Weapon effectiveness curiosities

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[YankeeDog]

Well, I'm not sure I agree with your statement that shotguns are a better close-quarters weapon for inexperienced users than a military assault rifle. Unless you're talking about a sawed-off shotgun (which militaries generally don't use and has other drawbacks like very low penetration), in most close-quarters situations, the shot column doesn't have enough distance to spread out appreciably -- even with the choke fully open, shot from a typical 12-gauge doesn't really start to spread out until several dozen feet from the muzzle. So shooting across even a large room, I don't think you're much more likely to hit a human-sized target with a snap shot from a shotgun loaded with buckshot than you are with an assault rifle or pistol.

Shotguns also have a much smaller mag size, take much longer to reload, and have much larger recoil than assault rifles, meaning that if you do miss that first shot (or waste it on a shadow or rat), you're worse off than someone carrying a high capacity mag assault rifle -- with the assault rifle it's easier to get off a second burst faster, you don't have to reload as often, and it's easier to reload.

I suppose you could argue that the "street sweeper" type military shotguns with a higher mag capacity and ROF might be best, but from what I understand these weapons are quite finicky, difficult to reload, high recoil, etc. So I'm not sure they're a very good weapon for an inexperienced shooter, either.

Police sometimes like to use shotguns in close quarters because (a) unlike a high velocity AR round, the shot column is much less likely to shoot through-and-through, go through a wall, and hit and innocent bystander, and ( the high mass that a shotgun throws is much more likely to knock down a perp, preventing the real crazies (perps on angel dust etc.) from getting a shot off after being hit. My understanding is that military units carry them more for breaching than they do for actual CQB shooting.

In any event, speaking as someone with no military experience and moderate civilian firearms experience, I'd prefer to have an AK-47, AR-15, or even a good high-capacity 9mm semiauto in an interior gunfight over a shotgun.

As to other stuff, I'm no expert, but from everything I've read, there certainly are differences IRL. AK-47s were basically built to be idiot-proof and keep firing after all sorts of abuse, so I'd expect inexperienced units to be better of with AK-47s since they might not maintain their weapons as well. On the other side of the spectrum, larger weapons like GPMGs are probably quite a lot to handle in a fast-moving, close-range fight, so I'd expect inexperienced units to see a bigger drop of in firepower when using this kind of weapon in this kind of situation, and highly trained units should probably be much more competent at using such a weapon by firing off the hip, etc.

As to whether CM models all this, I have no idea. Experienced units are certainly much more effective close-quarters fights, but the structure of the game, and the inherent randomness of combat make it very hard to draw any conclusions about exactly how individual firearms are modeled in the game.

Cheers,

YD

[mike_the_wino]

In any event, speaking as someone with no military experience and moderate civilian firearms experience, I'd prefer to have an AK-47, AR-15, or even a good high-capacity 9mm semiauto in an interior gunfight over a shotgun.

Same background, different take. I like the AK-47 and the AR-15 but don't think that inside of a structure they would be all that great. Gimme a 9mm pistol, or, if money is no object, a MP5. Even on full auto that beauty is easily handled. My ex, who had no firearm experience, had no problem with that little gem.

[JP76er]

As far as civilian use of a shotgun for protection, it's normally recommended to use 7 1/2 shot low brass shells. This will & can kill but the main thing is next to no penetration through walls where you can hit loved ones. It also gets the attention of the intruder & hopefully they exit quickly wounded instead of slowly in a body bag. I have heard several different round combinations being used for protection. In Illinois, to hunt, you can only use a shotgun with a plug limiting you to a three round capacity. I'm not sure what the law is for protecting your home. I'm assuming it's the same as hunting in case the police ever have/need the opportunity to check your firearms. I've heard using 7 1/2 first round, same second round & Double 00 buck for the final. I've also heard of using a deer slug in there but that is pretty insane. You don't need it & it will penetrate a lot of house hold items including your neighbor's. I use a 9mm myself & pray I never have to use it in this type of situation. We're lucky to live in an upper middle class neighborhood & have had few problems. We also have an alarm system. Doesn't mean it won't or can't happen in my neighborhood though. Nothing is promised. As far as military, I don't know. I would prefer an automatic weapon.

[Secondbrooks]

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?

[Sgt Joch]

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.

[acrashb]

In theory, this should give the AK-47 armed infantryman an edge over the NATO soldiers in close combat

This would only be the case if the terminal ballistics were markedly superior. They aren't - bigger is not always better.

Comparing SS109 with Russian M43 or M67 side-by-side, the permanent wound cavity is much larger on SS109.

If close combat is also about quick follow-up shots, rapid acquisition of new targets and so on, then the SS109 has the edge - less recoil.

In any event, the AK47/74 etc using a slightly larger round than NATO forces has nothing to do with close combat effectiveness.

[Sgt Joch]

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.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[StrykerPSG]

Hi

long:

In CMSF and most would agree in real life as well I think, the lethality of one weapon or another varies less between the actual weapons themselves and more according to the skill of the user. An M16 is about as effective as an M4 in relative terms compared to a sniper or a raw recruit handling the same weapon.

You are right that the differences between the M4 and M16 are more cosmetic, as far as ballistics go, there is some difference, but not significant. The Marines for a very long time kept the M16 because they often trained in longer range marksmanship (and because funding wasn't a priority for the M4) in the 400 meter range and thought the M4 was less accurate at the same range and simply aesthitic in value. However, what a carbine offers is the ability to quickly manuever your weapon in CQM and close quarters in general. It is much more challenging to be as effective with a long rifle in confining spaces versus a carbine. Since CCO's (Close Combat Optics) are standard fare for all combat arms units, many incorporate the ACOG which when sighted in, is very capable of the long range shot. In addition to the CCO's, the SBCT's (and I am quite sure the other BCT's do as well) place a huge emphasis on squad level marksman equipped with a scoped M4 or M16A4, depending on MTOE. It is curious to note that many armies are opting for carbine/bullpup designs to replace their standard rifles.

Basically, in answer to your statement though, much does depend on the inidividual. We historically spend a high percentage of time on basic and advanced marksmanship. This historically makes many of the NATO/SEATO and US militaries stronger in the small arms arena. When conversing with Arab, former eastern Bloc and Communist Asian military leaders, they do not dedicate the same emphasis on the rifleman. Matter of fact, many expend less then a few hundred rounds over that service members commitment in training.

There are some exceptions I think, but I'm not sure. The exceptions are what I'm interested in. An example: shotguns for inexperienced handlers in close quarters are much more effective than rifles or hand guns because the weapon allows you to basically point in the general direction of the threat and hit it. Nerves affecting your aim aren't really going concerns anymore. So at least across the threshold (horizontally) of inexperienced users, a shotgun is much better than a rifle in that situation.

We only used shotguns to blow hinges off the door frame. Shotguns are generally inaccurate and lack enough stop power at range. As has been stated before, there is also greater concern with regards to collateral damages. While there is an arguement about the psychological impact of a shotgun indoors, an 5.56 or 7.62 round fired inside a confined space is just as mind numbing. As far as nerves affecting aim, with the amount of CQB drills we do with live ammo, that becomes almost a non-issue

Is the AK-47 special in any way, for example, either for a specific kind of soldier/user or for a specific situation? (In CMSF... in RL)

Thanks for any thoughts.

In my opinion, the AK can be a superior weapon with regards to durability and simply lacks a windage adjustment on the rear sight aperature. I have seen a few countries attempt to modify the AK (Finland, Israel, South Africa and Czech) but these do not see much export. Generally AK's truly suffer from lack of a user that has ample time behind the trigger. Having said all of that, the M4 has transformed into a much more lethal system than the original AR15.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, small arms are pretty similar from a wargaming perspective. This was true in WW2 as well when looking at similar types of firearms, so I'd say this has been the case for at least the last 100 years. Big differences come into play at either an individual level (for example, some are left hand friendly most are not) or are compensated for through training. Other differences have to do with maintenance and parts requirements, which make a huge difference strategically but might not make any impact during a firefight.

The other differences are generally smoothed out by numbers and/or unit weapon mix. If you look at a typical Syrian squad and a typical US or British Squad you see the same type of mix at roughly the same numbers. This was not true in WW2 since nations were still trying to figure out what the best mix of weapons and size of their squads should be. By war's end a more-or-less optimal size of 9 men with 2x LMGs (automatic rifles) and the rest automatic rifles was arrived at by pretty much all sides and it hasn't undergone much change since.

I think the weapons that really set units apart are things like grenade launchers and "boom sticks" (AT-4, RPG-18, LAW, etc). All sides have access to similar weapons, so it's more an issue of who is actually carrying them and how many do they carry.

Steve

[acrashb]

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.[...]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16#Comparison_of_characteristics

In whose theory? The pictures you posted support the fact that the 5.56 has a larger permanent wound cavity - the opposite of your statement. The SS109, 5.56x45mm, is as or more lethal than the M67, 7.62x39mm. Some newer 7.62x39, per the article you've quoted, is better-designed with respect to terminal ballistics. How much of that is in the field in current (or hypothetical Syrian) conflicts? And where are the ballistic gelatin cross-sections to support the improved terminal ballistics claims?

Regarding hard cover, the 7.62x39 has a slight edge wrt concrete-block walls and the like - but the wiki article you quoted, casting doubt on the lethality of 5.56 through "doors" and "vehicles" is out to lunch. 5.56 is lethal through any normal door or vehicle; "deflection" is no more of an issue than for larger calibres. Ref "Exterior Ballistics Of The AR-15 Rifle" by Robert F. Cross, 1963.

[Sgt Joch]

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.

[MikeyD]

I've not been able to reconcile the scientific data on 5.56 wounding with those old anecdotes heard from the Falklands war of Brit soldiers feeling compelled to to pick up discarded Argi 7.62 FN rifles in preference to their 5.56 FNs and M16s. One (exaggerating) comment was the advance couldn't have been sustained without those 'recycled' 7.62 FNs. Along a similar line was the rush shipment into Iraq in 2004(?)of ancient mothballed 7.62 M14s in an effort to bolster Army Reserves firepower (here's an excuse to post a pict!)

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Keep in mind that the 7.62 x 51mm round used in the M14 and the FN FAL is different from the 7.62 x 39mm round used by the AK-47 and AKM.

[akd]

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.

There seems to be some poor information in that article. M67 does indeed have better terminal performance, but this is not because it is an "upgraded" round or because it has better velocity. M67 is simply the Yugoslav version of M43 and uses a bullet of different design that leads to earlier yaw.

It then goes on to talk about terminal effectiveness of "recently developed" Wolf HP ammo. 1.) These are not "recently developed" bullet designs, but simple hunting bullets, and 2.) in a comparison of the rifles as military weapons commercial expanding ammunition is irrelevant.

The original 7.62 x 39 mm Russian M43 Type PS 120.5 gr FMJ boat-tail bullet has a copper-plated steel jacket covering a large steel core and a typical muzzle velocity of 2340 f/s. In tissue, it typically travels approximately 9.8 to 10.6" point forward before beginning significant yaw. Most uncomplicated wounds of the torso and extremities have small punctate entrance and exit wounds and exhibit minimal internal tissue disruption since the bullet does not deform or fragment and usually exits before yaw occurs. Total penetration is around 29.1”. WDMET (Wound Data and Munitions Effectiveness Team) collected extensive forensic data on over 700 7.62 x 39 mm gunshot wounds during the Viet Nam war. The predominant feature of this cartridge is the MINIMAL amount of damage it produces in soft tissue wounds, on par with FMJ handgun wounds such as those produced by 9 mm M882 ball. We also have extensive law enforcement data, as this cartridge has been used extensively in illicit activity. For example, in the 17 January 1988 Stockton school shooting, 30 of 35 kids who were shot lived. Of the five that died, all were shot in critical structure--head, heart, spine, aorta and none had damage to any organ not directly hit by a bullet.

However, not all 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ bullets are of the original steel core construction. Significantly increased tissue damage is produced by the early yaw seen with several 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ lead core bullets, including:

-- Yugoslavian M67 124 gr FMJ, flat based, copper-jacketed, lead core bullet which travels only 3.5" in tissue before yawing

-- Chinese (PRC) 7.62 x 39 mm 123 gr FMJ, copper-jacketed, lead core bullets which begin their yaw after only 2 to 2.5" of travel in tissue.

-- Czech and several types of Western commercially produced lead core 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ yaw within the first 2 to 3 inches of travel in tissue.

In both uncomplicated extremity and torso wounds, the very early yaw of these lead core 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ bullets allow the projectiles to travel sideways through the body, substantially increasing permanent tissue destruction and temporary cavitation effects compared to the standard 7.62 x 39 mm Russian M43 Type PS 120.5 gr FMJ. These early yawing lead core 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ bullets cause wounds very similar to the 5.45 x 39 mm Russian M74 53 gr FMJ bullets, however, the larger size of the 7.62 x 39 mm bullets results in a bigger permanent cavity compared to 5.45 x 39 mm bullets.

The differences in terminal effects seen in recent combat with 7.62 x 39 mm FMJ wounds can likely be explained by the different terminal effects caused by the various types of FMJ construction.

When one moves to a expanding/fragmenting design in 7.62 x 39 mm, terminal performance is significantly enhanced. The best 7.62 x 39 mm loads we have tested to date are the Winchester 123 gr JSP (X76239) and the Lapua 125 gr JSP. Out of a 16” barrel they perform somewhat like lightweight .30-30 loads:

http://www.ar15.com/content/page.html?id=310

Penetration and terminal effectiveness do not go hand in hand. If a bullet does not yaw or fragment before passing through a target, it will have little wounding potential. If it has too little penetration, then it may not reach vital areas. This means there is band of optimal penetration, which is nonetheless highly dependent on circumstances.

When M855 fragments after sufficient penetration, it is far more effective than M43, but m855 is not designed to fragment and results are highly variable. More recent heavy loads like Mk. 262 fragment more consistently over greater ranges.

Little of this is relevant to CMSF. I see only two points worth note:

1. If there are intervening barriers, e.g. walls, 7.62x39mm is superior to 5.56mm.

2. All other things being equal, the unit armed with 7.62x39 weapons should run out of ammo sooner than the unit armed with 5.56 weapons.

[cyrano01]

I've not been able to reconcile the scientific data on 5.56 wounding with those old anecdotes heard from the Falklands war of Brit soldiers feeling compelled to to pick up discarded Argi 7.62 FN rifles in preference to their 5.56 FNs and M16s. One (exaggerating) comment was the advance couldn't have been sustained without those 'recycled' 7.62 FNs. .....

My recollection is that the British were using SLRs at the time, essentially an FN FAL without the ability to fire fully automatic. The Argentine FN FALs retained automatic fire hence the tendency for them to be picked up.

[StrykerPSG]

I've not been able to reconcile the scientific data on 5.56 wounding with those old anecdotes heard from the Falklands war of Brit soldiers feeling compelled to to pick up discarded Argi 7.62 FN rifles in preference to their 5.56 FNs and M16s. One (exaggerating) comment was the advance couldn't have been sustained without those 'recycled' 7.62 FNs. Along a similar line was the rush shipment into Iraq in 2004(?)of ancient mothballed 7.62 M14s in an effort to bolster Army Reserves firepower (here's an excuse to post a pict!)

The M14's were brought on board for the squad designated marksman. This person's role was as an overwatch (counter ambush) and engage the longer range shots. The only times we ever used the M14's in a regular fight is if they were already part of your loadout when you exited the vehicle, otherwise stuck with M4's. Most of the M14's have been replaced by either the M24 or M16A4 (w/scope and free floating barrel mod).

[Secondbrooks]

The other differences are generally smoothed out by numbers and/or unit weapon mix. If you look at a typical Syrian squad and a typical US or British Squad you see the same type of mix at roughly the same numbers. This was not true in WW2 since nations were still trying to figure out what the best mix of weapons and size of their squads should be. By war's end a more-or-less optimal size of 9 men with 2x LMGs (automatic rifles) and the rest automatic rifles was arrived at by pretty much all sides and it hasn't undergone much change since.

I don't find info supporting this. US had two BARs as BAR was insufficent giving firepower needed. MG42 was very well sufficent. Today why two LMGs and such is favored is more idenpendent teams able to support each of other in more flexible manner. During ww2 it was more situation based and the team without LMG wasn't as able to provide firesupport to enable LMG-team to start moving.

Also after ww2 11 guys was considered to be optimal (after typical casulites it got to 9). 4 guys tied to BARs, while rest providing close combat ability. More interesting now days is the fact that there seems to be quite lot of questionicing is todays 9-men squads being far too overpowered when it comes to firepower, and far too underpowered (after casulites) when it comes to CQB capacity and also inability to work in teams. 4 guys wiedling LMG/SAW or greandelauncher, 1 leading, four riflemen... When few guys gets taken away, riflemen's number gets lower as firepower rulez and it has to be maintained... Then again riflemen should provide best CQB capacity. So basically what we would have here is former riflesquad acting now as weapons-squad... Heck i don't know, we still use concept of one LMG (because of "no money"-issues or because of studied facts i dunno).

To make it clear i don't care is rifle M16/M4 or AK the thing i'm interested more is: Does rifle have anykind bonus in CQB. Does it make soldier to perform better at some situations compared to guy armed SAW or rifle+M203 (and sh*tloads of grenades)?

Does weight affect to CQB capacity?

[acrashb]

the russian round penetrates to 26" while the NATO round stops at 12".

As AKD points out, penetration is not the whole story. On top of that, most people aren't 26" thick, so, mostly, the extra penetration is wasted.

On the whole two things make for a quick stop: first and foremost is shot placement, which has essentially nothing to do with the round and everything to do with the weapon/user combination - training and/or experience extensive enough to have muscle-memory guided hits to the centre of mass.

Second, permanent wound cavity (which, along with the increased use of body armour on the part of the bad guys, is why most entry teams have abandoned 9x19 and moved to 5.56x54). The 5.56, due to terminal effects, typically has a quite large perm wound cavity compared to any 7.62x39 FMJ round, making it more likely to crush or tear vital tissue, all else being equal. These effects are more reliable at close ranges (higher velocity), which is what we're talking about.

CMSF relevance? As someone pointed out, 5.56 penetrates hard cover - brick / concrete / etc walls - relatively less well. Even here, a three-round burst of 5.56 will penetrate cinderblock just fine with lethal results on the other side.

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.

[MikeyD]

Most of the M14's have been replaced by...

I had noticed that 'official' Army photos of patroling soldiers carrying M14s had gone the way of extemporized Humvee armor. The Marines, I think, are fielding a heavy-barrel full auto M-16-ish weapon, the IAR, to replace the Marine SAW which my Marine nephew at least despised.

What the heck, any excuse to post another M14 pict, this with fancy commercial stock:

[Clavicula_Nox]

To make it clear i don't care is rifle M16/M4 or AK the thing i'm interested more is: Does rifle have anykind bonus in CQB. Does it make soldier to perform better at some situations compared to guy armed SAW or rifle+M203 (and sh*tloads of grenades)?

Does weight affect to CQB capacity?

If the game could simulate the influences of adrenaline overdoses, then I would say "No", weight shouldn't come into play once the unit triggers that overdoes; otherwise, I would say "Yes", weight should definitely affect your abilities to fight at close range.

[Sgt Joch]

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.

[flamingknives]

Defining bullets 5.56mm and 7.62mm calibre is not meaningful unless you also define what sort of cartridge is propelling it. Otherwise you might end up confusing a Kalashnikov round with a NATO round.