7.62x39mm as they do to 7.62x51mm simply because the bullets are the same diameter (5.56mm and .22 LR are also the same diameter, yet certainly the former has many times more wounding potential).

There has been a great deal more research into ballistics since that report was published and I'm not sure of its continued relevance. The reality is far more complex. For example:

Bullet mass and bullet striking velocity establish a bullet's potential; they set the limit on the tissue disruption it can produce. Bullet shape and construction determine how much of this potential is actually used to disrupt tissue; they are the major determinants of bullet effect. Far and away the most disruptive bullet of those described is the West German 7.62 NATO round. Its fragmenting behaviour maximises utilisation of its much higher potential (bullet mass well over twice that of any of the 5.56mm bullets and velocity only about ten percent less than theirs) for tissue disruption.

This author has not tested other European 7.62 NATO rounds, but the "NATO standards" apparently allow bullet designers great latitude in the choice of bullet jacket material and thickness. In 1979 a published high-speed x-ray photograph showed the Swedish 7.62 equivalent to the 7.62 NATO bullet breaking in a soap block shot at a range of 100m. Although bullet fragments were not recovered and photographed (the importance of bullet fragmentation in tissue disruption was not well recognised at the time), one must suspect the same very disruptive behaviour from this bullet as from the West German round. This is particularly ironic since the Swedish wound ballistics program was using every means possible to discredit the M16 as "inhumane" while, at the same time, Sweden was producing a 7.62 mm military bullet that caused far more extensive wounds than the M16.

Whether we like to admit it or not, the primary purpose of military rifle bullets is to disrupt human tissue. Yet the effects of bullets on bodies - the characteristic tissue disruption patterns produced by various bullets - remains unclear even to many of those who design and produce bullets. Surgeons who are called upon to treat the damage bullets cause, with few exceptions, lack practical knowledge of bullet effects. Attempts to fill this information void with formulae, graphs, flawed experiments, invalid assumptions, and theories based on half-truth (or no truth at all) have only increased confusion.

http://ammo.ar15.com/project/Fackler_Articles/wounding_patterns_military_rifles.pdf

The major problem occurs at the very beginning: What is effectiveness?

As it turns out, that simple question requires a very complex

answer. For the Soldier in combat, effectiveness equals death:

the desire to have every round fired result in the death of the

opposing combatant, the so-called “one-shot drop.” However,

death – or lethality – is not always necessary to achieve a military

objective; an enemy combatant who is no longer willing or able

to perform a meaningful military task may be as good as dead

under most circumstances. Some equate effectiveness with “stopping

power,” a nebulous term that can mean anything from physically

knocking the target down to causing the target to

immediately stop any threatening action. Others may measure

effectiveness as foot-pounds of energy delivered to the target – by

calculating the mass and impact velocity of the round – without

considering what amount of energy is expended in the target or

what specific damage occurs to the target. In the end, “footpounds

of energy” is misleading, “stopping power” is a myth, and

the “oneshot drop” is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics

of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection.

Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons

system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat.

http://wstiac.alionscience.com/pdf/WQV8N1_ART01.pdf

[Battlefront.com]

YankeDog,

However, in all the reading I've done, the proponents of moving up to a larger, more powerful cartridge seem remarkably unwilling to confront one issue:

That's it in a nutshell! It's the typical debate between protection/lethality and mobility which goes on all the time. All else being equal, sure thing... nobody would opt for a smaller or less protected anything. If the situations are not equal, but bellow some level of tolerance, then bigger is still probably the more desirable outcome.

To use the hunter analogy a little bit. A hunter going out a couple of hours a couple of days a year to kill a single deer can afford to take a heavier gun with a heavier round. He only has to cary on him minimal gear, if any (smart and hunter sometimes can't be uttered together ), and minimal ammo. A hunter that needs more than a dozen rounds a hunting season is a very bad hunter! Especially because hunters are generally well rested and well fed people who only have to fear each other accidentally shooting them.

Now, take this same individual and pile on 80 pounds of body armor and basic kit. Make him run around for a couple of weeks with inadequate rest and food. Now, tell him to pick up an G1 with 7.62 ammo or a M4 with 5.56. Give him 1/2 an hour to evaluate the extra weight and bulk, then ask him which one he prefers. (looks in pocket) I have a fiver here that says the M4 would be chosen more often than the G1.

Since most small arms are used for suppression, having more rounds is better than fewer ones with increased lethality. That's because the 5.56 is just as effective as the 7.62 in most situations a soldier will find himself in. And chances are pretty good if you hit an enemy with a 5.56 round you're going to achieve your goal of making him ineffective. Whether his guts and muscle tissue could be more messed up is not really important if the guy is down and unable to function effectively. As study after study shows... a wounded enemy is a drain on the enemy's resources, and it doesn't matter what causes the wound.

Steve

[Meach]

Light is right. No point in weighing yourself down. You put a hole in the other guy, job done. You keep his head down, job done. Either way it's more about maneuver than firepower. Get to a flank, get behind, get around, get a clear shot and if you cannot, get help.

Too much emphasis is put on an infantryman shooting 7.62 thru brick walls to kill opfor by people. In modern combat your more likely to kill Mr Abdul's pet goldfish in it's bowl with heavier rounds. We don't want to shoot civilians, it looks bad on a CV.

[acrashb]

do you have any backup for your assertions?

Which ones? Some of the statements are clear fact, others not so much - so which one(s) do you disagree with?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

At the end of the day, as Meach so neatly tells us, it's about putting holes in people and the 5.56 does this just fine. Someone being shot through the lungs will have his day ruined regardless of whether it was 5.56 or 7.62.

Having fired both the FN FAL and the Diemaco C7 I suspect the reason for the preference amongst some for 7.62 is morale. Firing your gun is known to be a morale booster. And boy, when you fire off a 7.62, you sure get the bigger boost. While the C7 is much kinder to the firer, firing the FAL was very satisfying.

[Secondbrooks]

Secondbrooks,

Not quite true. Yes, the BAR was an insufficient weapon for the task compared to a belt fed MG. The Bren was better than the BAR but still not the optimal design to center on. No question there.

Where you are wrong is about the functionality of 2x LMGs per Squad. The original concept was to have a small base of fire built around a single LMG and have the larger mass of the Squad maneuver and/or try to pick off the guys cowering or running away from the LMGs. The thing is the US Squad was so HUGE that, basically, the base of fire was too small proportional to the numbers of riflemen. I think that's your point. However, I suggest even a MG42 would be too small for supporting 10 other soldiers. It's not simply a matter of volume of fire but of being in more than one place simultaneously..

Think about leap frogging. How quickly would maneuver require the base of fire to relocate to keep up with the others? Often. What would the Squad do for a base of fire when the single LMG was on the move? Not have a base of fire

The solution developed was quite elegant. Instead of having 2 teams where one is base and the other is maneuver, why not have 2 teams where each one has its own base of fire? That way if leap frogging there is *always* a base of fire can relocate forward as quickly as the leg infantry.

This is how nearly all modern combat units are organized, with the apparent exception of Finland.

If you need more evidence of this, look at many of the WW2 German Squads. Arguably they had the most advanced LMG of its day, but they increased the count from one to two even though often times the squad size was slightly smaller (8 men vs 9). If you look at CMBB you'll see that most of those formations have dedicated transport, so I'm going to guess that one of the reason they didn't issue 2x LMGs to everybody is this might not have been terribly practical given the strain on logistics which was acute through most of the post 1942 theaters. Cost, training, etc. likely were the remaining reasons. However, a fairly large range of Squad types were issued with 2xLMGs instead of the 1xLMG which most "vanilla" Rifle Squads had.

Are my brains having some sort brain rotting decease which eats my IQ... Which makes it ever worse is that i have hard times to understand what has been said in these Forums. It's like -25% to ability to understand English when i come here. I don't know is that coded feature or bug, but Battlefront forums are funky in that way.

But are you saying same thing as i did?

Like i said things started to turn more into teams. And there to ability for teams to support each of other, giving them flexibility and more independence from platoon. In ww2 squad's battle was more dependant of platoon. Not as flexible. But without doupt there was arising idea of using two equal teams in squad (equality being that they both had LMG). Some nations like ours used high numbers of SMGs in this role too. They were much lighter for logistics too.

Then again studies i've been reading seems to point out to fact that for example in Vietnam squads hardly ever used teams (so they went back to ww2 style) if their manpower dropped to around 8. After this concept of two LMGs is seen to be bit too overpowered in firepower.

About Finland... Heck i wish i knew what is reasons behind this. But i can't get confirmation from anywhere. We even got grenade lauchers during this millenium for MOUT oriented units, woodland jaegers will probably never sees them... Well maybe during next century. One thing interesting is that SMGs were most valued weapons, assault/support weapon with 70 rounds. I think half of the highest merits soldier could had, Mannerheim's Cross, was given to soldiers who used SMGs.

The reduction from Squad size of 11 to 9, 8, and even 7!! has more to do with mechanization rather than anything else. There's a practical limit to how many soldiers you can cram into a single armored vehicle, and 9 seems to be about it. The only way around this is to go HUGE like the Marines have done with the AAV. But the concept of the Marines as a fighting force is distinctly different from most country's fighting forces (including the US Army), so it's a bit of an odd exception. However, note that they are organized around 3x LMGs. This gives the Marines an edge over all smaller forces in terms of firepower, ability to maneuver, and capability to sustain casualties and remain effective. Anybody playing CM:SF Marines knows this already

Yes. And that is seen as limit to combat capacity. 1-2 casualties and by historic reference you don't have functioning teams anymore, even more they are more weapon-squads than riflesquads. With 9 men squads. Marines can first drop off their third team.

But anyways it's just theories and learned facts (at least from one side) which i've had luxury to be able to read. I don't say i agree with them whole hearhtly.

The general consensus is "no", which is why as the world has urbanized over the decades the combat forces have gone with smaller and lighter weapons with more capacity for short range firepower vs. long range. Other weapons are tasked with greater combat ranges so that, in theory, there is a net gain of combat potential and little loss in any specific way that could get a force into serious problems.

Steve

Okay. I'd like to disagree, but then again i really don't know much. Like Clavicula_nox said:

If the game could simulate the influences of adrenaline overdoses, then I would say "No", weight shouldn't come into play once the unit triggers that overdoes; otherwise, I would say "Yes", weight should definitely affect your abilities to fight at close range.

So it's probably out of scope of CMSF anyways. Too small micro details.

Elmar Bijlsma wrote:

Having fired both the FN FAL and the Diemaco C7 I suspect the reason for the preference amongst some for 7.62 is morale. Firing your gun is known to be a morale booster. And boy, when you fire off a 7.62, you sure get the bigger boost. While the C7 is much kinder to the firer, firing the FAL was very satisfying.

I tested my first 12 gauge shotgun to day. Butt was resting on wrong spot. Bang was loud (i had cigarette's filters in my ears), recoil bruised my shoulder muscle. It made me weep... Almost. At least it made me feel like idiot.

[Clavicula_Nox]

So it's probably out of scope of CMSF anyways. Too small micro details.

Yeah, after posting, I thought about my response and figured that from a personal level, the weight makes a difference; but at CMSF's scale, I don't think it would, or it would be so small that it wouldn't be noticed.

[Apocal]

What treaty ays that .50 is banned for use against personnel? I've never been able to find it.

[StrykerPSG]

What treaty ays that .50 is banned for use against personnel? I've never been able to find it.

I think wehad this debate before too and it came down to an old wives tale because I can say with high certainty that I never stopped my gunners from shooting insurgents with the .50 cal and RWS on the trucks. It's not much different then using the M82 or equivalent sniper weapons system, while great at anti-material, even more devastating against flesh and bone.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Apocal]

I think wehad this debate before too and it came down to an old wives tale because I can say with high certainty that I never stopped my gunners from shooting insurgents with the .50 cal and RWS on the trucks. It's not much different then using the M82 or equivalent sniper weapons system, while great at anti-material, even more devastating against flesh and bone.

That was my foremost suspicion but otherwise knowledgeable people, who should know better, keep repeating this tale. My first time using the MK19, I asked if the same prohibition followed as the M2 and the instructor looked at me like I had gentalia sprouting from my forehead.

Is an M60 closer to penetrating like an AK47 or an M2?

AK. I wasn't exaggerating when I said an M2 is closer to an autocannon than a rifle.

Far left is .50BMG, third from left is a very close stand-in for 7.62 NATO, AK and M16 rounds are the next to the right.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Secondbrooks,

Yeah, I think we are mostly in agreement. Where I thought we differed was the primary reason for adding more LMGs to the mix. It seemed you were saying more were added to the WW2 Squad because of firepower, while I think it was flexibility more than firepower. Remember, the US (for some stupid reason) used the BAR right through the Korean War.

As for Vietnam changing things back to Platoons as the maneuver unit with Squads operating as Teams do now... there are several reasons why that might have been the case, the primary one being the closed in nature of the terrain. Troop density goes way up and that means spreading out becomes a liability more than a force multiplyer. Same thing happens in urban fighting. Another factor is Vietnam was a conscript war, modern armies consist of volunteers. This changes the dynamics at all levels of command and training.

Adam,

Remember that kinetic energy is a big part terminal ballistics. And a big part, in fact a HUGE part, of kinetic energy is the mass of whatever is being chucked out of the barrel. Look at that picture of the .50cal vs. the .308 round. Even if the .50cal was traveling at a vastly slower velocity, the effect against whatever it hits (especially if soft) is likely to remain much greater. I've seen Afghan sniper vids of hitting Taliban at massive ranges (hundreds of meters, one at 1000m+) and the impact sent body parts flying many meters into the air and around. A .308 would be lucky to make it onto target at 1000m, and if it did wouldn't literally explode a Human being. So velocity gets the .50cal round 1000m with accuracy, but it is the mass of the slug that does the damage.

Steve

[c3k]

Er, how do I say this? I know, I'll use a formula....

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 * Mass * Velocity^2

So while Mass does have a large place in determining Kinetic Energy, the Velocity is really where the money is, what with squaring it and all...

Now, that says NOTHING about terminal effects on a target. Obviously a .50 will do more damage than a 5.56. (5.56 M855 or SS109 weighs 62 grains and has a muzzle velocity of approximately 3,000 ft/sec. The .50 cal. has a wide variety of ammo. Most of it has a mass of 620-750 grains, 10 times that of the 5.56. Additionally, the .50 muzzle velocity is right there near 3,000 ft/sec. )

I am most definitely NOT trying to make a statement about which has more "impact" on a target; Kinetic Energy, Momentum, or other characteristics.

This is just a happy math/physics reminder.

Now, get back to work!

Thanks,

Ken