Kurtz

I've never done any claims about the training of the soldiers. Don't put words in my mouth, please. I was discussing the ammunition. The reduced lethality of the smaller rounds wasn't a problem at the time because wounded enemy were better than dead ones. As I said, this applies to major conflicts where the enemy has to take care of its own wounded. In the actual fight, it's better to kill people because you're guaranteed they won't shoot back. In the war, it's preferable to wound them.

J Ruddy: You are talking about situations where you want the target to die as quick as possible, which is not was the 5.56 is designed to do. As I mentioned earlier, in a conventional war it's preferable to wound the enemy, not kill him instantly. The theory is that a wounded soldier needs two other soldiers to take care of him. With one round you have incapacitated three men. In addition to this, rifles probably aren't expected to cause many casualties at all in a major conflict (WW3). After artillery and traffic accidents, rifle fire probably comes a bit down the list of casualty reasons. More of a comfort factor than an actual fighting tool. Snipers, who generally want an instant kill and longer engagement ranges use 7.62 or larger calibres. And we only hear about the situations where the target doesn't drop after being hit. We seldom hear about the situations where the enemy is killed or incapacitated after one hit - because this is what we expect from someone who has been shot. After all this is considered, I still have no idea which round is the bestest.

The "NIH doctrine"? (Not Invented Here) one of disadvantages with bullpups is that you have to make changes to the weapon (not always possible) to be able to fire it from the left shoulder, otherwise you'll get hot cases in your face. Maybe US doctrine emphazises the ability to fire the rifle from either shoulder?

FAI, I don't doubt that the G36 is more expensive. But is it more expensive in the long run? The cost of the individual weapon (hardware) isn't as important as the total cost of ownership during its expected lifetime. A weapon that is more expensive to buy might be cheaper in the long run (maintenance, training etc). If the weapon is easier to use, the soldier might learn to shoot easier, saving some $ on ammo (which is (claimed as) another advantage of 5.56 vs 7.62). Of course, the horribly expensive weapon might be even more expensive when you buy spare parts. Just like German sportscars.

A quote from Pulp Fiction: "But when you shoot it, you know where that extra money went".

5.56 or .280 - it doesn't really matter. I meant the choice of a smaller round than the rifle rounds used at the time (30-06, .303, 7.92 etc). Smaller rounds are (probably) cheaper in the long to manufacture. And with a given size and volume - would you like 1 or 2 rounds when going to war? Would you like to have 1 or two rounds when you're running out of ammo? One can argue that it's better to get one round that does the job, than two rounds that doesn't, but I still think the smaller rounds (5.56 or whatever) are fine for the war they were designed for. Which may not be the war they are used in today. I assume the 7.62x39 was replaced by the 5.45 x whatever for logistical reasons as well. However, it's a lot of anecdotal evidence mixed with nostalgia, methinks... Would the situation in Iraq be much better if the troops carried 7.62N rifles? Would it have made a significant difference in Somalia? Replacing all 5.56 weapons with a 6.8 mm is a big task, economically and logistically. Does the new ammo types really have such big advantages? Does all weapons need replacement, if not, you get a new ammo type in the inventory. It's comparatively easy for a special forces-type unit to adopt a new wepaon or ammo, but doing the same in the entire ary is a much bigger task.

I posted this in another thread discussing rifle ammo, might as well post it here as well. juan_gigante: IIRC the 3-round burst on the G11 was to increase hit probablity, not lethality. It was designed to have some dispersion of the rounds. A "shotgun approach", so to speak. ---- Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. The logistical advantages of 5.56 vs 7.62 are huge. Logistics win wars, individual rounds of rifle ammo doesn't. IIRC the reduced size and weight of the ammo was one of the major selling points of the Heckler & Koch G11 with caseless ammo. We should remember that the 5.56 round was decided upon based on experiences from WW2 (and Korea?), major conflicts. Not the conflicts of today. In the context of a major conflict, 5.56 is a good round. The soldier can carry plenty of them, it's probably less likely to kill than the 7.62, but wounding the enemy is "better" in a full-scale war. Shorter range wasn't a real problem since the infantry squad couldn't engage the enemy outside the range of its anti-armour weapons (LAW). This because the enemy rode in armoured vehicles. The times have changed, today it might be desirable to have a round that will kill the enemy instantly, and the range of the new anti-armor weapons are much, much longer (Javelin). But switch to 7.62 and you'll be able to carry only half as much (?) ammo for the same weight, or leave something else behind. 5.56 is an excellent round for World War III, but is it as bad today as the critics say? Or is it just nostalgia speaking? The reluctance of some nations to adopt 5.56 might be economic as well. Without World War III looming on the horizon, there's no perceived need to upgrade something as mundane as the rifle, especially when performance can be enhanced with new sights etc. I think Norway intended to replace their G3's with G11's, but that never happened. - Edited to add that the logistical concerns might not be that important for SF type units. [ December 05, 2005, 12:56 AM: Message edited by: Kurtz ]

Amatuers talk tactics, professionals talk logistics. The logistical advantages of 5.56 vs 7.62 are huge. Logistics win wars, individual rounds of rifle ammo doesn't. IIRC the reduced size and weight of the ammo was one of the major selling points of the Heckler & Koch G11 with caseless ammo. We should remember that the 5.56 round was decided upon based on experiences from WW2 (and Korea?), major conflicts. Not the conflicts of today. In the context of a major conflict, 5.56 is a good round. The soldier can carry plenty of them, it's probably less likely to kill than the 7.62, but wounding the enemy is "better" in a full-scale war. Shorter range wasn't a real problem since the infantry squad couldn't engage the enemy outside the range of its anti-armour weapons (LAW). This because the enemy rode in armoured vehicles. The times have changed, today it might be desirable to have a round that will kill the enemy instantly, and the range of the new anti-armor weapons are much, much longer (Javelin). But switch to 7.62 and you'll be able to carry only half as much (?) ammo for the same weight, or leave something else behind. 5.56 is an excellent round for World War III, but is it as bad today as the critics say? Or is it just nostalgia speaking? The reluctance of some nations to adopt 5.56 might be economic as well. Without World War III looming on the horizon, there's no perceived need to upgrade something as mundane as the rifle, especially when performance can be enhanced with new sights etc. I think Norway intended to replace their G3's with G11's, but that never happened.

Doesn't Finland use the 7.62x39 round?

I have no idea if it's used or not, or if it ever was. What I meant was that the exhaust is angled downward, forcing the RAW upwards in flight to compensat for gravity - as long as the rocket engine burns. IIRC this enables the RAW to fly in a straight line, at least for short distances.

Yeah, I was just nit-picking. But MikeyD is correct, it uses the same principle as the Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. Quite funny that the FM has adopted marketing speak: "precision-shaped explosive charge". Sounds like something out of a sales brochure.

:eek: IIRC, the M16 can be fired "normally" with this thing attached. If the safety on the RAW is off, the pressure of the powder gasses will initiate the firing of the RAW (through a tube from the M16´s muzzle brake to the RAW.) The "holder" stays attached to the M16's muzzle after firing the rocket. The rocket is angled downwards to compensate for gravity. A favourite weapon when playing the RPG Twilight:2000 ages ago.

The projectile of the AT4 does not have a rocket engine. The propulsion is made by a propellant in the launcher. Some of the propellant gases are used to move the projectile, some are vented backwards to eliminate recoil. This system is/was also used by various recoilless guns. A rocket launcher would have a rocket engine attached to the projectile. This rocket engine may or may not burn out before the projectile leaves the launcher. I think it's easier to get higher muzzle velocities with a recoilless weapon than with a rocket launcher.

The wire is definitely spooled out of the missile. On some missiles, the engine is located in the mid-section of the missile (firing at an angle) because the rear of the missile is filled with wire spools and tracking beacons. The engine is usally only fired in the first few seconds anyway. Firing over power lines might cause problems if the wires are not insulated.

"Never send a human to do a machine's job" - Agent Smith.

Helicopters can be engaged with ATGMs. The problem is that the missile has limited manueverability and slow speed. But firing at hovering helos is no different from firing at other stationary targets. Just hope the helo remain stationary during the 10 or so seconds it takes for the ATGM to reach its target.

It looks like it has a Xenon beacon and a thermal beacon?

Not taboo. Just lack of time to include civilians properly. Maybe you would prefer to wait a few more years for CM:SF?

Fennek? Judging from how it looks it must be some kind of reconnaisance or signal interception vehicle.

I don't think the jammers are effective against anything else (if they are feective at all!) than early TOWs (from the 70s). Modern missiles are much more resistant to countermeasures. Crosswind can be a problem, but 7 mph is just 3 m/s, hardly any wind at all. Firing a TOW in a storm might cause some problems.... I don't know the details for the TOW, but I'm trained as an ATGM team leader on the Swedish BILL and don't remember anything abut not firing over water. The only thing we should worry about was firing near power lines , both along (interference) and perpendicular (risk of shorting the guidance wires).

Mortars for illumination grenades. It's mounted on the rear of the turret. The vehicle has no other night sight, IIRC. [ October 25, 2005, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: Kurtz ]

Nope. All gone. It was a lightly armoured tracked vehicle with a 90 mm low pressure gun. Amphibious as well. Used in an antitank company at brigade level. The old infantry brigades (IB 77) were "soft", the IKV 91 was the only armoured vehicle.

But the mushroom clouds of dust fro a big bomb will make people think there are nukes in the game.

You know, the US (and other countries) "exerting its influence" is what gave power to men like Saddam Hussein and the Shah of Iran. They really should have named the war Operation Iraqi Liberty.

The Space Lobsters are watching us from beyond the dark reaches of space. But they have no need to interfere until we move out of our gravity well. I think it would be cool with a pulp setting.