Stephen

I've just played Task Force Kincaid. Frustraiting! Oh for some infantry. I usually stop OFOR in the first half of the map. They got within 3k of the west side. Infantry would ahve given a better picture of where they were and would have slowed them somewhat better. Also I think normal arty would have been more efficent than of MLRS. The Apaches seemed more survivable than the others. I normally deploy helis about 4k in front of the OPFOR adavance at medium altitude. But of course having only helis I deployed most at NOE. Interestingly those at NOE suffered more casualties than those at medium altitude. The SA16s were murderous!

Slapdragon, Actually the entire paragraph you wrote is: "The "few victims shot in the torso" is the key there, not the 7.62. The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety." Nothing about range there! And as I said before it is the general tone of your posts, especially your earlier ones. "I will reserve comment in order to keep the peace until you address my points." Me address your points! What about the logic of my argument, that I asked you comment on? In fact I have asked you seven questions. And you have answered one of them. I suggest you go back and read the entire tread. I have presented a logically set out argument and asked you to comment on it. Which you have refused to do. There is obviously no point in discussing anything with you. You even misquote yourself! See the example is above. And I have done my best to ignore your condescending remarks. Even your footer does not seem appropriate for a reasonable person. Targets down, patch out. Stephen ( who has found, in the past, that many academics do not have an open mind )

Slapdragon, ?I never saidf that in every situation in all circumstances the 7.62x51mm was any better? I?m not sure what you mean. Because you have been saying 5.56 is superior. You did say ?The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety.? Pretty plain to me. NO exceptions there!!! I?m glad you now agree with me that 5.56mm is not always better that 7.62 NATO. ?As for muzzle energy: reread my previous comments. I cannot post anything else until you actually read what I have to say, it would be pointless.? You said ?if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal? A pretty clear statement that if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! Do you agree? Let?s get things straight, one simple point at a time.

Slapdragon, Glad to see you have not found an error in my logic yet! "if you had a 7.62 cal bullet with 1500 joules of energy and one with 3000 then the higher energy bullet would be about a quarter more effective all other things being equal" Good you agree! If EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! I don?t care if it is only 10% better, it is still better than 0% ?we were talking killing power? I?m not! I?m addressing the apparent assersitions in your earlier posts that 5.56mm is always better than 7.62 NATO. Specifically I am talking about knock down in a military environment. You said ?Of the three rounds it has the lowest penetration and lowest wound channel effect, although it is superior to the 7.62x39mm in penetration. The round out ranges the ability of an infantryman to use it by around 600 meters.? Can you see the contradiction in that quote compared to your later comments? And ?The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety.? And the general tone of your posts, especially your earlier ones, points to an assertion that 5.56 is always better than 7.62 NATO So I am talking about 5.56mm versus 7.62 NATO in a military environment. If you go back and read my posts you will see that! ?At battlefield ranges (under 300 meters being the average contact range for small arms actions since WW1) 7.62 overpenetrates the human body? OK let?s talk about this now. In a military environment overpenetration is not a problem because the object of the exercise is to cause casualties, not fatalities. The immediate concern is to stop the threat, put the enemy down. In fact a wounded soldier is a larger logistical and administrative burden to the enemy than a fatality. Do you agree? Summary: If EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! ? agreed. Overpenetration ? under discussion Cover & concealment ? in abeyance I do agree that the lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in some semi-liquid mediums and thus dump energy more efficiently. But I can?t agree that ?The lighter 5.56 rounds slow down faster in the semi-liquid of the body, and thus dump energy more efficiently? because nobody has found a model of the human body sufficiently accurate enough to prove this. We can discuss this later, if you like. For now let?s stick to one ?issue? at a time. Overpenetration. Anything we should discuss that I have missed? ?At ranfes 5-700 meters, the 7.62x51mm comes back into its own in killing power?. Good! Another admission that 5.56mm is not always better than 7.62 NATO.

No Slapdragon, you go back and read all your posts. The main assertion, that you seem to want to stick to, is that 5.56 is always better than 7.62 NATO. If you read my last post properly, you will see that I have proven logically that if the rifles are is using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the same range then 7.62 NATO is superior. You have to compare apples to apples. That?s right, if EVERYTHING ELSE IS EQUAL the more energy the better! How many times do I have to say the same thing? I have read texts and seen ? experimental results ? for the type of studies you are talking about. And none prove that 5.56mm is better than 7.62 NATO if the rifles are using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the same range. ? Wound placement is such a huge variable ? Yes it is. But you can?t compare A to B if the wound placement is different! It would be a farcical comparison. ? other than repeat over and over again that the 7.62 has more muzzle energy ? I have not done that. I have been saying that if everything else is equal then the projectile with the most energy can do more damage. Go back and look at my last post. I gave a logical argument as to why if everything else is equal then, the projectile with the most energy can do more damage, especially in a military environment. ?Tanks have 7.62 machineguns because of range and because weight is not as much of an issue with a tank. ? Thank you 5.56mm is not always better than 7.62 NATO. That?s what I?ve been saying!! Where is the hole in my LOGIC? Can you offer any reasoned argument that disproves my logic?

If you are comparing a rifle chambered for one calibre with a rifle chambered for another, then you have to compare them: with the same design of projectile hitting the same target at the same point of entry, from the same angle at the same range Otherwise the comparison is not valid. Therefore shot placement is irrelevant. You would be comparing apples to watermelons. Therefore the effects of bullet shapes on wound tunnel are irrelevant. , as the projectile design is the same. Or you are comparing apples with bananas? Energy expenditure in a semi-liquid, what kind of semi-liquid? Nobody has been able to build a model sufficiently like the human body. And if they did they would also have to model things like blood flow, adrenalin, hunger, emotion etc. The human body is not a homogeneous sac of fluid. A model is just a model, nothing more. You can not produce fact from a model, only theory. You might as well judge a rifle by how easily it knocks over a metal plate. Effects of wound tunnel types? They would be the same if the same point of the human body were struck from the same angle, at the same range with the same design of projectile. Except effects caused by differences in the energy available to dump. Or are we comparing apples and grapefruit? A better question would be, which projectile was most likely to create any wound tunnel after hitting a metal object in the enemy infantryman?s webbing pouch first. Or which projectile was most likely to create any wound tunnel after penetrating wood before striking the enemy infantryman. No unless you deliberately shoot a lot of people in a controlled environment, you cannot prove any rifle calibre is superior to another. You can only produce theory. In infantry on infantry combat it is more important to cause casualties than to actually kill the enemy. Therefore things like over penetration are irrelevant, an excess of energy is not a problem. Hundreds of years of research has proved some simple physics. You can?t do damage without energy. No energy, no damage, no wound tunnel. Pretty simple really. The more energy the bigger the wound channel can be. Simple physics. Don?t forget you have to compare apples to apples. So you are comparing the same projectile type, hitting the same object, at the same place, at the same angle. The energy of a moving body depends on it?s mass and velocity. Sample calculations: 7.62 NATO: Projectile weight: 9.3 gm, 144gr FMJ Typical muzzle velocity: 835 m/sec Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity ½*9.3*835*835 = 3,242 joules 5.56mm M193: Projectile weight: 3.56 gm, 55gr FMJ Typical muzzle velocity: 1005 m/sec Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity ½*3.56*1005*1005 = 1,797 joules 5.56mm M855: Projectile weight: 4.02 gm, 62gr FMJ Typical muzzle velocity: 885 m/sec Energy at muzzle: 1/2*mass* velocity*velocity ½*4.02*885*885 = 1,574 joules Therefore 7.62 NATO has more energy at the barrel than 5.56. Therefore it is capable of doing more damage if it is using the same projectile type, hitting the same object, in the same place, at the same angle, at the barrel. Apples to apples. Can you offer any reasoned argument that disproves this logic? The US Army did not adopt 5.56mm because it is more effective than 7.62 NATO. It adopted it because they believe it is effective enough out to 400m. It is lighter and it is cheaper to manufacture and transport. I say again, it was not adopted because it was more effective! If it was more effective than 7.62 NATO, then why has it not replaced 7.62 NATO MGs on AFVs? If the US Army was convinced it was more effective they would have replaced the MGs on AFVs! No, 5.56 is not always better than 7.62 NATO!

' Easy, you have not presented any evidence -- and all I have ever seen is anecedotal. ' There is no unequivical evidence about this. The only way to prove the effective range of any weapon is to take a large number of people of all shapes and sizes and get them to stand at the range you are testing and shoot them. This would have to be done for all ranges you are testing. And I think a through test would probably take about a month. Then onto the next projectile weight, shape & type. Then it would be on to the next weapon. Thank God no one has done it! The only truely unequivical way to prove weapon efficency is to shoot people, in a contolled environment. Sorry, but a model is just a model, nothing else. This leaves physics, which although is not unequivical prove of weapon efficency, is based on data from other experiments over hundred of years. Which tells us that after the projectile has left the muzzle it starts to slowdown. The rate of deceleration is inversely proportional to the momentum of the projectile, mass multiplied by velocity. Nothing can be destroyed, or moved, without the application of force. The more energy available in the projectile the more damage can be done. Everthing else being equal. The energy available in the projectile is proportional to it's energy, mass multiplied by velocity squared. In military terms we don't need to kill the enemy, only injure him. So if some of that energy is waisted it doesn't matter. As I think you have pointed out the 62gr 5.56mm projectile seems to be more effective than the 55gr. This tends to support the bigger the projectile the longer it takes to slow down theory. ( as shown above ). The 7.62 NATO projectile is heavier again and so takes longer to slow down. Making it more effective at longer ranges. Indeed if you calculate the energy of 7.62 and 5.56 projectiles you will see that 7.62 tends to have more energy. Which makes it theoretically more effective. If you have a look further back in the discussion you will see that people who have used both in combat tend to believe 7.62 NATO takes the enemy down more quickly. In military terms killing power is not as important as stopping power. Casualties rather than fatalities. ' please give the armies of the world credit for not all being idiots without at least presenting some evidence. ' The US Army did not change to 5.56mm because it is more effective that 7.62mm NATO. Since about half way through WWII theorists started to note that the range at which infantry tend to fight is rarely farther than 400m. The then currently used ammunition ( 7.92, .303, .30 06 ) were all effective at ranges much greater than this. The first army to fielded a weapon which was designed to be effective at 400m and not much were was that of Germany. They developed the assault rifle, one that fires a less powerful round, which was therefore cheaper to produce and transport. After that war the Soviets followed suit and developed the 7.62mm short. While NATO counries did not. They addaped 308 Win as 7.62 NATO. Which although not as powerful as 30-06 is still effective at ranges far inexcess of 400m. I think it was so the infantry man's rifle would be using the amunition as the GPMG. The Soviets fielded more types of MG than NATO, developing LMGs that fired 7.6mm short. Around about the time of Vietnam the US Army decided to change to assault rifles. Rather than full powered rfiles. 7.62 NATO is effective far in excess of 400m, the maximum range that an infantry man tends to fight. They adopted a cartridged based on .222 rem, 5.56mm. This was not because 5.5mm is more effective that 7.62 NATO, it is because it is lighter, cheaper to produce and cheaper to transport. They traded firepower ( on a shot by shot basis ) for economy and a saving in weight. Again this is discused earlier in this discussion.

Someone is simply stiring. I cannot believe that anyone can seriously say the 5.56mm is always more effective that 7.62mm. The argument about ammunition weight has some validity, but to say that 5.56mm is always superior is untenable. Arguments about bullet placement are irrelevant. The simple fact is that penetration depends on the momentum of the projectile. And damage caused is proportional to the amount of energy available to be dumped in the target. Arguments about over penetration are also spurious as wounded are a bigger drain on the resources of the enemy than dead. How can you account for the observable fact that it takes more than double the hits to drop an enemy soldier with 5.56mm?

I'm sorry but what a stupid statement! " The 7.62 is not an ineffective round, it is just not as deadly as the 5.56 of either variety. " How can this be! 7.62mm NATO delivers more momentum and more enery to the target. How can it be less effective! If you are talking about diferent kinds of projectile, then you are talking chalk and cheese! In military use it is normally a FMJ. And all FMJ break up in a similar manner. Regardless if the projectile tumbles or not, the wound channel for a 7.62 mm is larger than than of a 5.56mm at the same range. As for imperical evidence people who have used both in combat report that one 7.62 NATO stops where as two or more 5.56mm are needed.

Does the increased digitization and transmission of data over the battlefield give the enemy an increased opertunity for direction finding and hence locating your forces? Also how about increased risks of interseption and decode of information? Just what are the increased oppertunities for enemy Sig Int?

A weight advantage for 5.56 over 7.62 Nato? If it takes twice or three times the hits over 7.62 then a 5.56 round would have to be half the weight of 7.62 or less for there to be an advantage. And I'm pretty sure it is not. I believe that individual weapons should be effective at normal section ranges, normally considered to be 400m. I personally think 5.56 is a little light for that until about 5 hits. Section, platoon, company and sniper weapons need to have a greater effective range and I believe 7.62 NATO or bigger are a must. Having said that it makes sense for an infantry section weapon to use the same round as the individual weapons. How about 7.62 short? Is that a good individual weapon round?