I looked through this thread and couldn't find what I needed, hopefully someone knows offhand:
Would there be such things as ballistic tests done on the Mk262 round against the M855 green tip that are available on the interwebs?
Printable View
I looked through this thread and couldn't find what I needed, hopefully someone knows offhand:
Would there be such things as ballistic tests done on the Mk262 round against the M855 green tip that are available on the interwebs?
There’s a bit on it here, with the Mk 262 mentioned on pages 11, 12 and 30. (985 kb pdf)
Here is M262 vs ...
http://web.archive.org/web/200708040...ballistics.pdf
Here is M855 from Kyle Lamb's book.
M855.pdf (133 KB)
Maybe those links are also interesting.
http://designatedmarksman.com/files/...ory%20NSWC.pdf
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008Intl/Roberts.pdf
of three factors which in order of impact are:
Policy, Quality of training, Personnel polices.
None of those the fault of the troops, all effect the quality of their efforts. I'd be very leery of making such a judgment based on media reports and with a lack of direct personal knowledge...
I saw the reasonable purpose of OEF as neutralization (kill, capture or convert; of which, kill seemed the most likely probability) of key AQ leadership as retribution for 9/11 and specific deterrence of them from leading future attacks. We came close at Tora Bora.Quote:
from JMA
How close it this to an accurate description of the situation in Afghanistan?Quote:
re: jmm99
...While the campaign exemplified bravery and courage under impossible conditions, its long-term strategic goals never came close to being realized - and a lot of good men were killed for little lasting purpose.
I still see that as a reasonable long-term strategy, but not at the cost of engagement in "state-building" ("nation-building" seems to be somewhat out of favor, and flavor, this year ;)), and involvement in South Asian and Roof of the World politics, in which we have no existential interest - and only a diluted "vital" interest.
The UN-NATO-ISAF strategy (as it appears to me; e.g., today's news) is not one that I endorse; but not being on anyone's staff or advisory panel, my opinion is worth spit.
Cheers
Mike
I agree but would just add this.
There was a tendency (for soldiers) to develop single target fixation where they ignored other likely positions the enemy may be positioned and kept firing into the known location. This I believe was made worse if the individual soldier did not have confidence in his own shooting ability. Meaning that if he did not have the confidence that by firing 2 or 3 rounds into that piece of likely cover he would kill a person positioned there he was likely to fire more and more and neglect other likely cover. The Drake/Cover shoot if done regularly would deal with this to a certain extent but could not deal with a man's inability to shoot straight. It is a legitimate expectation that a soldier should clear his arc of fire of enemy by firing into likely cover... if he can't do that...
The MK318 SOST 5.56 rounds we have on hand have a good ballistics profile for use with M4s. I can't easily view the MK262 profile, and am not even certain we have that over here.
"The US military thinks it may have got one of the basics wrong: its guns are not good enough. A US Army study found that the M-4 rifle, the workhorse weapon of America's troops, is ineffective at ranges of more then 300m because bullets lose the velocity necessary to kill an enemy."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...n-1979987.html
"US rifles not suited to warfare in Afghan hills"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...pJz5QD9FR4EL80
30 odd years late it is a case of better late than never...
http://www.defencetalk.com/army-issu...16s-m4s-26507/
Good to see that the soldiers were starting to do it anyway without waiting for permission or instructions. One really needs to get behind the mindset where fancy camo gear is being issued yet a black weapon with straight lines has been acceptable without question.
The last hurdle in this will be from the armies where they just must have blacks weapons for ceremonial drill that the fieldcraft considerations take a poor second place.
The Little Black Rifle started being issued in Viet Nam in 1965-6. It was black not due to a parade ground prettiness desire but because the technology of the time could not provide a paint or tape that could take the heat -- jungle or generated. There were several attempts to produce green furniture but none were durable enough to take combat treatment. Still, troops even back then did paint, tape and modify and folks in combat have done so many times and in many places since then. Occasionally units directed it, many just allowed it while some idiots refused to allow it.
I agree with your sentiment. The US in particular has significant problems with that parade ground -- actually, it's an over active control and uniformity issue -- mentality and it really needs to go. That is shown by the fact that the Army elected to issue a technical order to uniformly do what most thinking troops were doing in varied fashions anyway (until confronted with those should be retired CSMs who were overly into 'uniformity.' :mad:).
The US Army Troop test in 1964 that preceded the adoption of the M16 shot a lot of Pigs in the course of the tests; the lethality and range problems of the 5.56 round were quite apparent and were well documented. The result of the tests were that the Army recommended keeping the M-14 in 7.62 for world wide service (to include shortened Jungle, even shorter Parachute and a better automatic rifle versions) and buying a just few then Colt AR-15s for special purpose units (The USAF Air Police and Special Forces wanted the little rifle and light ammo). In the event, the Army was overruled and the US political decision by DoD and the White House was to buy the Colt rifle. The fact that Colt had contributed to the serving Administration's political campaigns I'm sure had little to do with that decision... :rolleyes:
A lot of any soldier's objections to things that impede effectiveness are to politically and societally driven decisions. Not a darn thing one can do about it (lacking an existential war -- those get the Mothers to hush a bit and the Politicians to focus).
Not only the US. Indeed looking good while marching is a peace time bench mark which sadly beats a lot of a bit more relevant factors. In the Italian army over the arc of the last 20-30 years a lot lot more weapons were cleaned to death than shot out. And it is of course far from the only one.
In the last years of conscription you got recruits in infantry mountain units (Alpini) which never did one single forced mountain march, a single camp outdoor and which had to volunteer to get a real shot off. This is very sadly no joke. Even more sad is the fact that nothing happened to the responibles, at least from what I know. Still their marches through the cities went well, everybody cheered and was happy. I will leave my rant there.
Technology is very important indeed but it always starts with good leadership and training and we always come back to it.
Firn
For anyone interested, request for better ammo was denied.
Denied or slow coming?
CJ Chivers weighs in on the AMD-65.
http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/...ons/?ref=worldQuote:
The AMD-65 is a strange-looking and, to hear Afghans tell it, a poor-performing firearm, the product of an arms plant in then-Peoples Republic of Hungary during the cold war. It has been visible in large numbers in Afghan police units since 2006. It remains the predominant weapon of the nation’s police.
I can't imagine what would posses someone to buy an AMD-65...
It would actually have been easier to make an export version of the M16 that solves some of the maintenance issues and sell it to our allies.
Actually, the US military rigged those tests to make the M14 look better. In reality, the M16 of the time was much more reliable and just as lethal as the M80 shooting M14. Kind of the reverse of what you just said.
Let me look for the actual test data; I used to keep it on my netbook, but it got fried last month.
The old U.S. 7.62mmx51 was (or is?) actually relatively wimpy in gelatine tests.
I was in the unit that ran the troop test -- not the Aberdeen foolishness -- and we shot a whole bunch of pigs for the Oscar Mayer plant in Fayetteville. Among other things it was noted that the 5.56 round was easily deflected by vegetation, bone or cartilage and that the 7.62 rarely had those problems. I know what that troop test reported to DA, I do not know precisely what Ordnance said or what DA sent to DoD but I do recall what the rumor mill said at the time. I also know that TRW had the M14 contract and was selling them to the Army for $90.00 apiece -- $4.00 less than the nominal cost of an M1 at the time and that contract was cancelled in midstream with a whopping penalty to buy the M16 ala my comment on the political contributions.
I also was in the first unit to be issued with the M-16 and used it in combat on three tours. Your statement that it was more reliable than the M14 is simply incorrect. It had teething and digestion problems as do most new products...
FWIW, I'm neither an M14 or M16 fan, there were and are better weapons out there but any comparison of combat capability that rates the M16 over the M14 in terms of either wounding / stopping / killing capability or of reliability is more than questionable. Handiness, ease of training and other factors give the M16 an edge but it flat loses on stopping power and reliability (for the early editions).
In any event, this was the point of post from which you extracted that comment:
"A lot of any soldier's objections to things that impede effectiveness are to politically and societally driven decisions. Not a darn thing one can do about it (lacking an existential war -- those get the Mothers to hush a bit and the Politicians to focus)."