Interesting small calibre lethality study...
...looking at 5.56mm lethality in close quarters battle originally publiched in the Sept-Oct 2006 edition of Infantry Magazine.
Quote:
The major problem occurs at the very beginning: What is effectiveness? As it turns out, that simple question requires a very complex
answer. For the Soldier in combat, effectiveness equals death:
the desire to have every round fired result in the death of the
opposing combatant, the so-called “one-shot drop.” However,
death – or lethality – is not always necessary to achieve a military
objective; an enemy combatant who is no longer willing or able
to perform a meaningful military task may be as good as dead
under most circumstances. Some equate effectiveness with “stopping
power,” a nebulous term that can mean anything from physically
knocking the target down to causing the target to immediately stop any threatening action. Others may measure effectiveness as foot-pounds of energy delivered to the target – by
calculating the mass and impact velocity of the round – without
considering what amount of energy is expended in the target or
what specific damage occurs to the target. In the end, “footpounds
of energy” is misleading, “stopping power” is a myth, and
the “oneshot drop” is a rare possibility dependent more on the statistics
of hit placement than weapon and ammunition selection.
Effectiveness ultimately equates to the potential of the weapons
system to eliminate its target as a militarily relevant threat.(p.3)
Quote:
The projectile must have enough penetration to be able to reach vital organs to cause them damage. At the same time, it must not have so much
penetrating capability that it passes completely through the target
without significant damage – resulting in a so-called “throughand-
through.” Energy expended outside the target is useless (incidentally,
this is why “impact energy” is a poor measure of bullet
comparison, as it does not separate energy expended in damaging
the target from energy lost beyond the target). The ideal bullet
would have enough energy to penetrate through any intervening
barrier to reach vital organs without significantly slowing, then
dump all of its energy into damaging vital organs without exiting
the body. Unfortunately, design of such a bullet is nearly impossible
in a military round, even if all human bodies were uniform
enough to allow for such a thing. A round that reaches the vital
organs of a 5-foot 6-inch 140-pound target without over-penetration
is likely to react differently against a 6-foot 2-inch 220-
pounder, even without considering target posture. To complicate
matters, when hitting a prone firing target the bullet might have
to pass through a forearm, exit, enter the shoulder, then proceed
down the trunk before striking heart or spinal cord. A flanking
hit would engage the same target through or between the ribs to
strike the same vital regions. All these possibilities are encountered
with the same ammunition. Ultimately, bullet design is a
series of tradeoffs complicated by the need to survive launch,
arrive at the target accurately, possibly penetrate armor, glass, or
other barriers, and be producible in large quantities (1+ billion
per year) at costs the military can afford.(p.5)
Quote:
Joint Services Wound Ballistics (JSWB) Integrated
Product Team (IPT) was eventually able to conclude that: (1)
there were no commercially available 5.56mm solutions that
provided a measurable increase in CQB performance over fielded
military ammunition, (2) the reports from the field could be
explained and supported with sound scientific evidence, and
(3) there are steps that can be taken to immediately impact
performance of small arms at close quarters ranges.(p.3)
Just for my own edification/education...
... could someone tell me why equipping all rifelmen with an IAR would be a bad idea? I remember reading the James Webb article for Marine Corps Gazette written referenced earlier and he suggested the same thing (as I recall). I understand weight is an issue but surely rifelment would be more than compensated by the capability it would bring in terms of suppressive fire (when needed) and also accuracy. I get flumoxed when I read that fireteams and sections/squads need/do not need SAW/LMG/IAR capabilities for the close fight only to then read that allied forces small arms are/are not capable of supporting the rifleman out to 500m (as per the article by Erhart; sp?). AFAIK the whole reason for equipping infantry sections/squads with rifles capable of automatic fire (Bren/BAR/MG3) was because the standard infantry rifles were bolt action. Now we have rifles capable of true automatic fire (when necessary) why do we have what ammount to heavier versions when true SF GPMG should be organised at Coy level to mass their fires (and in pairs)? Comments and clarification would be much appreciated.
7.62 x 51mm at the section/squad level
I for one believe the need for suppressive fire means a belt-fed full calibre weapon at the squad level. Suppressive fire can only be provided by a proper machine gun. Unless a suppressive fire weapon can chew through bricks, concrete, wood etc it is a waste of space and weight. You shouldn't need to spray rounds on automatic, as heavy barrelled assault rifles are not heavy or robust to provide effective automatic fire. You should be only using 3-5 round bursts unless they are almsot on top of your position.
Re: GPMGs located at Company level.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
Why? I would generally want to hold GPMGs in the Platoons.
My observation has been that MGs at Platoon level are misused and overused -- generally not because they're needed or in many cases even make tactical sense but simply because they're available. They are the least reliable Platoon weapon (now that the Dragon is gone :D), misused they can burn up a heavy ammo load, most Rifle Platoon Machine Gunners are not at all well trained (I said most, not all) and more. Placed in Co level MG Plat, they can be farmed to Platoons as required based on METT-TC, the gunners and squads train together and become true specialists instead of being just the guy who got stuck with (or loves...) the gun (neither of those two poles guarantees the best man for the job. Indirect fire. There's more, that's just openers.;)
A proper AR or true LMG, magazine fed for reliability, works more than adequately in most situations, the weapon is less complicated, more reliable easier to learn and fire, lighter and more flexible, uses less ammo and with a single shot capability will not give away the positions of your automatic weapons under a probe or recon by fire....
GI Zhou:
Both the Russians and the Chinese still have mostly conscript armies, thus an emphasis on automatic weapons to compensate for the lack of decent marksmanship training and to counterbalance the inherent inaccuracy of sloppily made weapons. No reason for a professional force to spend that much money on ammunition for combat when they could simply spend a bit more for training purposes and far less for combat.
My observation of 1 and 5 RAR in Viet Nam was that they carried the M60 for the same reason the US Army and Marine Corps did -- it was available and no suitable AR or LMG happened to be. :o
A CS grenade atop an M34? Never tried it. What does REALLY work to break contact is an M8 HC Smoke Grenade taped to an M18 Claymore equipped with a 30 second piece of M700 time fuze and a Fuze Lighter, preferably the M2 or M60 -- the others don't do damp. One usually works, two were virtually guaranteed to do so. They now have this little dude: LINK...