Suppressive Fire

[JMA]

No. Through hard cover like walls and foliage 7.62 is far superior to 5.56.
However, through armour (think helmets and Crisat) SS109/M855 is superior to 7.62 ball because of the steel penetrator, which means we are comparing a ball round to a semi-armour piercing round.

The issue that Selil brought up pertains to the behaviour of the rounds through tissue (bodies). Both M193 and SS109/M855 behave very inconsistently. 7.62 ball does too but to a lesser extent.
I have hunted goats with both M193 and SS109 with very different results. If the round is allowed to travel a fair distance through the tissue, or hits bone, than it will tumble and disintegrate (provided the velocity is adequate). When that happens it tends to turn the goat inside out (I exaggerate somewhat). If not, and that is most of the time, it will indeed just drill a pretty little 5.56 mm hole clean through. I have stopped using these rounds for hunting because it is not very goatistically correct. Softpoint is way more consistent and will start to mushroom pretty much straight away.

So this is really more a function of bullet design rather than calibre. Mk262 is apparently more consistent and far superior to M193 and M855. And a few others have recently been designed to help overcome these shortcomings. With a well designed 5.56 bullet it is likely that it will outperform the old 7.62 NATO, in tissue anyway. Destroying hard cover and the ability to maintain its trajectory though foliage are still a different matter. There you can’t beat the mass of 7.62.

The 5.56mm was introduced into Vietnam in 1963... and nearly 50 years later they are still attempting to find the right ammo to use. You go figure.

[Granite_State]

Only partially. They didn't encounter a competent and well-equipped opposition.

OK, but who has then? The Russians in Chechnya?

[JMA]

I watched that video a number of times and (as Pete will tell you) I have an opinion on that (and on most things).

First, maybe it was the audio quality or my service damaged hearing but I was unable to hear whether that was a target indication or a fire control order.

Pretty sure GRIT and CLAP were not correctly applied though. (GRIT - group, range, indication, type of fire, and , CLAP - clear, loud, as an order, with pauses)

Saw the bunching and as Fuchs will tell you the Canadians back in 1944 wouldn't have tried that... more than once. (Where was the sergeant and why was he not kicking ass?)

The use of grenades and the follow up thereafter was noted.

I would have thought that it would have been realised that the 4-5 second delay on a HE grenade is too long to be so used into a room/bunker/trench. I assume the Canadians have practice grenades. Probably never had a grenade thrown back out - which in that hard open ground would be a problem for sure.

The trick (and there are probably other methods) is to turn the grenade in the hand so that instead of the striker lever being in the palm of the hand it is against the fingers. Once the pin is pulled and the striker lever is released the thrower counts one, two, three or whatever and throws the grenade and then he positions or his buddy positions to follow up immediately on the grenade exploding and clear by fire.

Back to the video.

In the first case the soldier threw the grenade and left the scene only returning some seconds after the blast to fire into the room (or whatever). No delay before throwing the grenade, left the area with fingers in his ears like a kid playing with fire crackers, no positioning ready to enter fire immediately after the blast and then when firing the weapon remained in the horizontal plain whereas he should have fired high, low and everywhere and even entered to clear around any corners. (A buddy should have been right behind him to pull him out immediately if he got shot (or got stuck) on entering.)

The second I noted the barrel of the weapon in the dirt. No delay before throwing, slow approach after blast... no more visuals.

And the comments say "hardcore". Sad.

After posting this I called my troop sergeant from 1976-8 to wish him down to his grandchildren a happy Christmas... and to thank him for being such a damn fine soldier... as the battalions welterweight boxing champion he looked the part but had (on top of the skill at arms) the right balance... knowing when to kick ass and knowing when to play "mother hen". Man I was fortunate to have that man beside me through some pretty tough times.

[Fuchs]

OK, but who has then? The Russians in Chechnya?

Nobody knows really how to defeat a competent, well-equipped opponent in battle because there was no such conflict between first rate forces after 1945 (possibly not even after 1943).

[William F. Owen]

The calibre debate from the Brit angle can be found here:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/0...alibre-debate/

The rebuttal to that can be found here.

You guys may also want to look up M855A1, the new issue 5.56mm round. I got a briefing on this a month or so back in London and its data is impressive.

[William F. Owen]

Nobody knows really how to defeat a competent, well-equipped opponent in battle because there was no such conflict between first rate forces after 1945 (possibly not even after 1943).

I could quibble that, but I could not do so usefully. This is an essentially correct observation in terms of the US and UK/ABCAN forces. I think Korea might be worth some detailed examination, but the broad thesis is essentially correct.

[Rex Brynen]

I could quibble that, but I could not do so usefully.

A possible SWC quote of the day directed at would-be quibblers, if you ask me.

[selil]

Nobody knows really how to defeat a competent, well-equipped opponent in battle because there was no such conflict between first rate forces after 1945 (possibly not even after 1943).

I would take issue with this. It is rapidly becoming apparent that the drug cartels have the financial capability to run damn fine militaries.

[Rex Brynen]

I would take issue with this. It is rapidly becoming apparent that the drug cartels have the financial capability to run damn fine militaries.

Which ones? In a proper stand-up force-on-force fight against a well-trained, well equipped military? I don't think so.

[Fuchs]

I'd like to see a militia which can
* call in a guided rocket from 80 km away to destroy a specific house
* support infantry in urban combat with assault gun tactics (tanks)
* equip all of its infantry with night sights and class IV body armour
* use sophisticated encrypted frequency-hopping radio networks that ensure almost 100% connectivity even in a city
* supply its troops with all necessary ammunition and tools (such as proper protection for movements in the sewer system) because of proper preparations
* provide first aid, quick evacuation and quality medical treatment to the wounded
* enforce discipline over months of campaigning


Actually, I would not like to see such a militia. I meant I don't think there's such a thing.

[JMA]

I'd like to see a militia which can
* call in a guided rocket from 80 km away to destroy a specific house
* support infantry in urban combat with assault gun tactics (tanks)
* equip all of its infantry with night sights and class IV body armour
* use sophisticated encrypted frequency-hopping radio networks that ensure almost 100% connectivity even in a city
* supply its troops with all necessary ammunition and tools (such as proper protection for movements in the sewer system) because of proper preparations
* provide first aid, quick evacuation and quality medical treatment to the wounded
* enforce discipline over months of campaigning


Actually, I would not like to see such a militia. I meant I don't think there's such a thing.

A militia? I would like to see how many armies can do that.

[Fuchs]

About a dozen, soon probably two dozen armies can do it if you loosen a bit the precision artillery range requirement.

[JMA]

Which ones? In a proper stand-up force-on-force fight against a well-trained, well equipped military? I don't think so.

Come on Rex. The Taliban is largely a proceeds of drug trade funded organisation and they are quite capable with much less logistic and training supply/support than the Mujahideen before them to keep the US and NATO on the back foot. More than that there is the growing view that they are in fact "winning".

Now why would an "irregular force" want to take on, say the US military, in a face-to-face knock down drag out fight to the death when they can indulge in the war of the flea and bleed the US military dry?

Did you not see what the US did to Fallujah? 36,000 houses, nine thousand shops, sixty five mosques, sixty schools... etc were demolished. The US claimed 1,350 killed and around 1,000 captured (yea maybe). But here it was the decision to stand and fight against the US might that cost lives, had they withdrawn (as most apparently did) it would have been a hollow victory indeed.

You forget what they used to say during WW2.

when the british shoot, the germans duck.

when the germans shoot, the british duck.

when the americans shoot, everybody ducks.

So a clever enemy will not offer the US machine a target... it will disperse and sit back and watch it self destruct through frustration.

[JMA]

About a dozen, soon probably two dozen armies can do it if you loosen a bit the precision artillery range requirement.

...well yes, but more important how many (even of the initial dozen) would be able to function over months of campaigning and at what scale?

[Rex Brynen]

Come on Rex. The Taliban is largely a proceeds of drug trade funded organisation and they are quite capable with much less logistic and training supply/support than the Mujahideen before them to keep the US and NATO on the back foot. More than that there is the growing view that they are in fact "winning".

The Taliban is decidedly not a drug cartel. They certainly finance themselves (in part, certainly not in whole) from parasitic and symbiotic drug financing. Most insurgencies engage in illegal and extra-legal fundraising/extortion/smuggling/etc. to some degree. However, the Taliban's tactical competence (such as it is, and I think the picture is rather mixed) would remain near its current level even if the drug money dried up. Equally, I suspect that the Afghan war would still be a tough fight even if everyone in Afghanistan grew carrots.

The original suggestion, you'll remember, was this:

It is rapidly becoming apparent that the drug cartels have the financial capability to run damn fine militaries.

The Taliban are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "a damn fine military." Then again, I would be the first to admit that one doesn't need a "damn fine military" to win wars, or that having one means that you'll emerge victorious--something you'll know well from your Rhodesian experience.

Now why would an "irregular force" want to take on, say the US military, in a face-to-face knock down drag out fight to the death when they can indulge in the war of the flea and bleed the US military dry?

I agree with you. That, however, was not the point I was commenting on.

[Blah]

You guys may also want to look up M855A1, the new issue 5.56mm round. I got a briefing on this a month or so back in London and its data is impressive.

I'm highly skeptical of the M855A1. It seems like a semi-AP round that leans further towards the AP end of the scale than M855.

[selil]

The Taliban are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "a damn fine military." Then again, I would be the first to admit that one doesn't need a "damn fine military" to win wars, or that having one means that you'll emerge victorious--something you'll know well from your Rhodesian experience.

I agree with you. That, however, was not the point I was commenting on.

i think we're quibbling about militaries. The United States Military is a TRILLION + dollars a year. Dwarfing everybody else. Is it worth it? Who knows. Even then the SOF of the United States military is bigger than some armies. Toss it an the next five biggest out the door. The drug cartels though ARE giving the Mexican military a good fight. Is it stand up and take your whackings? Heck no... Only fools and Englishmen believe in stand up and trade blows fighting. I thought this was a COIN forum? Take it back into the rest of the world and you've got a few other fights where drug cartels and others are doing quite handily.

[Rex Brynen]

i think we're quibbling about militaries. The United States Military is a TRILLION + dollars a year. Dwarfing everybody else. Is it worth it? Who knows. Even then the SOF of the United States military is bigger than some armies. Toss it an the next five biggest out the door. The drug cartels though ARE giving the Mexican military a good fight. Is it stand up and take your whackings? Heck no... Only fools and Englishmen believe in stand up and trade blows fighting. I thought this was a COIN forum? Take it back into the rest of the world and you've got a few other fights where drug cartels and others are doing quite handily.

Fuch's original comment, however, was this:

Nobody knows really how to defeat a competent, well-equipped opponent in battle because there was no such conflict between first rate forces after 1945 (possibly not even after 1943).

Quibbles aside, he's right. That was my only point (and Wilf's too).


__________________

[SethB]

The 5.56mm was introduced into Vietnam in 1963... and nearly 50 years later they are still attempting to find the right ammo to use. You go figure.

Your hit and run posts are a bit aggravating.

7.62N has gone through as many iterations as 5.56N.

In fact, it has been through more. M80, M993, M852, M118, M118LR, the newer M118LR...

In the mean time, it was discovered that the Mk 12 with Mk 262 can hit a target at 950M.

[selil]

Fuch's original comment, however, was this:



Quibbles aside, he's right. That was my only point (and Wilf's too).


__________________

Ahhh too true. My assumption that we were straying. Apologies.