What happened to AKM lethality?

[flamingknives]

http://www.theboxotruth.com/

It's silly, but it's fun and quite informative.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6760530260633420235

The USMC shoot things.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Taki]

Re: Is every bullet counted?

Yep! It wasn't in CM1, but in CMSF we count 'em all. Even so, it takes an enormous number of bullets expended to cause each enemy casualty in real modern warfare (on average). Of the top of my head I remember estimates for this from Vietnam and it was something literally in the tens of thousands of bullets fired for each enemy hit.

Thx for the Info. So is there an Abstracted Hitpoint System for Soldiers (X Bullets on Target = Dead) or is it "Bullet hits, penetrates Body ARmour SOldier Wounded/dead"?

[JasonC]

Total energy of the round is a remarkably poor predictor of the penetrating power of small arms ammunition against any sort of material barrier, because the rate determining step is not a matter of having the oomph to get through, but bullet integrity.

Very high velocity bullets striking (1) sandbags (2) water (3) stone or brick walls - will all fragment rapidly, long before the distances the round could penetrate if it remained intact are reached. The bullet is melt dust within inches of impact, most of its mass reduced to sand size particles and the largest the size and thickness of your pinkie's fingernail. The bullets simply can't withstand the stresses placed upon them by the energy of the penetration.

In sort, there is "shatter gap" in spades for small arms vs. cover. This is why single walls of sandbags routinely stop rifle rounds, and double walls of sandbags can stop heavy machinegun rounds. Wood buildings will not stop either, but masonry, even "medium" masonry rather than thick reinforced concrete, routinely can.

[Michael Dorosh]

Of(f) the top of my head I remember estimates for this from Vietnam and it was something literally in the tens of thousands of bullets fired for each enemy hit.

I think it is worth pointing out a few things:

a) not all bullets are fired with the intent of hitting a human target

not all bullets need to hit a human target in order to help win a firefight or further the achievement of an objective

c) not all bullets are fired within the same context as a CM-scale battle - quite possibly whatever statistic you are quoting is including such things as helicopter ordnance, for example, which would not be of much use in determining small arms effects

The quote from Vietnam I see most often is the amount of HE tonnage it took to produce an enemy casualty, not the number of bullets fired, but either way, by 1968 an increasing proportion of infantry weapons in Vietnam were capable of automatic fire, and the use of same was used just as much (? more?) for suppression rather than penetrating cover or inflicting casualties. Pictures of Americans in Hue or Saigon using the "spray and pray" method of firing over walls kind of bear this thought out. Images of Canadians doing the same thing in Afghanistan 40 years later testify to the notion that things haven't changed much today.

[JasonC]

From the Marine corps "machineguns in urban terrain" guide

"b. At 50 meters, the 7.62mm ball round cannot penetrate a double layer of sandbags. It can penetrate a single layer at 200 meters, but not a double layer. The .50 caliber armor piercing round does only slightly better against sandbags. It cannot penetrate a double layer but can penetrate up to 10 inches at 600 meters.

c. The penetration capability of the 7.62mm round is best at 600 meters. However, most urban targets are at the 200 meter or less range.

d. The penetration capability of the .50 caliber round is best at 800 meters. For hard targets, the .50 caliber’s penetration is also affected if the gun is fired from an oblique position at the target. Both .50 caliber armor piercing and ball ammunition can penetrate 14 inches of sand or 28 inches of packed earth at 200 meters if the round impact perpendicular to the flat face of the target."

Note the best penetration ranges are quite long, not point blank. This is a typical shatter issue. At the point blank ranges, the bullets are failing. At longer ones, they may retain integrity longer through the penetration process and thus get through more material before being stopped.

But all are well below theoretical distances you'd get from e.g. the energy of a 50 cal vs. a 5.56 or 7.62. In fact the 50 cal doesn't even double the penetration ability of the 7.62 vs. something as tough on the bullet as sand.

In water tests, a 50 cal fired pointblank is dust within 18 inches of the water surface. This illustrates the operating principle as well as can be imagined. Shatter will be the dominate issue as long as the bullet speed is transonic for the speed of sound within the material. A subsonic bullet is dissipating energy ahead of the trailing parts of the bullet by wave propagation through the medium. A transonic one is "riding" "ahead" of its sonic boom, and the metal simply can't take it.

[JasonC]

Barrier elements that will stop a 5.56mm at point blank, give the above -

a single layer of brick veneer on a building face

2 inchs of concrete, unreinforced

a single layer of sandbags

a car body

18 inches of water

Unless the intention is to model Syrian buildings as mostly wood, I submit the protection buildings (and potentially also field fortifications) afford is seriously unrated by the internal model figures given. Probably particularly so for the higher caliber weapons e.g. 50 cals. Yes those are better at penetrating than carbines, but no, not remotely as much better as the near-certainly figures given above. Not if buildings are stone or concrete, or even equivalent to sandbags of moderate thickness.

[Battlefront.com]

Presently CM rates both the "old" and "modern" rounds very low in terms of penetration. Charles took a look at this and decided to make the 5.xx rounds even less able to punch through buildings. This will hopefully get the two classes of personal small arms to where they should be (i.e. neither doing much penetrating).

Steve

[Battlefront]

Thanks to flamingknives for the video link, it had a lot of good stuff in there. Also to JasonC for the insights from the USMC guide.

I have made these changes to the CMSF building penetration model, which you will see in the upcoming v1.08. I also updated my earlier post in this thread to reflect the changes.

</font>

• Versus buildings, all small arms projectiles include high-speed shatter as part of the penetration calculation, so you'll notice a "shatter gap" in the updated data. I had to estimate a lot here, since there is little hard data to go on.</font>
• 5.56mm x 45 (used by the M4A1 rifle) is additionally reduced in penetration capability due to its especially high tendency to fragment on impact.</font>
• Versus buildings, larger projectiles (e.g. .50 caliber) do not provide quite as much extra power as one would expect from normal armor-penetration behavior.</font>
• I made an error yesterday when translating the CMSF data to some of the percentages I posted. The error was not in CMSF but in the way I reported it. That's corrected in the updated post as well.</font>

[dima]

Originally posted by Battlefront:

I have made these changes to the CMSF building penetration model, which you will see in the upcoming v1.08. I also updated my earlier post in this thread to reflect the changes.

</font>

• Versus buildings, all small arms projectiles include high-speed shatter as part of the penetration calculation, so you'll notice a "shatter gap" in the updated data. I had to estimate a lot here, since there is little hard data to go on.</font>

Charles, I must say, the turnaround time for you implementing these kinds of features is phenomenal!

[John Kettler]

flamingknives and Steve,

Box O' Truth is indeed a find. Consider, for example, how this reflects what I said earlier about the stability of the originally varmint cartridge derived M16 round. These days, though, maybe it's more appropriately classed as a spitzer design.

Deflection (good stuff)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot40.htm

Concrete block (severely under documented)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot6.htm

Shooting at windshields from outside (great)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot2.htm

Rifles vs car doors (fantastic)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot4.htm

Pistols vs car doors (good)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot3.htm

M16 vs. engine (excellent tactical analysis)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/buickot7.htm

The Mother Lode! (grog heaven!)

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/theboxotruth.htm

Had seen the Project Metropolis video before, but it's every bit as pertinent now as it was then.

Steve,

If you haven't seen the Box O' Truth stuff yet, you definitely need to block out some time. There's a ton of stuff there which'll help you get a handle on the issue.

Also, I just found some info on the 5.45 mm x 39 cartridge for the AK-74. Per Isby's WEAPONS AND TACTICS OF THE SOVIET ARMY:

Fully Revised Edition, p. 412, the bullet has an unhardened steel insert which moves forward on impact. Page 413 reports penetration of a 3.5mm thick NATO test plate at 555 m, twice the distance of an AK-47 firing ball. Since there's no AP for the AK-74, this is a straight up comparison of penetration for two key weapons and should prove most useful. The same page notes that the AK-74 is the loose equivalent of the U.S. M193 in terms of penetration.

JasonC and Michael Dorosh,

Appreciate your inputs!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

Also, I just found some info on the 5.45 mm x 39 cartridge for the AK-74. Per Isby's WEAPONS AND TACTICS OF THE SOVIET ARMY:

Fully Revised Edition, p. 412, the bullet has an unhardened steel insert which moves forward on impact. Page 413 reports penetration of a 3.5mm thick NATO test plate at 555 m, twice the distance of an AK-47 firing ball. Since there's no AP for the AK-74, this is a straight up comparison of penetration for two key weapons and should prove most useful. The same page notes that the AK-74 is the loose equivalent of the U.S. M193 in terms of penetration.

AK74 has AP rounds.

http://club.guns.ru/eng/barnaul.html

and here good comparsion of AK47 and AK74 with different steel materials and various ranges. for standart and AP rounds.

http://world.guns.ru/ammo/am05-e.htm

[John Kettler]

Secondbrooks,

Gloriously groggy, superbly illustrated and useful to the nth degree! Judging from the tone of the first article, these are new developments, whereas even the fully Revised Edition of Isby was published in 1988. Unfortunately, the geniuses at site one failed to provide a copyright date! Happily, we can at least bracket the date via site two, which was so kind as to provide the latest new AP cartridge data for the AK-47 and the AK-74, thus permitting an apples to apples comparison.

Gold mines for the devs!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Zwollo2003]

That is going to change the way MOUT is played in the game a lot.

With stats like 0% chance of penetration in the 0-100m range, tactics like staying in one building shooting at people in the other will not work anymore. You will either have to gain entry or throw grenades through windows. I wonder how well this is simulated in the game, currently there is limited opportunity/incentive to test it, as everybody inside is usually dead before the attacker closes to grenade range.

Additionally, the Syrians might gain an important advantage through the use of RPG. If small arms become ineffective, the only useful squad weapon is going to be the HEAT/HE - firing weapon, and the US ones are noticeably weaker (some said weaker than IRL).

Which all of course means the balance in the current scenarios might be profoundly affected. Big job ahead for the betatest team!

Zwolo

PS. One caveat - I assume that the current (high) level of small arms lethality vs defenders in buildings comes from the ability to penetrate walls, rather than shooting through windows/doors. If most of casualties are caused by bullets entering through windows the effects of reduced penetration are not going to be that big. BTW - is the possibility of a bullet entering through an empty window but then ricocheting inside and hitting someone taken into account at all?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Secondbrooks]

John Kettler

Was that to be taken with negative or positive tone? I'm picking somekind hostility, but this ain't my sharpest day (i'm refering to my IQ) so i try not to make too hasty conclusions :eek:

There are names for various AP-rounds, some-great-google-hero just needs to start digging deeper from internet by using those names... I'm too lazy and too ignorant to do that

Well, yeah. That was quite irrelevant info for our Syrian side as Syrian generals might be able to provide these kind bullets just to their SF-troops, rest of their army has to stick with old stuff.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[thewood]

But isn't that the concept behind combined arms in MOUT. When you can't get to a building and clear it, you blast it. I thought that was one of the objectives of the MGS Stryker.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[SgtMuhammed]

Originally posted by thewood:

But isn't that the concept behind combined arms in MOUT. When you can't get to a building and clear it, you blast it. I thought that was one of the objectives of the MGS Stryker.

Even that might not work.

3-15 INF

This is an account of the fighting by 3-15 INF during OIF. Read about the fighting on Objective Curley (Pages 5 - 7 especially). The enemy had occupied a large building near the American position and was using it as a base of fire. After repeated attacks by 25mm and direct lay 120mm mortars the fire slacked a bit but never stopped. And the building didn't collapse either.

Short of blasting a building off the map with a 2000lb Air Force bomb the only way to really clear a building is to go in and take it.

[ March 09, 2008, 06:54 AM: Message edited by: SgtMuhammed ]

[YankeeDog]

Wow, what customer service. . . Thanks to BFC for a quick response in this one. I had read some stuff about the shatter gap with small arms rounds, but wasn't aware just how extensive it was.

What's really interesting about this change in the data is that small arms penetration of structural materials actually goes up for most kinds of rounds as the range gets longer, to a point.

So it's going to make long overwatch positions much more advantageous.

Given my love of saturating buildings with 7.62mm and 12.7mm fire before sending infantry in, I guess I'll have to make sure those heavy weapons teams are at least 200m away from the target. . .

Cheers,

YD

[John Kettler]

Secondbrooks,

I have ZERO idea how you got anything hostile from what I said, for I'm absolutely convinced that those two links you posted are grog gold. Maybe you confused my withering comment on the failure of the webmaster at link one to provide a copyright date on the page/the author's failure to include a publication date with some attack on you, but there was no such intent. It's just that in evaluating data, it helps to know its age. Clearly, the Isby stuff that I quoted has now been overtaken by a series of new ammo developments, but not only am I thrilled to have it, I'm passing it along to a friend who designs man-to-man/low level tactical wargames, for it'll be gold to him, too. The kind of info you dug up was hard to come by during my threat analyst days. Certainly, we didn't get advance word on developmental cartridges for Spetsnaz, let alone new sniper rifles!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

SgtMuhammed,

Terrific battle account! It felt like part of it was familiar to me, and sure enough, the fight at Objective Curley included that set of amazing video sequences in which an American soldier on a stretcher is firing his M16 as he's hauled away and the other in which the burning ammo truck is heroically moved away from the main position by a very brave soldier.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request