Suppressive Fire

[JMA]

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.

According to Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, the program’s product manager, the new M855A1 ammo is “the best general purpose 5.56mm round ever produced.



This is all good and well but the penetration ability of what is required in Afghanistan right now?

[JMA]

The Taliban is decidedly not a drug cartel.

The original point was that with the enormous funds generated by the drug cartels they would have the financial capability to run damn fine militaries.

Is there any doubt that the Taliban's military capability is greatly increased through their drug related income?

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.

Yes agreed but the issue here was that a near bottomless supply of money can buy the drug cartels the means to run damn fine militaries.

[QUOTE] 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.[QUOTE]

Not sure about that I suspect that had the US not funded the supply of weapons and equipment to Afghanistan they would still be using Lee-Enfield 303s.

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 operative word was capability... as in possible/potential/ability.

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.

Then of course there is the political and the military and in the absence of one the other will fail. (I really thought that would be known)

It appears increasingly obvious that like in Rhodesia the best that can be hoped for (by the US and NATO) is for a political solution.

[JMA]

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.

As aggravating as they may be to you Seth nearly 50 years ago now the 5.56 was selected as the calibre and it still requires to be justified. To make another change now would require far more evidence than is currently available as to the limitations of the 5.56 and the advantages and benefits of what it should be replaced with.

Then after the calibre issue we have the weapon itself. We have seen that the M4 is a below average weapon at best - see The USA’s M4 Carbine Controversy

The selection of the 5.56mm, the M16 and the M4 are case studies on how not to do it. One needs to accept this and move on.

[William F. Owen]

This is all good and well but the penetration ability of what is required in Afghanistan right now?

How much is a suit for an Orphan? The round is the round. It's a tool. Apply with skill. Of note is the fact that penetration is the primary performance criteria on which small arms terminal effect can be consistently judged.

[Blah]

According to Lt. Col. Jeffrey K. Woods, the program’s product manager, the new M855A1 ammo is “the best general purpose 5.56mm round ever produced.

http://accurateshooter.net/Blog/m855a104.png

This is all good and well but the penetration ability of what is required in Afghanistan right now?

Well, my skepticism comes from the fact that it is touted as both penetrating better and more lethal.

It is apparently a dual-core projectile, with a steel "arrowhead" penetrater with either a copper or bismuth-tin slug behind. I've read both mentioned, not sure which one it is.

The powerpoint slide I saw seems to imply that it breaks into 2 pieces when it hits a windshield, so I imagine it'd do the same when impacting a person. If the slug is made of copper, then it probably won't fragment. The bismuth-tin slug might however.

That said, it seems like a good "general-purpose" round, just not the amazing wonder-round the press release makes it seem.

[William F. Owen]

As aggravating as they may be to you Seth nearly 50 years ago now the 5.56 was selected as the calibre and it still requires to be justified.

Not in my book. Good training, organisation and tactics will/should apply the tool effectively. As long as I have GPMG, Snipers (with 7.62), and HE projection in the platoon, I care very little close quarter weapon the rest are carrying.

The selection of the 5.56mm, the M16 and the M4 are case studies on how not to do it.

Says who? All we have is wooly bodies of opinion, where folks resort to ballistic charts, and not actual comparative troop trials with weapons - which have yet to be done.

I am amazed this even gets talked about. It's a complete non-subject. It's like folks arguing about 9mm v .45.

[Blah]

Of note is the fact that penetration is the primary performance criteria on which small arms terminal effect can be consistently judged.

I agree. While our opinions may differ on what round the average infantryman should be equipped with, my reason for the preference of 7.62 is purely penetration based (not range or "stopping power").

As armour technology improves, the standards of penetration must consequently be raised. This was evident in WW2 with practically everything above infantry, however infantry remained mostly armour-less (except for a relatively ineffective helmet).

If we are to hypothesize about a modern enemy, then we must assume that they will be able to equip their troops with eSAPI-grade armour. From this assumption, there are 2 choices: We may either concede that we cannot penetrate the plate with IWs, or we can develop ammunition designed to penetrate the plate. Both choices have their pros and cons, with weight and cost being an advantage of the first choice.

In terms of physics, similarly designed armour-piecing 5.56 and 7.62 would be fairly similar in their penetration of armour (with 7.62 being slightly better). They both have similar energy densities (energy per frontal area of the bullet).

A modern 7.62 (in my mind), would be a sub-caliber steel or tungsten "dart" wrapped in a sabot. For an IW, a configuration like that would necessary for there to be enough increased penetration to be worth the extra weight. A .22 sabot 7.62x51 would probably weigh ~150% - ~160% of a standard 5.56.

The M948 7.62x51 comes to mind. I believe it was a 52.5 gr tungsten .22 round at close to 4000 ft/s. I've also read that it can penetrate 30mm of RHA at 100m, although that's all second-hand info.

[JMA]

Well, my skepticism comes from the fact that it is touted as both penetrating better and more lethal.

It is apparently a dual-core projectile, with a steel "arrowhead" penetrater with either a copper or bismuth-tin slug behind. I've read both mentioned, not sure which one it is.

The powerpoint slide I saw seems to imply that it breaks into 2 pieces when it hits a windshield, so I imagine it'd do the same when impacting a person. If the slug is made of copper, then it probably won't fragment. The bismuth-tin slug might however.

That said, it seems like a good "general-purpose" round, just not the amazing wonder-round the press release makes it seem.

I agree with you. And I don't go with the general purpose approach either. With this approach something has got to give in the form of trade offs. I am quite happy that there are a range of rounds available in the calibre which can be selected for use in a given war/theatre/circumstance.

[JMA]

How much is a suit for an Orphan? The round is the round. It's a tool. Apply with skill. Of note is the fact that penetration is the primary performance criteria on which small arms terminal effect can be consistently judged.

Wilf please. The penetration of what?

You do see a ballistic difference between standard issue ball ammo (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) and AP (armour piercing - M995) don't you?

Use my analogy of a set of golf clubs. If you require soft tissue penetration then you go for ball ammo but if you may require "hard target penetration" then go for AP ammo of this new M855A1 "wonder round" type... or you select another weapon for the task... just like with golf clubs.

In a given war/theatre/circumstance soldiers may be required to carry a suitably marked magazine (or more) of AP to cover the likelihood on that aprticular need.

No amount of skill will get a 5.56x46mm ball round to penetrate a vehicle engine block at operational ranges.

BTW: I understand that certain special forces are now starting to carry the odd G3 type weapon with AP rounds for the very purpose of stopping vehicles from driving through road-blocks or ambushes through putting rounds through the engine block.

Oh yes and what has prompted the development of the new M855A1 round were the following:

Specific complaints include: 1) inability to effectively penetrate vehicle windshields; 2) poor long-range performance; and 3) failure to fragment even in short-range anti-personnel use.

I don't believe it to be responsible to just blow off these complaints as if the are irrelevant. I'm surprised at the USMC, i thought they would have had the balls to throw the BB rounds and the pea-shooter back at the suppliers.

[JMA]

Not in my book. Good training, organisation and tactics will/should apply the tool effectively. As long as I have GPMG, Snipers (with 7.62), and HE projection in the platoon, I care very little close quarter weapon the rest are carrying.

You are drifting off the issue here. I accept that in the great British tradition of "Keep Calm and Carry On" one has to make the best of the current situation. All this has nothing to do with the selection of the 5.56mm calibre back in the early sixties. I am prepared to wager you that the promoters never laughed off the capabilities of 5.56mm nor accept its relegation to the status of the so-called "close quarter weapon". Like this new round they are touting they are telling everyone its the best thing since sliced bread. So it was with the introduction of the 5.56 calibre.

Says who? All we have is wooly bodies of opinion, where folks resort to ballistic charts, and not actual comparative troop trials with weapons - which have yet to be done.

People on the other side of the debate are asking the same questions... and you are telling me that the 5.56 calibre was introduced before these trials you mention were carried out? You see what I mean? Surely the onus is upon those who made the change and those who support the continued use of the BB round to provide the proof?

I am amazed this even gets talked about. It's a complete non-subject. It's like folks arguing about 9mm v .45.

It gets talked about because the decision to select this BB round and a series of pea shooters to fire it is quite bizarre.

[William F. Owen]

The penetration of what?

That is the question I am asking. What and why? I opt for CRISAT, not because it's particularly good, but because its a good comparative medium. No one has been able to describe a better standard. Therefore, "good enough."

If you require soft tissue penetration then you go for ball ammo but if you may require "hard target penetration" then go for AP ammo of this new M855A1 "wonder round" type... or you select another weapon for the task... just like with golf clubs.

I suggest you just need a round that is mostly adequate. 5.56mm and 7.62mm ball will do 90% of what might be required.

No amount of skill will get a 5.56x46mm ball round to penetrate a vehicle engine block at operational ranges.

Agreed. I've never heard of any infantry targeting the engine block. I would just train them to shoot the centre of mass.

All this has nothing to do with the selection of the 5.56mm calibre back in the early sixties. I am prepared to wager you that the promoters never laughed off the capabilities of 5.56mm nor accept its relegation to the status of the so-called "close quarter weapon".

Actually the story of how the US selected 5.56mm has been covered in exhaustive detail.
By close quarter weapon, I mean 200m, which is really the maximum range I would ever bother to teach your average bod to engage with, as an individual, from the standing position.

[Fuchs]

That is the question I am asking. What and why? I opt for CRISAT, not because it's particularly good, but because its a good comparative medium. No one has been able to describe a better standard. Therefore, "good enough."

It's the last relevant standard because there's no such obstacle on any battlefield. You could as well simply use sectional energy and hardness factor for comparison.

[SethB]

Why shoot through an engine block when we have radiators, oil pans and drivers close at hand?

Some things reek or arbitrariness.

I've met exactly one person, face to face, who thought the 7.62N was more effective in combat than the 5.56N. An old SBS guy.

He still managed to like both, however.

[JMA]

[QUOTE=SethB;111822]Why shoot through an engine block when we have radiators, oil pans and drivers close at hand?{/QUOTE]

I can't believe this question. Think roadblock, think stop vehicle dead, ... think

Some things reek or arbitrariness.

I would suggest that the people who have identified this need are people who have given it some thought and had the experience on the ground. They are certainly not like those who dredge up any lame excuse for a poor decision made nearly 50 years ago.

I've met exactly one person, face to face, who thought the 7.62N was more effective in combat than the 5.56N. An old SBS guy.

heh heh... and your sample size was?

He still managed to like both, however.

Oh goodie... I'm so pleased for the 5.56mm... everybody likes the 5.56 BB round.

[William F. Owen]

It's the last relevant standard because there's no such obstacle on any battlefield. You could as well simply use sectional energy and hardness factor for comparison.

So a better one would be?

[JMA]

It's the last relevant standard because there's no such obstacle on any battlefield. You could as well simply use sectional energy and hardness factor for comparison.

Yes it is ridiculous.

I would assume that many like Wilf want a standard, any standard to work from. Understandable. But to set such an irrelevant standard is unprofessional and to accept it is poor judgement.

There are clear differences between the requirement to measure the penetration of :

1. soft tissue
2. bricks concrete and wood
3. armour/steel
4. etc

The 7.62x51mm NATO ball round meets an acceptable general standard there is also the option of the AP (armour piercing) round where hard targets are likely to be encountered.

Unfortunately they seem to be all over the place with the 5.56 round. I would love to see the demonstration they do for recruits comparing the 5.56 and the 7.62x39mm (as the enemy calibre). It must be written somewhere for both the US and Brits in English.

Probably starts something like this... "Good news for the junk-food generation is that the ammo the army gives you is half the weight of the old... (nothing about it being half as effective).

The commercial vested interest in the 5.56 and its delivery weapon means its here to stay... but it would be nice if the armies that have inflicted this BB round on their soldiers could summon up the honesty to say to their soldiers that "we have crap ammo and a crap weapon and we are just going to have to make the best out of it". Is that too much to ask?

...or maybe the conspiracy of silence (don't-ask-don't-tell) extends to ammo and weapons as well?

[JMA]

So a better one would be?

The USMC seems to have done some work on this here ... and the bad news is the 5.56mm failed the tests... but as they say keep clam and carry on regardless.

One assumes that they and the Brits would have done similar tests in Afghanistan against locally found barriers to establish the penetration potential of their various weapons to establish which weapons to use in certain applications.

What's that I hear colonel? You have done no such tests? That's OK I have a place for you on an aircraft heading stateside this afternoon... you are out of here!

[JMA]

It's the last relevant standard because there's no such obstacle on any battlefield. You could as well simply use sectional energy and hardness factor for comparison.

Exactly!

[William F. Owen]

The USMC seems to have done some work on this here ... and the bad news is the 5.56mm failed the tests... but as they say keep clam and carry on regardless.

Not really anything based on scientific method here. I don't see how you can say 5.56mm failed. That was very, very poor mechanical experimentation.

One assumes that they and the Brits would have done similar tests in Afghanistan against locally found barriers to establish the penetration potential of their various weapons to establish which weapons to use in certain applications.

Yes, they have found that an earthen wall that stops 30mm will stop 5.56mm. Also 5.56mm will not perforate old T-55 tanks hulls. ...but 5.56mm will kill a member of the Taliban at 800m - If you have a 20 inch barrel on your M-249!

In 1944, it was found that .303 didn't penetrate 14th century church walls commonly found in northern France. Scandal!

There's a difference between, requirement and performance. Knowing the performance of a round should be part of training. Creating a requirement is a whole other ball game.

[Stan]

Why shoot through an engine block when we have radiators, oil pans and drivers close at hand?

Seth,
The point is to bring the vehicle to an immediate stop. A .50 round will do just that in addition to going through most commercial bricks and cinder blocks, and light armor.

Shooting the radiator (assuming there even is one located behind the grill) will not stop the vehicle. Shooting the oil pan ? Not sure how I would accomplish that from 4 to 800 meters away ?

Shooting the driver (assuming you could get a clean shot) still does not mean the vehicle comes to an abrupt dead stop (which is why we have decelerators and dead man switches on bulldozers - heart attack equals flooring the gas pedal ).