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.