question re: mp40 mp44 (not just CM related)

[forgotmypassword]

There has been some discussion regarding mp40 and mp44 weapons. I also noticed from the cmhq uniform section that different squads have representative weapons e.g waffen vs mountain troops (which is totally cool BTW, thanks BTS). From these I gather the mp40 smg has the straitght mag and the mp44 assault rifle??? has the curved mag. the mp40 has been give a 40m firepower of 36 and mp44 give 30 by BTS.

What I'm curious about is what are the differences in these weapons?

-ammuntion, ROF?

-tactical employment?

-why is one mp40 generaly deemed 20% more effective?

-ease of training/manufacture.

-the number designation is year of introduction, yes?

In addition what are the defining characteristics of a smg vs assault rifle? Is it that smg uses pistol ammo and assault rifle uses rifle ammo? And if so what makes ammo pistol ammo?

Sorry for all the questions. Answers or links to other references equally appreciated.

[Formerly Babra]

Well, an MP40 is a basic submachine gun. It fires a 9mm pistol bullet. It is useful for short range spraying fire. Some SMGs can be set to single fire (not sure about the MP38/40), but they aren't particularly accurate or useful like that.

An MP44 fires a more powerful rifle calibre bullet (7.92mm?) and can be set to semi-automatic or full auto. It has good stopping power and accuracy at range.

EDIT: (Gotta remember to read the whole post before jumping in to reply). Pistol ammo usually has a larger calibre than rifle ammo, but is a lot shorter and packs a lot less punch. It doesn't have the range of a rifle bullet.

The number does indeed indicate its year of introduction.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[This message has been edited by Formerly Babra (edited 06-08-2000).]

[Mark IV]

They are vastly different.

MP44 fires the 8mm Kurz (7.92 short), a real rifle bullet of intermediate power, similar (and supposedly inspirational to) the 7.62x39 Soviet. It was much more powerful than the 9mm pistol bullet used by the MP40.

MP44 is long and heavy, gas-operated, and handles and aims like a rifle. MP40 is short and light, with a folding buttstock (normally used in the extended position) and more like a pistol with a flimsy stock by comparison.

MP44 was inherently more accurate and more expensive. It was a late war development, so the MP40 was much more prevalent, and due to its fold-up nature much better suited as a utility weapon for people whose primary job was something other than front line service.

Both were trendsetters in their respective classes; MP40 is one the truly great sub-machine guns, and MP44 was the first "assault rifle". MP44 was far more effective as a weapon for infantry general issue, but there were a heckuva lot more MP40s around, and they were good enough for gubmint work.

They had about the same cyclic rate and there would certainly be situations (forests, crews) where an MP40 would be desirable. Shorter and lighter meant more quick handling, the blowback design was a little more dirt tolerant, and the ammo was interchangeable with other common weapons. Mainly it was cheaper and had been around longer.

[109 Gustav]

If you can find a copy of American Rifleman magazine from Feb. 1999, it has an excellent article on the MP40 and the MP 38, an early version of the MP40.

------------------

There is nothing certain about war except that one side won't win.

-Ian Hamilton

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I'm curious about is what are the differences in these weapons?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Besides being able to shoot bullets, and do so at full auto, the two weapons pretty much have nothing in common from a performance standpoint

The MP40 is like a Thompson SMG, M3 Grease Gun, Sten, and a host of others from WWII. This type of weapon has been largely phased out of the modern army, but it is still used by police (HK makes the most widely known of these). The SMG is fantastic at short ranges. Light, compact, great "stopping power" (i.e. large caliber round), and a realitively high rate of fire. The problem of accuracy at close range is not really evident, but when you get over about 100m you will be lucky to hit the broad side of a barn This is because the bullet and the length of the barrel preclude accuracy and power beyond short range.

The MP43/44/Sturmgewehr (different names depending on the date) was the first true "assualt rifle". This is the standard form of weapon for all armies of the world today. The M16, AK47, and FN/FAL being the three most widely available. They all trace their roots back to the MP44 in some way or another. Oh, and the MP44 could fire full, semi, and single shot.

The MP44 was designed to be a combo of a SMG and Rifle. From the SMG it took the all metal, stamped parts design (wooden stock excepted ) and the full auto firepower. From the rifle it took the longer barrel and overall weight (something that is good in close quarters fighting). So the end product is something that can fire full auto with a similar practical performance (accuracy, stopping power) of a rifle.

The round had to be special. The German's first attempt at an assault rifle was the FG2 (two models). That one fired the same round as the Kar98k rifle. Too powerfull. The plume of fire that came out of the barrel, and the recoil, made the weapon very difficult and dangerous to fire full auto. It also had smaller capacity magazines and heavier ammo weight due to the larger bullet.

So they developed what is called the "kurtz" around ("short" in German). Like the gun itself, it was a combo of the SMG and Rifle rounds. The round was roughly the size and weight of an SMG round, but had a smaller pojectile and more powder. This allowed the MP44 to have larger capacity magazines, more bullets per pound carried, greater range, and far better accuracy than a SMG. The range and accuracy was less than a rifle, but the Germans learned that in WWII engagement ranges had decreased from previous wars, and the greater rate of fire made up for the decrease in accuracy to some degree. And this concept still holds true today.

OK, there is the history lesson for today

So why are the SMGs slightly more powerfull at close (50m or less) range? Because the bullet packs a lot more punch and the accuracy aspect is somewhat irrelevant. But beyond that the MP44 is far superiror.

There you go!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-08-2000).]

[Formerly Babra]

I'm much too lazy to do energy calcs for rounds at short range, so I'll take your word for it if you say SMG rounds pack more punch in close.

O/T Question though: Can you describe this FN/FAL you mentioned? I used the FNC1 back in my militia days (identical to the L1 in all functional respects) and it was nothing like an assault rifle. I've heard mention of the FAL, but have yet to see one.

------------------

When I die I want to go peacefully, like my grandfather, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So why are the SMGs slightly more powerfull at close (50m or less) range? Because the bullet packs a lot more punch and the accuracy aspect is somewhat irrelevant.[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-08-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With all due respect (which is substantial, I assure you):

MP44 shoots the 7.92X33mm, a 125 grain slug (most common were steel-core types) at a nominal muzzle velocity of 2100+ feet per second. In rock 'n' roll, 500 rpm.

MP40 shoots standard 9mm 124-5 grain slugs (lead, copper jacket) at 1150+, ROF 500 rpm.

These are nominal military "standard" loads and there are jillions of variations, documented and not.

There are hairs aplenty to split here, including sectional density, foot/lbs., etc., not to mention Krummlaufs...

BUT: MP/StG 44 round (7.9 Pistolen Patronen 43 S.m.K) packs a much bigger punch from 0 to infinity than any 9mm Parabellum family member, by any standard I can think of. It would also have less muzzle climb in bursts due to longer barrel and overall weight, plus some buffering due to gas operation (OK, that's another hair) but generally tighter patterns.

I welcome informed opinion to the contrary. There actually is a case to be made for larger diameter rounds expending more energy in the target, err, subject, due to increased resistance, but no way does it offset something in the neighborhood of a 1000 fps difference for the same weight bullet.

I will grudgingly grant some reduced emphasis on accuracy under 40 meters, but "more punch" is a little tougher...

[Guest Big Time Software]

The size of the slug that comes from a 9mm bullet is a LOT bigger than that of the Kurtz round. I have one of each on my desk in front of me The stopping power of the .45 is even greater, which is one reason why GIs said they didn't mind toting around the heavier Thompson and M1911 pistol. And I am no ballistics expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I would expect the Kurtz round would have a better chance of going right through while the 9mm would have a higher chance of smashing up something vital.

I might be wrong on my use of "FN/FAL". I have never really quite figured out that familiy of weapons. FN stands for Fabrique National (or however it is spelled!) of Belgium. I think the FN/FAL was just one offspring? That is about where my knowledge of the gun ends. As you might guess, my collection of "modern" firearms books isn't very good compared to my WWII collection

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Whoops... I actually do have some more info here...

FAL stands for Fusil Automatique Leger. This is the actual familiy of weapons that can be found all over the world. I guess when I have seen it written out as FN/FAL it is specifying that it is the FAL design of FN. FN made a number of other types of weapons other than the FAL family.

Steve

[Mark IV]

As the 7.92 Kurz round goes right through at 1000 fps faster than an equivalent weight 9mm, it is deforming to an extent, causing a greater temporary wound cavity and imparting way more momentum to the subject.

These are highly controversial statistics, in that the relative efficacies of temporary vs. permanent wound cavities, imparted energy, and penetration vs. diameter, are hotly debated by ballistics geeks way past anything I want to get involved in.

But they are debates about handgun ammo vs. other handgun ammo. The comparison between 7.92 Kurz and 9mm Parabellum is a pretty big jump. One real measure of bullet damage is foot/pounds.

7.92x33 = 1224

9mm = 370

... based on muzzle velocities.

You could quite realistically take your StG44 deer hunting (minimum acceptable for humane sporting purposes on a whitetail is about 900 ft/lbs), but not your 9mm.

The FBI study on wounding ballistics data is available at http://www.geocities.com/~captain_s/terminal/woundingfactors.html and some of it falls into the same category of reading material we had here for the effects of gas. In other words, it's pretty cool if you're into that sort of thing, but a trifle sanguine.

Then there are the steer and pig studies...

If you think about it, most humans go down right away when they are hit, unless they are taking things that weren't widely available on the front in WWII. "Stopping power" is more the concern of the police officer at 3m than infantry at 40m.

Hitting ability is more important to infantry and the StG44 is a big winner here- it hits as much up close, and it hits more way further away. But what it hits, it hits harder.

[Zamo]

Technically, and in the best hair splitting fashion, the FAL is NOT an assault rifle, but a Battle rifle. The difference being that an assault rifle fires an intermediatly sized cartdrige while a full battle rifle fires a full sized rifle cartridge. MP44, AK47, M16=assault rifles. M-14,G3,FAL=battle rifles. There are few nations still fielding full battle rifles these days as their main infantry weapon, the trend having long ago shifted to the lighter assault rifles, with their lighter ammo. If the ammo weighs less, grunts can carry more of it. More ammo, more bang bang.

The FN/FAL, the British L1A1 (and I think it was also known as the SLR?), the Canadian C1, the Austrian Stg-58 and the South African R1 are all the same rifle simply made under license at different places. There is some cosmetic and finish differences between them, the biggest being some are metric and some are inch. It was the most widely used rifle in the free world during the cold war. The FNC is the reduced size, 5.56mm firing evolution of the FAL.

Hope this helps,

Zamo

[:USERNAME:]

I have fired 9mm weapons with similar barrells as MP40 and ALOT of soviet AK and SKS weapons. Once we fired against a bunch of saw blades. Thick mothers for cutting heavy stuff, maybe 1/8inch thick. AKs punched right through. 9mm kind of splattered. (M16s drilled perfect round holes through multible blades..)

No doubt about it in my mind. MP44 should have been THE standard firearm of the wermacht in 1944.

Lewis

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Hitting ability is more important to infantry and the StG44 is a big winner here- it hits as much up close, and it hits more way further away. But what it hits, it hits harder.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

After experiencing first-hand the relative advantages/disadvantages of machine pistols (UZI) vs assault rifles (AK-47) in combat conditions, the above is pretty much the reason the Israelis developed the Galil (yet another descendant of the SG44).

But on the calibre of the round vs muzzle velocity issue, during "Goat School" (don't ask!) we fired standard 5.56mm ball and teflon-coated "green tip" rounds into a few tin can eating four-leggers. The standard round tended to deform more on impact (and as it met resistance from denser bone), thus gouging a wider track of destruction before blowing a hole out the other side. While, by comparison, the teflon-coated round (designed to punch through flak vests, etc) could zip through (relatively) unnoticed.

"Accidently" shot a goat twice this way, because the goat stayed standing after the first shot passed "clean" through. There is a disadvantage to too high a muzzle velocity at close range, especially with a rifle round.

A smaller, larger calibre round, designed to mushroom on impact (like the .45) -- especially when sprayed liberally -- could wreak more havoc up close than a 7.92.

But if you've got a 7.92mm firing weapon, why get up close, eh?

As it is, larger calibre assault rifles went out of style because it was determined that most soldiers could'nt hit a damn thing anyway, so by going to a smaller round they'd be able to carry more ammo and increase the length of time they could lay suppressive fire on a target.

Disclaimer: PITA members take heed: We saved most of yr furry friends' lives (must have been the tin cans in their guts!) later on in the OR portion of the class...

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 06-09-2000).]

[Kurtz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So they developed what is called the "kurtz" around ("short" in German).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, "short" is spelled "kurz" in German.

[Mark IV]

Overpenetration is a big problem with high velocity bullets, especially on dangerous game. Ideally you want the slug to expend all of its energy in the target.

EXCEPT...

This may raise an eyebrow, but most enemy infantry in CM does not qualify as "dangerous game" in a ballistics sense, except in a bayonet charge. They are usually not charging you with horns lowered, where time-to-destruction of the central nervous system in milliseconds is vital to survival. Any solid hit puts the man out of action and gets a little red cross on his squad stats.

Police officers face "dangerous game" with handguns at close range, so much study has been devoted to shutting a druggie down in minimum time with handgun ammo.

But tactical military rifles need to penetrate a wide variety of materials if they are to achieve their goal of "any solid hit". In the Huertgen, or the woods in CE, the far greater penetration power of the StG44 round over 9mm means the difference between penetrating an 8" fir tree and earning the guy behind it his wound badge.

Rifle bullets will go through light vehicles, helmets, and any impromptu obstacles far better than pistol bullets, and retain enough energy to take a guy out.

I'm not sure what a "round, designed to mushroom on impact (like the .45)" means, because the military ball ammo is solid, round-nosed lead in a plain copper jacket. No "legal" military ammo is designed to mushroom (and M16 ammo is NOT designed to tumble in the human body, either. I know you didn't say that but someone usually does).

9mms and .45s are dangerous things and have their place, but there's a reason the world's militaries are mainly armed with rifle cartridges (the intermediate-sized rounds also reduce recoil over the old "big" bullets in full auto apps, creating tighter burst patterns and more effective suppression).

The Germans just had a jillion MP40s laying around, so they used them because they were there. The MP/StG44 was much more expensive to build and came along a little too late. It is kind of amazing, how long the world's most-feared military was arming the infantry with bolt-action rifles, though.

[RMC]

The m16 bullet may not have been designed to tumble but everything I have seen indicates that it does.

Same thing goes for the Soviet/Russian 5.45mm round used in the AK-74 family. Ian Hogg talks bout how when it was first employed in Afghanistan the wounds it caused were assumed to have been caused by shrapnel because the made a lot of tearing wounds.

[PawBroon]

Mark IV

The issue here is named the "neck".

With soft bullets or hunting ammo, the length of the neck (the distance between the entry wound and the point where the bullet will either splinter or tumble on it's axis)is very short because they had been designed that way.

It's to cause major STOPPING POWER.

The regular steel metal jacket ammo is made so that (as you put it) it could go unhindered through multiple obstacles and still retain some of it lethality.

Problem with those ammos are that the wounds they produce are more often than not called "transfixient".

Meaning they go strait from entry point to exit wound.

If they encounter no bones or else, they do a clean wound.

That's why many soldiers tend to refuse to wear the flak jacket while being fired at because it would just stop small shrapnel and 9mm rounds and if they took a 5.56 slug the "neck" is there as soon as the bullet exit the jacket and hit you while tumbling out of it axis.

In a game like the one we WORSHIP it's suppose to be modelled by a huge stopping power when fired on at close range by those MP and by an all out lethality for rifle slugs and MP44.

Anyway, my two cents are on the fact that even if the MP44 and MG do transfixing, the multiple stitching WILL stop you.

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[Mark IV]

Originally posted by PawBroon:

The issue here is named the "neck".

With soft bullets or hunting ammo, the length of the neck (the distance between the entry wound and the point where the bullet will either splinter or tumble on it's axis)is very short because they had been designed that way.

It's to cause major STOPPING POWER.

Not to be crabby, but can you support this with documentation? Soft bullets and hunting ammo are very specifically designed to "mushroom". Controlling expansion is vital and much R&D has gone into it. Splintering is a very Bad Thing for a hunting bullet to do; tumbling happens, but is not a design goal. Accuracy first, controlled expansion second: goals of the hunting bullet. The more weight retained by a bullet in the expansion process, the better.

The regular steel metal jacket ammo is made so that (as you put it) it could go unhindered through multiple obstacles and still retain some of it lethality.

Most military rifle ammo is copper jacketed. There most definitely were steel-jacketed rifle bullets, but they were a wartime expedient. They do not work as well as copper jackets and are VERY hard on barrels, especially machine-gun barrels. Armor Piercing MG ammunition is steel-tipped, or cored, or both, but steel jackets are not very desirable or useful. Unjacketed lead bullets are not used, by rifle hunters or soldiers, for many very good reasons.

Problem with those ammos are that the wounds they produce are more often than not called "transfixient".

Meaning they go strait from entry point to exit wound.

If they encounter no bones or else, they do a clean wound.

Which is all the military wants them to do. Hunting's demands of wound ballistics are the opposite of the military's (both in the name of humanity, curiously enough): the hunter gets the most humane (quick) kill by maximizing tissue damage, best achieved with controlled mushrooming, hence the "soft" (exposed lead) or hollow points. The soldier causes the most humane (clean) wound by simply downing the enemy- no need to tear up vitals unnecessarily- so full metal jackets (which also feed better in automatic weapons).

That's why many soldiers tend to refuse to wear the flak jacket while being fired at because it would just stop small shrapnel and 9mm rounds and if they took a 5.56 slug the "neck" is there as soon as the bullet exit the jacket and hit you while tumbling out of it axis.

Exactly. The pre-deformation of the slug caused by the jacket causes the military bullet to assume some of the characteristics of a hunting bullet.

In a game like the one we WORSHIP it's suppose to be modelled by a huge stopping power when fired on at close range by those MP and by an all out lethality for rifle slugs and MP44.

Yes, I am just splitting some hairs here. I am definitely not urging any mods to the game, and I really don't have any problem at all with the way the MPs are modeled. Given a choice, I would take MP44 every time.

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RMC:

The m16 bullet may not have been designed to tumble but everything I have seen indicates that it does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, they can, but they don't necessarily. It's a very light, elongated bullet travelling at very high velocity, so any deformation after impact will cause the wound cavity to veer, and tumbling is possible.

But the only practical way to design it to tumble would be to destroy it's in-flight accuracy.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Further points...

1. FAL is a "battle rifle" - very good point. It is withdrawn from the discussion

2. Kurz - amazing the little things we get wrong when posting in the middle of the night

3. Stopping Power - wow... good discussion. One of the main reasons I mentioned this is that I have seen this associated, specifically, with the Thomposon and M1911. The soldiers (and they are not always right, but perception is everything!) stated that they didn't mind the extra weight because one hit from a Thompson and whatever it was would be totally out of comission. In other words, a non-lethal hit from something smaller, like the MP44, might allow the victim to recover enough, quickly enough, to return fire or withdraw before the final distance could be closed. The slug from the .45 supposedly would do so much damage that this wouldn't be as likely to happen. That is their theory anyway. And as we all have seen, veteran's theories sometimes don't stand up to reality very well.

4. MP44 vs. MP40 - anybody in their right mind would take it over a MP40. No question about it. And that is exactly why I have one hanging on my wall (unfortunately, not a shooter) Two summers ago I fired both a MP38 (same as MP40 for this discussion) and a MP44. There is no question about which is a more usefull weapon in combat. The Germans recognized this as well, and that is why they intended the MP44 to become the standard weapon for its infantry. But the war was coming to a close and, thankfully from the Allies perspective, they never got the chance to do this.

Steve

[PawBroon]

Arghhhhhhh.

Posted a page long post and flushed it before it reaches the thread.

OK, MarkIV, I'll do it all over again in a few hours from my home.

For short it was a YES but I was speaking broadly in a matter of CM term.

The Expanding/mushrooming/exploding/tumbling being all the same for game purpose.

That is, stopping power at close quarter as opposed to more regular wounds reaching further.

Be ready since by then I'll have a substantiated post done by a military doctor.

lol

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[PawBroon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

But the only practical way to design it to tumble would be to destroy it's in-flight accuracy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More hair splitting before the packing for a week end.

The "tumbling" is NOT done in flight. You're absolutely right about the effect.

The slug rotates on its axis for the VERY purpose of stability and accuracy.

This tumbling is achieved by putting a different density metal inset ball somewhere in the tip of the slug.

When the penetration occurs, the bullet then have a tendency to behave in a more "lethal" way.

Which either: Twisting/tumbling/splitting/ricochetting off bones.

And more generally causing hemorragy, choc and more often than not a sudden willingness to hit the dust.

I'll have my in law who's a military doctor to either substantiate that post or whip me for not listening to his explanations.

So, to sum up, I've never forgot the fact that even if based on real world facts, we're still discussing a GAME.

My view was ALWAYS to explain why those MP38/40 were deadly at close quarter and the MP44 a "General Purpose Goody".

------------------

Either he's dead or my watch has stopped

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Which is all the military wants them to do. Hunting's demands of wound ballistics are the opposite of the military's (both in the name of humanity, curiously enough): the hunter gets the most humane (quick) kill by maximizing tissue damage, best achieved with controlled mushrooming, hence the "soft" (exposed lead) or hollow points. The soldier causes the most humane (clean) wound by simply downing the enemy- no need to tear up vitals unnecessarily- so full metal jackets (which also feed better in automatic weapons).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm neither a fire arms nor a ballistics expert, so I wade in here with a little bit of trepidation.

I have seen numerous statements from military analysts claiming that armies want munitions to cause the most grievous wounds possible, since that ties up more of the enemy's assets than a clean through-and-through. Hence "tumbling" slugs, landmines, frag. grenades, etc. As another example, I saw a recent BBC documentary (on battlefield medicine, IIRC) showing the design of a flechette-type rifle munition designed to penetrate body-armor and tumble. They also did some slow-mo footage of various rifle rounds firing into large blocks of jello (to simulate human flesh); the results were pretty grisly.

This would seem to contradict Mark IV's assertion that all any military wants is a round that will penetrate.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hakko Ichiu:

I'm neither a fire arms nor a ballistics expert, so I wade in here with a little bit of trepidation.

I have seen numerous statements from military analysts claiming that armies want munitions to cause the most grievous wounds possible, since that ties up more of the enemy's assets than a clean through-and-through. Hence "tumbling" slugs, landmines, frag. grenades, etc. As another example, I saw a recent BBC documentary (on battlefield medicine, IIRC) showing the design of a flechette-type rifle munition designed to penetrate body-armor and tumble. They also did some slow-mo footage of various rifle rounds firing into large blocks of jello (to simulate human flesh); the results were pretty grisly.

This would seem to contradict Mark IV's assertion that all any military wants is a round that will penetrate.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm, this reminds me of a rumour that I heard years ago about the real reason why the H&K G11 was abandoned. According to that it was too deadly, and the military preferred something creating the sort of rear-area havoc you get with lots of injured. No idea whether that is true. Anybody else heard of that?

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Mark IV]

No US military ammo that I know of, and certainly not our standard issue 5.56mm ammo, has a metal ball in the tip or anything remotely like it.

Flechettes aren't slugs and aren't normally fired from rifles (they do have flechette loads for 12 ga., however). Flechettes are "little arrows" (hence the name) and their purpose is to fly in a big cone, after a big explosion sets them off.

The rifle flechette you described was specialized for piercing body armor (measure, counter-measure). The purpose of the flechette was to penetrate the body armor and incapacitate the enemy. There it would make sense, since you need a LOT of foot/pounds behind a tiny point to get through the Kevlar, or whatever. Most infantry don't wear body armor, so most troops aren't issued flechette rounds.

Flechette rounds are common in modern tank ammo racks, often known as "beehives". They turn Mr. Tank Cannon into a giant shotgun, and a twist adjustment sets how far downrange you'd like it to detonate.

The little fins make the flechettes fly forward seeking human flesh. Flechette rounds are useless for anything other than troops in the open, or maybe von Lucke's goats.

The point is that this is a "specialty" weapon designed to discourage human-wave style assaults, and flechettes are far more effective in incapacitating humans than little BBs scattering about after a tank round explodes. They cover more ground more efficiently, and directionally. They are not necessarily designed to twist and turn inside people but they probably will (too bad, shoulda charged someone else's tank).

They are less devastating wound-causers than a rifle bullet. They have a completely different application.

Military weapons are designed to kill/incapacitate enemies as effectively as possible and economies are paramount. NObody is going to waste a nickel making something which is already incapacitating, a little more painful or damaging to the wounded.

The fact that projectiles designed to kinetically penetrate and damage human bodies are often gruesomely harmful is an unfortunate by-product of winning battles, which is why they are best kept on a PC.

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 06-09-2000).]