climber@sol.UVic.CA (11/21/89)
From: <climber@sol.UVic.CA>
I have noticed a lot of discussion concerning the relative merits between
weapons of a smaller caliber (like the M-16) and larger weapons (7.62 or
9 mm). In addition, some have argued against flachette based weapons
because if its relative lack of hitting power. The argument I hear
most often in support of flachette or smaller calibers is that the idea
is to wound, not kill, the enemy soldiers. The theory is since it requires
additional resources to take care of him and because of the expected fast
nature of a potential war, wounded soldiers do not come back into the fight
before its over. This would appear to support smaller weapons that have
great accuracy and long range as their primary design concerns.
Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved
(like some soldiers)? How do they feel? I myself would probably want
to take a weapon with long range ability for any open European fighting
but a heavier weapon for any close fighting (like cities or jungle)
where the hitting power prevents any 'returns from the dead'.
Craig climber@sol.UVic.CA
____
vroom /____\----
~~~~~ \oooo/ disclaimer: the usual
-----\
\ HETZER POWER!
\ paulf@mcnc.org (Paul Damian Franzon) (11/22/89)
From: Paul Damian Franzon <paulf@mcnc.org> > From: <climber@sol.UVic.CA> > > I have noticed a lot of discussion concerning the relative merits between > weapons of a smaller caliber (like the M-16) and larger weapons (7.62 or > 9 mm). In addition, some have argued against flachette based weapons > because if its relative lack of hitting power. The argument I hear > most often in support of flachette or smaller calibers is that the idea > is to wound, not kill, the enemy soldiers. The theory is since it requires > > Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved > (like some soldiers)? How do they feel? I myself would probably want > to take a weapon with long range ability for any open European fighting > but a heavier weapon for any close fighting (like cities or jungle) > where the hitting power prevents any 'returns from the dead'. > As an infantry officer I use direct fire weapons for two purposes: 1. To obtain what we call `mission kills'. This requires killing enemy soldiers, wounding them or making their systems ineffective. 2. Suppress the enemy so that he can't fire (because doing so will expose himself to my fire.) 1 requires: a. penetrating a steel helmet and messing up what is inside at up to about 300m (or more if possible) b. accurately and quickly firing a single shot out to about 300m to hit a man in the body while the firer is under the stress of combat. c. In jungle or cities being able to (i) bring your weapon quickly to bear and being able (ii) to penetrate bushes/trees and brick masonry and still achieve a mission kill. 2 requires: a. Reasonably accurate firing out to about 600m b. Sufficient ammo to keep this up for the time required (up to 30min.) The current M16 has the following limitations: o Iron sights makes 1b difficult o The round can not do 1c(ii) (dont know about 1a) 7.62mm round have all the penetration and accuracy requirements, except o weapon weight means more strength is required for 1b o weapon length makes 1c(i) difficult o round weight makes 2b difficult The nations currently using 7.62mm weapons are moving to 5.56mm weapons with optical sights (not scopes with cross hairs -- eg. The Steyr has a 1.5X optical sight with circle for sighting.) I understand that the new 5.56mm rounds have many of the penetration properties of the old 7.62mm round (anyone out there know for sure? I know it can penetrate helmets but I dont know about its foilage/tree/brick penetration ability.) I have the current comments on the M16 o Properly maintained (ie. cleaned at least twice a day, as any good infantryman will do) it is as good as most other rifles of the same physical age. o Its inability to penetrate foilage was always mucched laughed at by non-US forces in Vietnamn. o I believe that the new M16A2 is outclassed by weapons such as the Austrian Steyr and the British indivdual weapon. However I doubt if the US forces will buy foreign. And a final comment: o Most of the small arms firepower of the squad lies in its automatic weapon(s), not in its rifles. (Even in the US this was 7.62mm until the new better 5.56mm round came in.) The rifleman's job is to hold and take ground and to protect the automatic weapons, amongst other things. Paul Franzon Captain Royal Australian Infantry
borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) (11/24/89)
From: bnr-di!borynec@watmath.waterloo.edu (James Borynec) In article <11597@cbnews.ATT.COM>, climber@sol.UVic.CA writes: > Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved > (like some soldiers)? How do they feel? Personally, I like to carry a weapon with stopping power. The army has lots of weapons with long range and lots of stopping power. They are tanks, guns, airplanes, helicopters, etc ... The infantry has their machine guns for long range stuff. You should not deploy the infantry in places where they need to shoot their weapons more than about 200 meters. Therefore I would argue that stopping power is more important than long range. j.b. -- UUCP : utzoo!bnr-vpa!bnr-di!borynec James Borynec, Bell Northern Research Bitnet: borynec@bnr.CA Box 3511, Stn C, Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4H7
jacob@cd.chalmers.se.chalmers.se (Jacob Hallen) (11/24/89)
From: jacob@cd.chalmers.se.chalmers.se (Jacob Hallen) > From: <climber@sol.UVic.CA> > > I have noticed a lot of discussion concerning the relative merits between > weapons of a smaller caliber (like the M-16) and larger weapons (7.62 or > 9 mm). In addition, some have argued against flachette based weapons > because if its relative lack of hitting power. The argument I hear > most often in support of flachette or smaller calibers is that the idea > is to wound, not kill, the enemy soldiers. The theory is since it requires > > Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved > (like some soldiers)? How do they feel? I myself would probably want > to take a weapon with long range ability for any open European fighting > but a heavier weapon for any close fighting (like cities or jungle) > where the hitting power prevents any 'returns from the dead'. > A very important factor in selecting a 5.56 mm weapon to succeed 7.62 mm ones is the training time. It takes 20% of the time and ammo to train an infantry soldier to a comparable level using the 5.56 mm rifle. In a conscript army like the Swedish one there is precious little time and money to spend on each soldier (7 months is the normal time) so with less time needed for basic training we can improve training in other areas which in turn improve the survivability of the soldier. When logistics are concerned, it is a very great advantage to have a single type of small arms amunition. A 5.56 weapon is so light that you can equip officers, hospital personell, motor cyclists etc with it. The caliber of a round is a rather small factor in the type of wound it makes. Speed at impact and the stability of the round are much more important. Here in Sweden we shoot pigs so our doctors can train wartime surgery. The wounds I have seen from the AK4 (7.62) and the AK5 (5.56) are very much the same, with small entrance holes and severe shock damage around the bullet path. The m/45 SMG (9 mm) produces less shock damage, but the exit hole is often quite large. The M16 produces uneven results. Sometimes the bullets go right through with very little damage and sometimes they tumble on impact, making such a great mess that there no point in trying surgery. In a streamlined system where lots of people are trained in a short time and where uniformity of equipment is important you can't supply the infantry man with the best weapons for each different surrounding. Good enough will have to do. Jacob Hallen
davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) (11/25/89)
From: davecb@nexus.yorku.ca (David Collier-Brown) In article <11597@cbnews.ATT.COM>, climber@sol.UVic.CA writes: > Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved > (like some soldiers)? How do they feel? As a certified coward, lousy shot and ex-infantryman, I'd like a weapon with 1) reasonable penetration for house-to-house fighting 2) stability-of-round for use in wooded areas 3) commonality of ammunition with the section lmg, and 4) accuracy for aimed fire at groups of persons at light-mg ranges. The last is a bit contentious: I'm talking about accuracy at above 300 yards, the maximum range at which **I** can reliably hit a kneeling-man-shaped target. I claim that at that range or longer I and my fellows can get enough rounds into a larger area to make it inadvisable for enemy to pour out of a carrier in the usual "clot". This means that something other than just the section lmg & company mmgs can be used to force the attacker to dismount at long range and advance on foot. In the attack, the extra accuracy is of little use. In defense, its valuable. This tends to imply a heavier, clumsier weapon, and a bit heavier ammunition load. Alas, war is as much about making tradeoffs as cs is. --dave -- David Collier-Brown, | davecb@yunexus, ...!yunexus!davecb or 72 Abitibi Ave., | {toronto area...}lethe!dave Willowdale, Ontario, | Joyce C-B: CANADA. 416-223-8968 | He's so smart he's dumb.
det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) (11/27/89)
From: det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG (Derek E. Terveer) > From: <climber@sol.UVic.CA> > [..] How do they feel? I myself would probably want > to take a weapon with long range ability for any open European fighting > but a heavier weapon for any close fighting (like cities or jungle) > where the hitting power prevents any 'returns from the dead'. Hmmm, I was under the impression that the european theatre would not be considered "open". Isn't it europe (in the german area, specifically) that there is an average of one town/city every 1000 meters? That seems to indicate that the only open fighting would occur in the 1000 m between towns (that are frequently filled with forest, etc). derek -- Derek Terveer det@hawkmoon.MN.ORG || ..!uunet!s5000!hawkmoon!det work(612)681-6986 voice(612)683-0413 data(612)683-0516