Shooting moving targets - automatic vs semi

[Dietrich]

What AKD said.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Not at all Steve. It was adversarial and looked to me more like inquisition than inquiry.

I read and reread all the posts leading up to this accusation of yours. I still don't see where you were attacked even remotely. You posted an opinion, dismissed others', and then (for a while) walked away. You are free to do that, of course, but understand that for a conversation like this to work it has to be a little more involved than "I told you so, that's all you need to know".

So I shut down rather than get involved in yet another flame war which always end up ad hominem with one side getting all the leeway to say anything and the other, whichever YOU happen to disagree with, getting the moderation.

My original response to this has been removed out of consideration that I promised I'd take this offline if the conditions for ban lifting were violated.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Back to the original topic...

Yup, I think we're all in agreement (since the beginning) that full auto at point blank range can have advantages over single (aimed) shots and even semi-auto. Maybe not much an advantage over mechanical burst fire, though. So as AKD said, unless there's an indication that CM consistently doesn't reflect this then there really isn't an issue to be discussed since the game and reality mesh. And if there is an apparent problem, then we need to delve into the specifics and figure out where it is off and where it isn't.

As for the semantics thing... it started off as a perfectly valid correction to keep the conversation (which was already not well defined) from getting even more confused. Having AKMs referred to as "sub guns" does, indeed, confuse things. Dietrich's post a few pages ago summed that up well. It was not meant to deflect having a good discussion, it was intended to actually encourage a good discussion. Now that we know Adam was talking about 40m and less, well sure... AKMs and MP5s are probably not all dissimilar, even though an AKM is still not considered a member of the same class of weapons as a MP5 (or other sub guns).

Putting a target out of action is, as has been said a few times already, not a sure thing even with a heavier caliber round. AKD had it mostly right... shutting down the CNS is pretty much the only way to be sure the target can't respond. The other is to cause enough damage to the muscle/nerves directly involved in firing a weapon that it can't be used effectively. A solid hit to the shoulder, shattering and tearing up everything going down to the shooter's arm, could do that for example. But the point is well taken that much of the perpetual ammunition debates we see so regularly frames things in extremes. Such as 5.56 or 9mm won't shut down a target and a 7.62 or .45cal will. Obviously it is situationally dependent and there are no guarantees. But the theoretical argument that more jewels increases the chances of taking the target out of the fight does seem to have some merit (practical difference or not).

That being said, there are more than a few combat vets out there citing first hand stories of hitting a target multiple times and having no apparent effect. It's anecdotal, of course, but these stories do apparently have traction.

An example of that is the US Army is about to upgrade their M4s to have heavier barrels, more powerful rounds, and the capability of firing full auto. I think it's a complete waste of money and I think it will be yet another expense that will be undone with yet another big expense afterwards to replace the M4 entirely (the last attempt at that was a disaster for the Army and taxpayer, a boon for defense contractors). There appears to be institutional amnesia about why full auto was got rid of after years of combat experience in Vietnam.

Steve

[Praetori]

So now all we need is a video in-game of an SVD having more effect on moving targets at less than 40 yards than, say, a PKM. Otherwise this whole thread is pointless.

^^this tbh^^

[acrashb]

That being said, there are more than a few combat vets out there citing first hand stories of hitting a target multiple times and having no apparent effect. It's anecdotal, of course, but these stories do apparently have traction.

The stories are credible. There are documented (on videotape) cases of persons with their circulatory systems totally destroyed (as in: you can see light through the chest cavities) continuing to fight for over ten seconds. More than enough time to shoot a few more good guys.

Bottom line, for an immediate / quick stop, it's CNS tissue damage through crushing or tearing - and that's about shot placement. Bleeding-out is a fine mechanism at longer ranges, not so much up close and personal.

You mentioned mechanical damage to limbs. This works - in martial arts it's called "taking away their weapons" - but is unreliable in CQB because it's tough to do that kind of fine aiming. AFAIK, at most some CQB guys are trained to shoot a hip girdles if center-of-mass shots don't work (presumably due to body armour). A broken hip girdle won't necessarily stop the fight, but it will make it possible to leave the area / take cover without pursuit.

[acrashb]

When you unload a M4 or M16 inside the average house the rounds will most likely go straight through walls and keep on going. This is apparently not as much of a problem with something like 9mm.

[...]

Something like a .45cal pistol round, apparently, hits with enough force that the target is less likely to continue fighting after even an extremities hit.

On the first, akd had already noted it's incorrect - debunked some time ago, but counter-intuitive so it keeps coming up. To debunk it here in a visual manner, here's a pic of wound cavities after going through two layers of drywall. Note that the pistol rounds are both hollowpoint - the hollows clog with drywall and turn into nicely-penetrating round-nose FMJ. On actual FMJ (military ammo) the penetration would be the same or better. As mentioned, CQB is now almost universally done with 5.56 carbines:

On the second, LMAO! Not at you - it's a common myth - at the situation of the myth. Like the bad guy at the end of a crummy movie, it juts keeps springing back to life. Since the awesome "stopping power" of the 45 is such a durable myth, I will address it with humour: here we see a pictorial of the true issues surrounding pistol cartridges.

And finally, since we all know (contrary to my recent post about CNS damage) that 5.56 doesn't cut the mustard, here is the only way to ensure a prompt cessation of hostilities. It is even better than full-auto, it's a continuous beam (this puts the thread back on target, as it were):

[dan/california]

The Marines seem to be having the same debate.

http://kitup.military.com/2010/11/infantry-automatic-rifle-could-replace-all-saws.html?wh=wh

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I for one am happy to have some counter claims to the "stopping power" arguments I constantly see. They always smelled a little... unsound to me. Especially when you introduce elements such as fanaticism and drugs into the mix. We all remember Terminator when they theorized the windshield was smashed by someone on PCP who "wouldn't feel it for hours"

Whenever I've read debates between the smaller and larger round factions I have seen the same sort of uncompromising "best case" scenario methods used in such nearly religious type arguments. The small caliber group argues more rounds + lighter load = more effective soldiers. The big caliber group argues larger size + greater range = more kills. The small caliber side says Iraq is the new norm for combat, the larger caliber side says Afghanistan is the new norm for combat. Each sides' arguments are, of course, tailored to arrive at a specific conclusion that is apparently already decided and not up for debate.

Personally, I see this being the same sort of design compromise argument that we get with mobility vs. armor, cost vs. capability, etc. The real world sneers at extreme positions, so it is unlikely that either of the pure arguments really reflect reality. It's going to be somewhere inbetween.

What I think appears to work best is MOSTLY what we have now. You have light, semi/burst automatic weapons which are primarily used at short ranges. This allows infantry to carry more rounds for the weight, which means they are more sustainable in a firefight, long march, etc. Vehicles of some sort accompany foot infantry pretty much all the time. These vehicles have heavier, long range weapons that can provide support at greater ranges. Ranges, I might add, where the both vehicles and infantry are usually not under significant threat. Therefore, overall I think the smaller rounds are the better way to go UNTIL someone figures out how to work caseless ammo into the mix so as to give a larger round capability without a net weight gain.

The debate between the Marines and Army is about range more than stopping power. The Marines emphasize individual rifle skills and they have their tactics built around them. For this they use a longer barreled rifle and not a short barrel carbine. They are also less likely to have significant armor support so there is that as well. It's an interesting debate, but to me it's more about making sure doctrine and weapon are in synch rather than one being right or wrong.

What I do find wrong is this new move by the Army to try to make the M4 into a M249...

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-service-rifles-getting-big-upgrades.html?col=1186032325324

Steve

[MikeyD]

The fun thing about CMSF is we can test out our theories with different weapons mixes to see how they fare in a given situation.

I recall working on a scenario for the Brit module. I had substituted U.S. inf while waiting for Brit inf to arrive. When I finally swaped-out Yanks for Brits I then had to completely rework Red AI tactics because the long-barrelled L85A2 and L86A2 were knocking down Syrians at ranges that M4 carbines simply couldn't match. Similarly, in CM:Afghanistan I'm finding the old Enfield's ability to pierce walls during a firefight put my AK-74 guys at a disadvantage when exchanging fire between buildings but the rifle's of little use when the Russians burst into the room with guns blazing.

[akd]

http://www.military.com/news/article/army-service-rifles-getting-big-upgrades.html?col=1186032325324

Steve

I find the "upgrade" aspect of this story somewhat misleading. M4s will simply be switched to M4A1 standard, which has been in use for years. Ambidextrous controls would be a bit of an upgrade, but I don't remember seeing this mentioned before.

I suppose if we consider the burst-fire M16A2 an "upgrade" to the full-auto M16A1, then the Army's M4 inventory is actually being downgraded!

[silverstars]

I don't how much of a bad idea upgrading the M4s to full-automatic is. As Steve said there is a lot of evidence that it leads to wasting ammo. But then again most of that evidence was coming out of a war involving draftees and marked decrease in professionalism in the Army from 1969 lasting all the way into the early 80's.

Nowadays, our 11-Bravos are some of the most highly trained and disciplined in the world. We are a professional army in every sense of the word. And while giving the Full-auto M4s to the rear echelon types might be a bit much, I think giving our front-line troops an option which every lowly AK-toting insurgent has available isn't THAT much of a crime.

[dan/california]

A lot of the underlying debate is being driven by conditions specific to Afghanistan. The most significant of which is that it is perhaps the most inhospitable places on earth for vehicles of any description. Therefore the U.S. is fighting there without the vehicles that are a major part of its underlying doctrine. This is twisting the debate about the necessary range of the infantry platoon's weapons into rather large knots.

I still haven't quite recovered from finding out that here is no railroad in the entire country. Is there ANY place else that doesn't have at least some rail transport?

[Praetori]

Whenever I've read debates between the smaller and larger round factions I have seen the same sort of uncompromising "best case" scenario methods used in such nearly religious type arguments. The small caliber group argues more rounds + lighter load = more effective soldiers. The big caliber group argues larger size + greater range = more kills. The small caliber side says Iraq is the new norm for combat, the larger caliber side says Afghanistan is the new norm for combat. Each sides' arguments are, of course, tailored to arrive at a specific conclusion that is apparently already decided and not up for debate.

Steve

That's why I've argued (for years) that 5.56 and 7.62 should be swapped for 6.5x55mm or 6.5x68mm (which is truly awesome imo).

[Battlefront.com]

I find the "upgrade" aspect of this story somewhat misleading.

I took it to mean that they are hauling the M4s out of the field/inventory and reworking them. No matter what they do to them, at that point, it's an upgrade. Whether it's to a new standard or, as you say, pretty much an existing standard is immaterial. It also is an "upgrade" in the sense that existing TO&E will be adjusted a "new" weapon that wasn't allocated prior to this program.

But as has been said many times before by many people... we tend to equip and train to fight the next war based on the war we're in, not the war we're likely to fight next. The problem now is nobody can say what the next war will be.

Fighting in tribal areas of Pakistan will look nearly identical to Afghanistan, therefore if everything is tailored to Afghanistan now then we'll theoretically be all set. But if we have to fight an amphibious and airborne assault on Taiwan to take it back from the Chinese... well, let's just assume that would be a tad different

Which, BTW, is an interesting way to think of CM:SF2...

Steve

[akd]

That's why I've argued (for years) that 5.56 and 7.62 should be swapped for 6.5x55mm or 6.5x68mm (which is truly awesome imo).

Then we're right back with ammo the size and weight of .30-06.

[Praetori]

Then we're right back with ammo the size and weight of .30-06.

Which while still a bit off topic worked well for our grandfathers in two world wars. :cool:

edit: Damit, now I really got a craving for CM:N

[Noltyboy]

That's why I've argued (for years) that 5.56 and 7.62 should be swapped for 6.5x55mm or 6.5x68mm (which is truly awesome imo).

Sounds strangely similar to something people came up with in 1945.

.280 British intermediate cartridge

[akd]

I still haven't quite recovered from finding out that here is no railroad in the entire country. Is there ANY place else that doesn't have at least some rail transport?

Okay, now way off-topic, but Afghanistan does have a small amount of rail transport and some aid has crossed the border by rail. There are a number of countries with even less rail or none at all:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_transport_network_size

Interesting info here:

Amir Abdul Rehman, ruler of Afghanistan between 1880 and 1901, banned railways and the telegraph from entering Afghanistan, in case they were used in any British or Russian invasion. Rehman commented “there will be a railway in Afghanistan when the Afghans are able to make it themselves” and said “as long as Afghanistan has not arms enough to fight against any great attacking power, it would be folly to allow railways to be laid throughout the country.” Rehman forbade his subjects from travelling on the British line to Chaman,5 which he described as “a knife pushed into my vitals.” The Afghan army produced a manual on how to destroy railway tracks in the event of an invasion threat.6

http://www.andrewgrantham.co.uk/afghanistan/

Sounds strangely similar to something people came up with in 1945.

Neither of those are intermediate cartridges. 6.5x55 was Swedish military rifle cartridge for many decades beginning in 1891, and the other was a magnum hunting cartridge made to fit the Mauser 98 action.

Which while still a bit off topic worked well for our grandfathers in two world wars. :cool:

edit: Damit, now I really got a craving for CM:N

Because we won the war? I guess it depends which side your grandfather was on.

[vincere]

The account of 7.62 (M240) specificly being used I'd heard from a buddy who heard from a buddy. But here's some related links:

Strabbing said his platoon found five locations with stockpiles of needles and adrenaline. "My guys put five [machine gun] rounds into a guy who just stood there and took it and then took off running," he said

http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/13/world/fg-iraqdrugs13

At 5:00 they start talking about US Army Staff Sergeant David Bellavia in some insane house to house fighting with drugged insurgents

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzVHWnB3_is&feature=related

There's a lot of similar accounts from Fallujah.

Cheers Ryujin. I read Bellavia's book and some good others about Fallujah. I'm a little suprised that I hadn't joined the dots up from this to the 5.56 inferiority issue.

[Noltyboy]

Neither of those are intermediate cartridges. 6.5x55 was Swedish military rifle cartridge for many decades beginning in 1891, and the other was a magnum hunting cartridge made to fit the Mauser 98 action.

Sorry thought it was a reference to the 6.5mm Grendel and the 6.8mm Remington SPC. Its been a long day and im tired.

[JonS]

Since the awesome "stopping power" of the 45 is such a durable myth, I will address it with humour: here we see a pictorial of the true issues surrounding pistol cartridges.

lulz

(stupid min post length limit :mad: )

[flamingknives]

What exactly is 6.5x68 supposed to do? That's one heck of an action length, for which you might as well have a .338 (8.6x70)

6.5x55 is a Mauser cartridge, so you might as well have 7.62x51mm.

If you want to replace 5.56 and 7.62 you might as well go for a properly thought-out intermediate cartridge like a .280 or .276. Maybe paired with an 8.6mm machine gun at company level.

[vincere]

Fighting in tribal areas of Pakistan will look nearly identical to Afghanistan, therefore if everything is tailored to Afghanistan now then we'll theoretically be all set. But if we have to fight an amphibious and airborne assault on Taiwan to take it back from the Chinese... well, let's just assume that would be a tad different

Which, BTW, is an interesting way to think of CM:SF2...

Steve

Bone. When are the screen shots?

Regarding the 5.56 or 7.62 is better debate. It started to look to me that squad weapons are becoming less standard. And that if we look at the brit and US there is a kind of a micro level combined arms mix going on. That seems to me to be the right way forward with a similar rationale as mult-cam.

That is, no one weapon is perfect for all sitations so compose squads/platoons with a healthy mixed bag of tools.

So a British section may have 5.56 SA80s with 40mm GL, LSW, and minimi. Pluse 7.62 GPMG, and Sharpshooter. Plus it may have attached or close by sniper and engineer attached.

And like Steve said wherever possible vehicles with GPMG, .50s and GMGs.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[ChrisND]

Steve

Replied via email.

Please delete this account and all my forum posts.

Too bad for you I saw that post before you edited it. Death threats ain't cool, especially over something as silly as an internet forum.