Sgt Joch
-
Posts
4,559 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Sgt Joch
-
-
yes, most of the really interesting stuff concerning armor protection is classified so that the numbers you see in CMSF are basically educated guesstimates based on what little real world data there is.
The people who know anything worthwhile, like Gibsonm here, refuse to give us any interesting tidbit.
-
this one is good too:
-Challenger:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/chall2.htm
-Abrams:
http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm
-T-90:
-
JK, even if we assume that your theory is correct, how do you explain the fact that the Soviets took until 1949 to produce a working bomb.
After the war, the Russians scoured germany to find german scientists who had worked on the German atomic program. At least 40 were sent back to the Soviet Union. Yet even with German scientists and all the data on the US bomb sent back by spies, the first workable bomb was not produced until august 1949.
This is detailed in this article on "German Scientists in the Soviet Atomic Project":
-
Further, Luftwaffe war plans from 1943 clearly indicate a full blown atomic strike of at least Hiroshima yield was being evaluated against Manhattan. See page 91 here, then start translating the legends on the map.
http://missilegate.com/rfz/swaz/chapter5.htm#a
I have no doubt that the Luftwaffe may have studied the feasibility of a strike on New York and drawn up plans on how this might be achieved. Militaries are always drawing up plans for various contingencies.
Secondly the JU-390 did exist:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_390
It may even, as some claim, have made a reconnaissance flight to New York City in 1944, although the evidence is sketchy.
But that does not necessarily prove anything, I don't think anyone doubts the Nazis were working on their own atomic bomb, the question has always been how close thay came to actually building a working bomb.
-
Wilhammer,
Are you basing your statement on what's said here, near the very bottom of the piece? If so, I can well understand the tone taken, since it was DER SPIEGEL which got royally burned over THE HITLER DIARIES. Even so, there is some useful stuff here.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,346293,00.html
John,
I looked at some of your links, but your "evidence" is not entirely convincing, for example from the DER SPIEGEL article:
The United States needed 125,000 people, including six future Nobel Prize winners, to develop the atomic bombs that exploded over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. The uranium enrichment facility alone, including its security zone, was the size of the western German city of Frankfurt. Dubbed the Manhattan project, the quest ultimately cost the equivalent of about $30 billion.In his new book, "Hitler's Bomb," Berlin historian Rainer Karlsch claims Nazi Germany almost achieved similar results with only a handful of physicists and a fraction of the budget. The author writes that German physicists and members of the military conducted three nuclear weapons tests shortly before the end of World War II, one on the German island of Ruegen in the fall of 1944 and two in the eastern German state of Thuringia in March 1945. The tests, writes Karlsch, claimed up to 700 lives.
If these theories were accurate, history would have to be rewritten. Ever since the Allies occupied the Third Reich's laboratories and interrogated Germany's top physicists working with wunderkind physicist Werner Heisenberg and his colleague Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker, it's been considered certain that Hitler's scientists were a long way from completing a nuclear weapon.
-
looking forward to this as well.
-
I seem to recall that the US look very closely after the war at what the status was and came to the conclusion that the germans were still far away from producing a working bomb.
-
I read with great interest the articles AKD posted, both Falkner's "Wounding patterns of miltary rifle bullets" from 1989 and "small caliber lethality", thereby expanding my knowledge in an area in which I will admit I only had general knowledge, however I still have some questions:
-Falkner states that much of the wounding potential caused by the 5.56x45mm M855 comes from fragmentation leaving exit wounds up to 15 cm. However, I have seen other comments that the M855 does not fragment consistently and may travel 6-7" in soft tissue before it begins to yaw:
Though early M855 experiments showed the round fragments well in the lab, more recent testing has been showing inconsistent fragmentation. Partially because of the complex construction of the round, M855 has widely-variable yaw performance, often not yawing at all through 7-8" or even 10" of tissue. Testing has shown large batch-to-batch differences in yaw performance even from the same manufacturer, and given the number of plants manufacturing SS-109-type bullets, fragmentation performance is very difficult to predict. This is complicated by the low velocity implicit in using M855 out of the short barreled M4 platform.http://ammo.ar15.com/ammo/project/term_m855yaw.html
2. the data appears conclusive that the 7.62x39mm M43 round exhibits little yaw and will generally produce through and through wounds. However Falkner states that the M67 round will begin to yaw in as little as 9cm leaving a 11 cm exit wound. It also appears that the Chinese manufactured 7.62x39mm rounds will begin to yaw as little as after 2-2.5" of travel in soft tissue.
So, unless I am missing something, the data does not appear to be that conclusive that the M855 has superior wounding capability to M67 and later rounds?
Secondly, which type of 7.62x39mm ammo is most likely to be in use by Syria and insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan? Is the M43 still in use?
-
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?
-
to continue the 5.56x45mm v. 7.62x39mm ammo debate:
The primary advantages of the intermediate power 5.56 x 45mmNATO 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.
-
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.
-
General relevance? The 5.56, in a military context (overwhelmingly FMJ bullets), is just as effective in CQB as the 7.62, internet myths notwithstanding.
As AKD points out, the 5.56mm does not necessarily yaw or fragment consistently either.
I have no doubt that the 5.56 is better designed and performs more consistently than the 7.62, but you can't avoid basic physics. The 7.62 round will develop more Kinetic Energy and hit harder than the 5.56 round. The 5.56mm is still just a .22 caliber bullet.
There are many reasons why NATO went with the 5.56, but it was not because it had more stopping power than a 7.62.
-
You have to take into account the scale to see the real size since the russian round penetrates to 26" while the NATO round stops at 12". Also, as you will see at the wiki site, the bottom drawing is for the M43 round, the M67 would have better terminal velocity.
-
In theory, the 7.62mm round gives the AK-47 a one-shot/one-kill capability while 5.56mm ammo typically requires 2-3 hits to incapacitate/kill an opponent.
While it is true that the recoil of the 7.62 ammo makes it harder to control, especially in fully-automatic mode, I would still give it an edge in urban combat where the fights are typically very close and very quick.
for example:
A brief comparison between cartridges reveals the higher-velocity American cartridge has a noticeable edge in long range accuracy (group sizes of approximately 2 inches (50 mm) or less at 100 yards (91 m) vs. group sizes of 2–4″ at 100 yards), and newer versions of the Russian cartridge, with a hollow point tip, has more effective terminal performance its newly found ability to penetrate AND fragment wildly in human tissue (see photo at right). The heavier Russian projectile is also better in circumstances where the bullet has to pass through any intervening material. This allows the shooter to fire through light wall materials (cinder blocks, wooden structures, or drywall) or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover. This can prove important in urban combat (where doors, walls, and vehicles can deflect the lighter 5.56 mm round or shatter it altogether) but can cause other problems, where the 7.62 mm projectile might go through a wall that the 5.56 mm bullet cannot penetrate, thus possibly causing unintended casualties. There are always trade-offs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Comparison_of_characteristics
Having said that, I would agree that the 5.56mm armed NATO rifles are better all around weapons than the AK-47.
-
6.8 already exists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6.8_mm_Remington_SPC
it packs more punch than 5.56mm and less recoil the 7.62mm and is already available in the civilian market such as in the Ruger mini 6.8:
which is legal in canada with a 5 round magazine.
-
Thing which makes me wonder is that: Does regular assault rifle give individual better close combat abilities than rifle with grenade launcher or SAW or LMG in CMSF?
Hard to say. I have tried to run tests recently between British and Syrian troops, but since all the teams/squads have a mix of weapons and equipment, it is hard to determine the effect of any one weapon.
If you look at typical military assault rifles (i.e. AK-47, M4, M16A4, L85A2), all are similar in weight, size, magazine load, ROF, but the AK-47 packs 7.62 mm ammo as opposed to 5.56 mm ammo for the rest.
In theory, this should give the AK-47 armed infantryman an edge over the NATO soldiers in close combat, but this is not readily apparent in CMSF where NATO squads have additional heavier weapons and body armour to compensate.
-
Presumably you have to set AF/AA n your GPU interface, as I do not recall there being such settings in CMSF unless I am mistaken...
yes GPU interface. I usually play CMSF with no FSAA. I find it redundant at 1920x1200.
-
I play on a Dell 27" widescreen at 1920x1200 with no problems whatsoever. The image is sharper and clearer, and the colors are more vibrant than on my previous 22" CRT monitor.
My computer, powered by a now 2 year old Intel Core 2 Duo E6750, has no problem handling the game at that res. In fact, I play CMBB at 16xAniso/16xFSAA (8800 GT) and I sometimes forget to dial it down when switching to CMSF, but the FPS is still nice and smooth.
One of the best purchases I made in years.
-
its a strange camo scheme, more something you would find on a ship:
-
I should also point out that Steve has mentioned that CM:WW2 will feature a new way to treat casualties. I am as much in the dark about what that means as everyone else, but I presume this will affect how casualties, including "Buddy Aid" is handled in CM:WW2 and CMSF2.
-
Charles actually spent a lot of time tweaking the "buddy aid" behavior arround 1.10/1.11. We tested builds ranging from one extreme, where soldiers would totally ignore their comrades dying right next to them to the other extreme where they would ignore enemy soldiers firing on them to perform buddy aid.
Under the current behavior, at least from the testing I saw, a soldier should not perform "buddy aid" if he is currently being fired at or under fire. The problem, of course, is that it is impossible to get the AI of the individual pixeltruppens to always behave as a real human would.
The way it works now is obviously the compromise that BFC and most testers felt the most comfortable with, within the limitations of the AI.
-
My government is surely stupid selling those porsche's... Porsche's become more valuable over time. Corruption strikes everywhere
you should have seen the smile on our defence minister's face when he announced the deal.
-
Canada leased 20 leo 2s from Germany, all of which were shipped to Afghanistan and bought another 100 used Leo 2s from the Netherlands, none of which are anywhere close to a battlefield.
-
Did we buy the "right" tank?
Well from a pure crew sense, I don't think so (the Leo 2A6 is a Porsche, the M1 is a F250 Ute).
bold words there mate, I know some americans who might disagree.
of course, Canada bought some surplus Leo 2s from the Dutch, so I dont necessarily disagree with that sentiment...although they do seem to require as much maintenance as a Porsche...
Band Of Brothers "The Pacific" teaser
in General Discussion Forum
Posted
I would say the issue is not so much that there are no longer any heroes in war as the fact that war has lost much of its glamour.
Prior to the advent of television, civilians would generally find out about war through oral stories, newspaper, books and paintings, most of which tended to glamorize the heroic aspects of war.
Even in WW2, reporters left out the worst aspects of combat. The documentary "With the marines at Tarawa"
was a noticeable exception, but it required the approval of president Roosevelt to be released.
By the time Vietnam rolled around, news cameras were everywhere, for example these CBS news reports from the 1968 Tet offensive.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiW5FXs1n6M
and now of course, on the net, you can find pretty much anything:
http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=190518&page=1
Once civilians sitting on their ass safely at home (like me
) can get of glimpse of the real face of war, it does not look very glamorous at all. It looks more like organized slaughter, hard to find much heroics in that.