Jump to content


Photo

The Case Against A General-Purpose Cartridge


  • Please log in to reply
292 replies to this topic

#41 BabyOlifant

BabyOlifant

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 November 2013 - 1916 PM

@BabyOlifant

 

Check this:

 

http://www.frfrogspa...m/terminal2.htm

 

 Mk262 fragments after some 10 cm, which is similar to M855. So, a skinnier soldier would have more chance of being less severely wounded, even if the bullet fragments.

 

That's cool, but those two projectiles have completely different construction. So, is it that Mk. 262 is shooting a heavier pill, or that it's an OTM? More evidence is needed to validate these kinds of claims.



#42 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2013 - 0220 AM

6.8 mm SPC with OTM fragments at some 3 cm, with a similar OTM design.

 

The info you're asking might be provided only by ammo manufacturers...



#43 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,601 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Military guns and ammunition (all calibres)

Posted 29 November 2013 - 0432 AM

 

 

 

 

The smaller the bullet, the more heavily it relies upon optimum performance on impact, i.e. reliable, rapid yaw (and fragmentation for maximum effect). The bigger the bullet, the more it is tolerant of less-than-optimum performance. The 7.62mm M80 doesn't have a particularly good yaw performance judging by gel tracks, but in the recent fighting, in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of those I have heard from who have used both 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons, there is no contest - the 7.62mm is a much more reliable stopper, at any range. It is also far better at suppression, which is what most long-range fire is about.

 

 

I haven't ever seen any proof of this.

Does it shock me that M80 is a good stopper? No, it has twice as much energy as 5.56. There is no proof that performance is related to caliber or projectile weight specifically.

 

 

You won't get scientific proof, because there are too many variables, as we all know: most importantly, the exact path of and damage inflicted by the bullet, plus the physical and mental state of the target. Laboratory tests cannot replicate these factors. Gel tests are useful (because they are repeatable, allowing comparisons) but only give partial answers.

 

For proof, you need the following:

 

1. Electronic rifle sights which record the exact sight picture seen by the gunner as he fires, and can record the reactions of the target: does he drop immediately, or stop fighting, or carry on?

 

2. Recovery of the enemy bodies for autopsy, ensuring that the bodies can be matched up with the targets seen through the sights, so that the pathologists can determine which types of wound produce what kinds of reactions (this may be tactically impossible, of course, and it it won't include the ones who were hit but got away).

 

3. Repeat this several thousand times while using different calibre weapons so that the differences between them can be analysed.

 

You may then have enough data to produce definitive answers to the effectiveness of different calibres, with the reservation concerning those who were wounded and escaped (ideally, you would of course make sure they were arrested immediately afterwards so their wounds could be examined).

 

Realistically, you are not going to get this for a long time, and may never get it.

 

If the restrictions affecting expanding bullets are lifted then the experience of hunters shooting human-sized animals will become relevant, but that doesn't help while we have non-expanding bullets.

 

In the meantime, we need some basis for evaluating the effectiveness of different rounds so we can make informed choices for the next generation of weapons. The best solution at the present - and the only way of assessing real-world performance rather than laboratory results - is to interview troops immediately after each battle to record their experiences and observations. This is of course affected by subjectivity, but it's the best we can do.  And unless we field some possible GPCs and test those in combat, even that won't help with determining how the GPC will compare with the others. 

 

So we can do no better than put together real-world combat experience with gel tests of combat and experimental rounds for comparison purposes (plus shooting at animal carcasses). It isn't perfect, but it's the best we can do.



#44 BabyOlifant

BabyOlifant

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2013 - 0452 AM

 

 

 

 

 

The smaller the bullet, the more heavily it relies upon optimum performance on impact, i.e. reliable, rapid yaw (and fragmentation for maximum effect). The bigger the bullet, the more it is tolerant of less-than-optimum performance. The 7.62mm M80 doesn't have a particularly good yaw performance judging by gel tracks, but in the recent fighting, in the opinion of the overwhelming majority of those I have heard from who have used both 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons, there is no contest - the 7.62mm is a much more reliable stopper, at any range. It is also far better at suppression, which is what most long-range fire is about.

 

 

I haven't ever seen any proof of this.

Does it shock me that M80 is a good stopper? No, it has twice as much energy as 5.56. There is no proof that performance is related to caliber or projectile weight specifically.

 

 

You won't get scientific proof, because there are too many variables, as we all know: most importantly, the exact path of and damage inflicted by the bullet, plus the physical and mental state of the target. Laboratory tests cannot replicate these factors. Gel tests are useful (because they are repeatable, allowing comparisons) but only give partial answers.

 

That is not a very high estimation of what can be done with laboratory testing.

It can be done. I've outlined in my private notes what sort of experiments you might need to give a better picture of terminal effectiveness. The question is not one of possibility, but one of funding and possibly some ethical and/or political concerns.

 

Here's an example of an experiment you might run:

Shooting at live, restrained pigs connected to sphygmomanometers, heat rate monitors, ECG machines, and EEGs, counting only precise shots accurate to within a tolerance (determined by a medical professional) on a target area of the body (this could be the heart, brain, an artery, or lung, etc), a number of different rounds of ammunition, controlling for a variable (e.g., projectile weight or muzzle energy) are fired. The results from the devices are then measured and evaluated by medical professional of that specialty as well as veterinarians. Rinse and repeat for each variable you need to isolate.

Would this be cheap? No, it probably wouldn't, but it would provide a clear look at the actual dynamics of wounding.

 

If you have compelling AARs to share, would you link them for us to see?


Edited by BabyOlifant, 29 November 2013 - 0528 AM.


#45 Tony Evans

Tony Evans

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint George, UT
  • Interests:History, Science Fiction, Cinema

Posted 29 November 2013 - 0601 AM

Tony, my understanding is that an intermediate cartridge can have long-range penetration and lethality superior to 7.62x51mm, due to significantly better ballistic coefficients available in the 6mm-6.5mm calibers and higher penetrator L/D.

I say "can" because while the existence of such cartridges has been established, it remains to be determined whether any such are suitable replacements for 5.56x45mm.

There are superior intermediate cartridge replacements for 5.56x45mm, and there are superior intermediate cartridge replacements for 7.62x51mm, but finding (or creating) one to replace both seems really hard. It might not be possible. There are some very smart people trying to puzzle it out.

 

But such  a cartridge still wouldn't have the short range energy of 7.62x51mm. And the machine gun's ability to penetrate cover in urban combat is always going to be important in world full of intermediate caliber rifles and SAWs.



#46 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 29 November 2013 - 1219 PM

Tony, my understanding is that an intermediate cartridge can have long-range penetration and lethality superior to 7.62x51mm, due to significantly better ballistic coefficients available in the 6mm-6.5mm calibers and higher penetrator L/D.

 

I say "can" because while the existence of such cartridges has been established, it remains to be determined whether any such are suitable replacements for 5.56x45mm. There are superior intermediate cartridge replacements for 5.56x45mm, and there are superior intermediate cartridge replacements for 7.62x51mm, but finding (or creating) one to replace both seems really hard. It might not be possible. There are some very smart people trying to puzzle it out.

 

But such  a cartridge still wouldn't have the short range energy of 7.62x51mm. And the machine gun's ability to penetrate cover in urban combat is always going to be important in world full of intermediate caliber rifles and SAWs.

 

This is true, but might not be as relevant as it first seems. 7.62x51mm's short range lethality is overkill, which makes it exactly as deadly at such ranges as a marginally less powerful cartridge (dead is dead, and the difference in overpenetration counts for nothing).

 

Regarding cover penetration in an urban setting, depending on how much we take E5M's experiences as gospel, 7.62x51mm is already insufficient to penetrate typical adobe construction, as would .338 NM, which makes an intermediate cartridge no worse in this regard.

 

Admittedly, there might be less-solid cover in an urban environment where 7.62x51mm is just sufficient, but the GPC would fail. I do not know how common this is. Perhaps someone with urban combat experience could chime in on this point?

 

Where the USMC has taken concrete steps to improve penetration is at the low end, for their 5.56x45mm, for such things as shooting through automotive windshields at checkpoints:

 

http://www.tank-net....=12#entry979870

The GPC would grant every rifleman improved light barrier penetrating capability, compared to what they have now.

 


Edited by TTK Ciar, 29 November 2013 - 1222 PM.


#47 Sebastian Balos

Sebastian Balos

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,145 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 29 November 2013 - 1635 PM

@TTK

 

I believe you're talking abut AP ammo... Well, I don't have info about 6.5-6.8 mm, but wiki gave some info on .280 British:

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/.280_British

 

So, at smaller range, 100 yd 114 cm timber penetration for .280 and 119 cm for .30-06. At 2000 yd, the figures are 74 and 41 mm.

Airborne style helmet penetration distances are 914 and 1463 m.

 

This indicates .30-06 is slightly better at close range against timber and worse at long range against steel, .280 at longer ranges against timber. .280 outperforms .303 in timber penetration at all ranges and its slightly outperformed in steel penetration. Now, how would fare 7.62x51 against .30-06 or .303? I don't have any idea on the projectile design as well, although both could benefit from WC cores recently used... Would GPC be improved sufficiently to get it above the level of steel cored 7.62x51 I have no idea.

 

Now, could against such obstacle a 40 mm HEDP be more useful than both 7.62x51 and GPC? Another alternative would be .338 or .50 sniper rifle, as well as the new MG in .338 Norma.



#48 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,601 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Military guns and ammunition (all calibres)

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0228 AM

 

It can be done. I've outlined in my private notes what sort of experiments you might need to give a better picture of terminal effectiveness. The question is not one of possibility, but one of funding and possibly some ethical and/or political concerns.

 

Here's an example of an experiment you might run:

Shooting at live, restrained pigs connected to sphygmomanometers, heat rate monitors, ECG machines, and EEGs, counting only precise shots accurate to within a tolerance (determined by a medical professional) on a target area of the body (this could be the heart, brain, an artery, or lung, etc), a number of different rounds of ammunition, controlling for a variable (e.g., projectile weight or muzzle energy) are fired. The results from the devices are then measured and evaluated by medical professional of that specialty as well as veterinarians. Rinse and repeat for each variable you need to isolate.

Would this be cheap? No, it probably wouldn't, but it would provide a clear look at the actual dynamics of wounding.

 

 

 

Actually it wouldn't, because it ignores the issue of the physical and psychological state of a man in battle. Someone in combat, his system flooded with battle adrenaline, will respond very differently to being hit than the same person in a relaxed state. So you'd have to find a way of terrifying the pigs, perhaps by inflicting extreme pain on them, while holding them upright on their hind legs so that the bullets can enter from the front as they usually would in battle. Good luck with any attempt to get ethical approval for that. Even then, pigs and humans are not exactly the same, physically or psychologically. 



#49 BabyOlifant

BabyOlifant

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0245 AM

 

 

It can be done. I've outlined in my private notes what sort of experiments you might need to give a better picture of terminal effectiveness. The question is not one of possibility, but one of funding and possibly some ethical and/or political concerns.

 

Here's an example of an experiment you might run:

Shooting at live, restrained pigs connected to sphygmomanometers, heat rate monitors, ECG machines, and EEGs, counting only precise shots accurate to within a tolerance (determined by a medical professional) on a target area of the body (this could be the heart, brain, an artery, or lung, etc), a number of different rounds of ammunition, controlling for a variable (e.g., projectile weight or muzzle energy) are fired. The results from the devices are then measured and evaluated by medical professional of that specialty as well as veterinarians. Rinse and repeat for each variable you need to isolate.

Would this be cheap? No, it probably wouldn't, but it would provide a clear look at the actual dynamics of wounding.

 

 

 

Actually it wouldn't, because it ignores the issue of the physical and psychological state of a man in battle. Someone in combat, his system flooded with battle adrenaline, will respond very differently to being hit than the same person in a relaxed state. So you'd have to find a way of terrifying the pigs, perhaps by inflicting extreme pain on them, while holding them upright on their hind legs so that the bullets can enter from the front as they usually would in battle. Good luck with any attempt to get ethical approval for that. Even then, pigs and humans are not exactly the same, physically or psychologically. 

 

1. Adrenaline shots

 

2. No two humans are alike, so you'll never achieve 100% fidelity, but pigs are close enough from a physical and neurological perspective. Using this as an excuse to not investigate the problem at all and instead rely on hearsay and supposition is doubleplusungood.

 

3. We're not interested in whether the targets have PTSD or not.


Edited by BabyOlifant, 30 November 2013 - 0251 AM.


#50 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,601 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Military guns and ammunition (all calibres)

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0252 AM

 

 

 

But such  a cartridge still wouldn't have the short range energy of 7.62x51mm. And the machine gun's ability to penetrate cover in urban combat is always going to be important in world full of intermediate caliber rifles and SAWs.

 

 

Which just goes to illustrate that all cartridges are compromises. Whatever choice you make, it will always be possible for someone to point to something else and say "but that one's more powerful and would have better penetration", or "but that one's lighter and has less recoil". The trick is to select the best compromises for the likely range of scenarios troops may encounter.

 

We know (indeed, we knew at the time - except for the US Army's top brass who had prematurely retired their brains) that the 7.62x51 was too powerful for its intended role in a light automatic rifle able to replace SMGs and carbines as well as rifles (and even the BAR). Something smaller and less powerful, but still with good long-range ballistics, would have been much better.

 

We also know that in adopting the 5.56x45 the US went to the opposite extreme, choosing a cartridge so small that it has a short effective range and unreliable terminal effectiveness.

 

You don't need to be a genius to work out that if you work downwards towards a smaller cartridge than the 7.62mm to make it controllable in automatic weapons, or if you work upwards towards a larger cartridge than the 5.56mm to improve its range and hitting power, you end up in much the same place. Which is the rationale for the GPC which, if correctly specified, gives you three advantages over the current pair:

 

1. It can replace the 7.62mm with a round which is equally effective at long range while achieving a useful saving in weight (especially of MG belts) and a reduction in recoil.

 

2. It can replace the 5.56mm with a round which offers a lot more range and hitting power, while still keeping the weight and recoil significantly less than 7.62mm.

 

3. It enables infantry squads to be armed with weapons of the same calibre instead of carrying 1x 5.56mm MG, 1x 7.62mm MG, and a mix of 5.56mm and 7.62mm rifles. This provides immediate benefits in enabling the troops to exchange ammo and to ensure that all weapons are useful in long-range engagements. It also provides longer-term benefits from halving the number of different weapons to be acquired, trained for, supported and supplied.



#51 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,181 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0331 AM

I haven't ever seen any proof of this.

Does it shock me that M80 is a good stopper? No, it has twice as much energy as 5.56. There is no proof that performance is related to caliber or projectile weight specifically.

Whut?

Wounding ability is directly related to projectile weight and caliber. Bigger calibers and bigger bullets make bigger wounds. There's a reason you don't use 5.56 or mouse gun calibers for big animals or shooting medium sized animals (deer) at long ranges.

Lower bullet weight means less velocity retention and greater susceptibility to cross wind, thus more weight for a given velocity and thus better performance.


Edited by rmgill, 30 November 2013 - 0333 AM.


#52 BabyOlifant

BabyOlifant

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0557 AM

 

I haven't ever seen any proof of this.

Does it shock me that M80 is a good stopper? No, it has twice as much energy as 5.56. There is no proof that performance is related to caliber or projectile weight specifically.

Whut?

Wounding ability is directly related to projectile weight and caliber. Bigger calibers and bigger bullets make bigger wounds. There's a reason you don't use 5.56 or mouse gun calibers for big animals or shooting medium sized animals (deer) at long ranges.

Lower bullet weight means less velocity retention and greater susceptibility to cross wind, thus more weight for a given velocity and thus better performance.

 

 

[citation needed]



#53 Olof Larsson

Olof Larsson

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,220 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0748 AM

 

Tony, my understanding is that an intermediate cartridge can have long-range penetration and lethality superior to 7.62x51mm, due to significantly better ballistic coefficients available in the 6mm-6.5mm calibers and higher penetrator L/D.

 

I say "can" because while the existence of such cartridges has been established, it remains to be determined whether any such are suitable replacements for 5.56x45mm. There are superior intermediate cartridge replacements for 5.56x45mm, and there are superior intermediate cartridge replacements for 7.62x51mm, but finding (or creating) one to replace both seems really hard. It might not be possible. There are some very smart people trying to puzzle it out.

 

 

But such  a cartridge still wouldn't have the short range energy of 7.62x51mm. And the machine gun's ability to penetrate cover in urban combat is always going to be important in world full of intermediate caliber rifles and SAWs.

 

This is true, but might not be as relevant as it first seems. 7.62x51mm's short range lethality is overkill, which makes it exactly as deadly at such ranges as a marginally less powerful cartridge (dead is dead, and the difference in overpenetration counts for nothing).

 

Regarding cover penetration in an urban setting, depending on how much we take E5M's experiences as gospel, 7.62x51mm is already insufficient to penetrate typical adobe construction, as would .338 NM, which makes an intermediate cartridge no worse in this regard.

 

Admittedly, there might be less-solid cover in an urban environment where 7.62x51mm is just sufficient, but the GPC would fail. I do not know how common this is. Perhaps someone with urban combat experience could chime in on this point?

 

Where the USMC has taken concrete steps to improve penetration is at the low end, for their 5.56x45mm, for such things as shooting through automotive windshields at checkpoints:

 

http://www.tank-net....=12#entry979870

The GPC would grant every rifleman improved light barrier penetrating capability, compared to what they have now.

 

 

 

One solution would be to have different munitions (more and less prone to yaw) within the same caliber,

and then choose the type of round depending on the mission.

 

For instance:

 

- FMJ "non-yawing"

- FMJ-T "non-yawing"

- FMJ "yawing"

- FMJ-T "yawing"

- Match grade AP "non-yawing"

- Match grade Hollow point

- Short range training round

 

So depending on the mission, terrain, the gun and the doctrine,

different guns could then use the loadings listed above.

 

Snipers would use:

- Match grade AP "non-yawing"

(Very little ammo expended and every round would be very deliberate,

so I wouldn't worry much about over penetration in a proper war)

- Match grade Hollow point

 

For MG:

- FMJ+FMJ-T "non-yawing"

- FMJ+FMJ-T "yawing"

 

Definitely "non-yawing" in forest terrain and probably in urban terrain as well.

In open terrain "yawing", unless the "non-yawing" provides for better long range accuracy.

 

For rifles/carbines:

- FMJ "non-yawing"

- FMJ "yawing"

- Match grade AP "non-yawing"

- Match grade Hollow point

 

Definitely "non-yawing" in forest terrain

and "yawing" in open terrain.

For urban terrain it would depend on the mission and the doctrine.

"non-yawing" would probably be the ammo of choice for a road block,

and "yawing" for clearing rooms.



#54 Tony Evans

Tony Evans

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint George, UT
  • Interests:History, Science Fiction, Cinema

Posted 30 November 2013 - 0811 AM

I don't have any live urban combat experience, but I've done a lot of live fire testing of cover penetration on the range, using service machine guns with service ammo. I would agree that 7.62x51mm is barely adequate against some kinds of cover. But that is not exactly an argument for a less effective round, is it? Especially not when there is often a time factor involved, as in you only have so many bursts before you have to contend with return fire. I'd much prefer to penetrate the cover, even if it took several bursts, with as few bursts as possible.

 

WRT Tony's suggestion that lighter rounds equates to a lower squad load -- or at least more rounds within a given load -- I have to respectfully point out the above, plus the fact that from the US perspective (which is always going to be the driver on this kind of thing) machine guns (as opposed to SAWs) are platoon and company weapons. Their ammunition supply and its use has nothing to do with squad dynamics.



#55 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,601 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Military guns and ammunition (all calibres)

Posted 30 November 2013 - 1406 PM

I don't have any live urban combat experience, but I've done a lot of live fire testing of cover penetration on the range, using service machine guns with service ammo. I would agree that 7.62x51mm is barely adequate against some kinds of cover. But that is not exactly an argument for a less effective round, is it? Especially not when there is often a time factor involved, as in you only have so many bursts before you have to contend with return fire. I'd much prefer to penetrate the cover, even if it took several bursts, with as few bursts as possible.

 

WRT Tony's suggestion that lighter rounds equates to a lower squad load -- or at least more rounds within a given load -- I have to respectfully point out the above, plus the fact that from the US perspective (which is always going to be the driver on this kind of thing) machine guns (as opposed to SAWs) are platoon and company weapons. Their ammunition supply and its use has nothing to do with squad dynamics.

 

"Effective" covers a variety of performance metrics. As far as penetration is concerned, it isn't just the energy of the bullet which counts, it's the energy per square millimetre of penetrator cross-section. A 6.5mm bullet has only 73% of the frontal area of a 7.62mm, therefore it takes only 73% of the effort to penetrate any given barrier. Exactly how "effort" is measured depends on the nature of the barrier: against hard armour the striking energy is the appropriate figure, against a thickness of softer material then momentum is more important.

 

Do you mean that US dismounted infantry squads do not carry belt-fed machine guns? AFAIK M249 are standard squad issue, with MK48 also being used. In the British Army both 5.56mm and 7.62mm belt-fed MGs are carried at 8-man section level.



#56 Tony Evans

Tony Evans

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 8,686 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint George, UT
  • Interests:History, Science Fiction, Cinema

Posted 30 November 2013 - 1433 PM

 

1. "Effective" covers a variety of performance metrics. As far as penetration is concerned, it isn't just the energy of the bullet which counts, it's the energy per square millimetre of penetrator cross-section. A 6.5mm bullet has only 73% of the frontal area of a 7.62mm, therefore it takes only 73% of the effort to penetrate any given barrier. Exactly how "effort" is measured depends on the nature of the barrier: against hard armour the striking energy is the appropriate figure, against a thickness of softer material then momentum is more important.

 

2. Do you mean that US dismounted infantry squads do not carry belt-fed machine guns? AFAIK M249 are standard squad issue, with MK48 also being used. In the British Army both 5.56mm and 7.62mm belt-fed MGs are carried at 8-man section level.

 

 

1. With all due respect, Tony, this is why we have a saying in analysis: "Figures never lie, but liars figure." I'm not saying you're a liar, but misapprehension and misapplication can also cause invalid results. In most field firing cover "penetration", what you actually wind up trying to do is disrupt the cover over an interval of several bursts. Larger, more energetic projectiles do that better.

 

2. M249 is technically machine gun and (more recently, but not originally) officially classified as one. But it's role has always been that of squad automatic weapon in a world where there are platoon or company machine guns. In the case of the US army, each infantry platoon has a squad of two 7.62mm machine guns. In the Marine Corps, each company has a section of six 7.62mm machine guns, organized as three squads of two guns apiece. (The company commander controls their use, but most often one squad is attached to each rifle platoon.)

 

Entre nous, I have to say that yours and Max's books on machine guns and assault rifles are excellent technical references, which I have spent many hours enjoying. But your appreciation of the operational use of these technological artifacts lacks a bit.



#57 Tony Williams

Tony Williams

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 7,601 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK
  • Interests:Military guns and ammunition (all calibres)

Posted 30 November 2013 - 1457 PM

 

 

 

1. With all due respect, Tony, this is why we have a saying in analysis: "Figures never lie, but liars figure." I'm not saying you're a liar, but misapprehension and misapplication can also cause invalid results. In most field firing cover "penetration", what you actually wind up trying to do is disrupt the cover over an interval of several bursts. Larger, more energetic projectiles do that better.

 

2. M249 is technically machine gun and (more recently, but not originally) officially classified as one. But it's role has always been that of squad automatic weapon in a world where there are platoon or company machine guns. In the case of the US army, each infantry platoon has a squad of two 7.62mm machine guns. In the Marine Corps, each company has a section of six 7.62mm machine guns, organized as three squads of two guns apiece. (The company commander controls their use, but most often one squad is attached to each rifle platoon.)

 

Entre nous, I have to say that yours and Max's books on machine guns and assault rifles are excellent technical references, which I have spent many hours enjoying. But your appreciation of the operational use of these technological artifacts lacks a bit.

 

 

No argument that a bigger and more energetic bullet will have a greater destructive effect, but I was addressing the specific term you used, which was "penetration". 

 

I think that you are playing with semantics over the terms used for the weapons. Whether a machine gun is called a machine gun or a SAW (machine gun being what it is, SAW being a particular function which some machine guns get used for) is irrelevant to the point I was making. It is a belt-fed gun with a quick-change barrel which is intended to put out a higher volume of fire than rifles can manage, and therefore tends to get through a lot of ammo in a fire-fight. If a squad carries both a 5.56mm and a 7.62mm  MG (as a British Army section does) and there is an intensive engagement at long range, only the 7.62mm MG will be able to make a useful contribution. If that runs out of ammo, it can't get any more except by resupply. If it suffers a major stoppage, the gunner can't pass his ammo belts onto the 5.56mm MG gunner. That was the point I was making.



#58 TTK Ciar

TTK Ciar

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,685 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sebastopol, CA, USA
  • Interests:material engineering, composite armor, GPC, battletank technology

Posted 30 November 2013 - 1627 PM

 


I think that you are playing with semantics over the terms used for the weapons. Whether a machine gun is called a machine gun or a SAW (machine gun being what it is, SAW being a particular function which some machine guns get used for) is irrelevant to the point I was making.

 

FWIW, I don't think he's deliberately misunderstanding.  I've run into similar terminology conflicts on this Grate Sight.  For instance, the US Army's current Ball rifle munition has an armor-peircing composition, but to people accustomed to Army terminology, calling it an AP munition is wrong, because there's a different rifle munition they call AP (with a different, better armor-peircing compostion).

It's not that one is right and the other wrong, but rather that similar terminology is used to refer to doctrinal roles and physical composition, which are not perfectly congruent, and people make different assumptions.  I think something similar is happening here with the "SAW" vs "Machine Gun" terminology.



#59 BabyOlifant

BabyOlifant

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,040 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 November 2013 - 1739 PM

I think a cartridge conforming to the GPC's specifications could replace 7.62, but that if you designed a cartridge specifically to replace 7.62 only, it wouldn't look much like the GPC, if that makes any sense.



#60 Simon Tan

Simon Tan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,890 posts
  • Interests:tanks. More tanks. Guns. BIG GUNs!

Posted 30 November 2013 - 2054 PM

But you do not have any operational data on the fielded intermediate round........






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users