Explosives/Incendiaries underrated

[ghost squire]

WAUGH, ROBERT T.

First Lieutenant, U.S. Army, 339th Infantry, 85th Infantry Division... For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at risk of life above and beyond the call of duty in action with the enemy. In the course of an attack upon an enemy-held hill on 11 May, 1st Lt. Waugh personally reconnoitered a heavily mined area before entering it with his platoon. Directing his men to deliver fire on 6 bunkers guarding this hill, 1st Lt. Waugh advanced alone against them, reached the first bunker, threw phosphorus grenades into it and as the defenders emerged, killed them with a burst from his tommygun. He repeated this process on the 5 remaining bunkers, killing or capturing the occupants...

HARMON, ROY W.

Sergeant, U.S. Army, Company C, 362d Infantry, 91st Infantry Division... Sgt. Harmon ordered his squad to hold their position and voluntarily began a 1-man assault. Carrying white phosphorus grenades and a submachine gun, he skillfully took advantage of what little cover the terrain afforded and crept to within 25 yards of the first position. He set the haystack afire with a grenade, and when 2 of the enemy attempted to flee from the inferno, he killed them with his submachine gun...

JACKSON, ARTHUR J.

Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps, 3d Battalion, 7th Marines, 1st Marine Division... Boldly taking the initiative when his platoon's left flank advance was held up by the fire of Japanese troops concealed in strongly fortified positions, Pfc. Jackson unhesitatingly proceeded forward of our lines and, courageously defying the heavy barrages, charged a large pillbox housing approximately 35 enemy soldiers. Pouring his automatic fire into the opening of the fixed installation to trap the occupying troops, he hurled white phosphorus grenades and explosive charges brought up by a fellow marine, demolishing the pillbox and killing all of the enemy. Advancing alone under the continuous fire from other hostile emplacements, he employed similar means to smash 2 smaller positions in the immediate vicinity...

JULIAN, JOSEPH RODOLPH

Platoon Sergeant, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve... Determined to force a breakthrough when Japanese troops occupying trenches and fortified positions on the left front laid down a terrific machinegun and mortar barrage in a desperate effort to halt his company's advance, P/Sgt. Julian quickly established his platoon's guns in strategic supporting positions, and then, acting on his own initiative, fearlessly moved forward to execute a 1-man assault on the nearest pillbox. Advancing alone, he hurled deadly demolition and white phosphorus grenades into the emplacement, killing 2 of the enemy and driving the remaining 5 out into the adjoining trench system. Seizing a discarded rifle, he jumped into the trench and dispatched the 5 before they could make an escape...

RUDOLPH, DONALD E.

Second Lieutenant, U.S. Army, Company E, 20th Infantry, 6th Infantry Division. ... when his platoon was attacked by an enemy tank, he advanced under covering fire, climbed to the top of the tank and dropped a white phosphorus grenade through the turret, destroying the crew...

http://www.army.mil/cmh/Moh1.htm

These are the names of some Medal of Honor recipients that I found on an unrelated website. And these are only the ones who used willy petes, not even counting the ones who used regular grenades.

A list for October 03 casualties that I randomly selected:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties_oct03.htm

You can clearly see the majority of casualties are caused by explosives, whether they be RPGs, mines, mortars or IEDs.

Artillery, King/Queen of the battlefield, accounts for the majority of casualties in most conventional wars. Thats not even counting air support.

Incendiaries such as white phos/napalm/flamethrowers are extremely demoralizing. An enemy with otherwise excellent morale (such as the Japanese during certain stages in the war), or even a well entrenched enemy, will almost always cut and run at the sight of a flamethrower, especially a flamethrower tank. When nothing else can draw a rat out of its hole, incendiaries can.

I think grenades are left out of the discussion far too often. Although this is a gunboard, guns are often used to fight. And doesn't everybody want to win a fight?

Grenades are deceptively simple to make. High explosives are simple (though risky) to make, and can often be made with household ingredients. The hard part is the detonator but even that can be made at home. Incendiary devices are no brainers, anyone can make these at home or in the field.

Most soldiers in Iraq would give their Beretta and a left nut for more direct fire explosives...

Why aren't we issuing all of our troops with small-medium sized rifle fragmentation grenades?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

And I leave you with this, a fuel air explosive bomb vaporising a building. Click on the refresh button in that window to watch it again and again and again... http://www.danshistory.com/fae.gif

 

[Jeff White]

ghost squire said;

Artillery, King/Queen of the battlefield, accounts for the majority of casualties in most conventional wars. Thats not even counting air support.

Artillery is the King of Battle. Infantry is the Queen of Battle. She tells the king where to put the balls.....

Incendiaries such as white phos/napalm/flamethrowers are extremely demoralizing. An enemy with otherwise excellent morale (such as the Japanese during certain stages in the war), or even a well entrenched enemy, will almost always cut and run at the sight of a flamethrower, especially a flamethrower tank. When nothing else can draw a rat out of its hole, incendiaries can.

The flame thrower went out decades ago. White phosphorus grenades are still in the inventory but are so heavy a soldier can't throw one farther then it's bursting radius. There is the M202A1 Flash, which fires 4 66mm rockets (the same motor the M72A2 LAW uses) with incendiary warheads. It gives a nice standoff that you don't get with a flame thrower.

I think grenades are left out of the discussion far too often. Although this is a gunboard, guns are often used to fight. And doesn't everybody want to win a fight?

THR primarily deals with civilian self defense issues. I don't know of too many places where grenades are legal to use in self defense.

Grenades are deceptively simple to make. High explosives are simple (though risky) to make, and can often be made with household ingredients. The hard part is the detonator but even that can be made at home. Incendiary devices are no brainers, anyone can make these at home or in the field.

And since we promote the responsible use of firearms here, we won't discuss how to make grenades or incendiary devices. Nor will we discuss any other illegal acts.

Most soldiers in Iraq would give their Beretta and a left nut for more direct fire explosives...

Why aren't we issuing all of our troops with small-medium sized rifle fragmentation grenades?

Thoughts? Suggestions?

There are two 40mm grenade launchers (M203) in a rifle squad. CS and CSS units also have them, but not in that quantity. The M79 and then the M203 replaced rifle grenades in the US arsenal. 40mm HEDP is a good round. We've also got the AT4 and the old LAW floating around. These are issued as ammunition, not as a weapon. All in all, I'd say that between the M203 the AT4 and the LAW, we've pretty much got the direct fire explosives thing covered.

Jeff

 

[wingnutx]

We also have the mk19 on top of humvees. That thing puts a heck of a lot of grenades waaay down range.

 

[Tequila_Sauer]

"THR primarily deals with civilian self defense issues. I don't know of too many places where grenades are legal to use in self defense."



Yeah. Sigh, darn Senators! I think the day may come when I need to flush the thief out of my closet so I can school him with my firearm. What better way than a frag grenade.

 

[ghost squire]

Artillery is the King of Battle. Infantry is the Queen of Battle. She tells the king where to put the balls.....

Actually in some other countries artillery is referred to as queen of the battlefield.

The flame thrower went out decades ago. White phosphorus grenades are still in the inventory but are so heavy a soldier can't throw one farther then it's bursting radius. There is the M202A1 Flash, which fires 4 66mm rockets (the same motor the M72A2 LAW uses) with incendiary warheads. It gives a nice standoff that you don't get with a flame thrower.

Uhh... You don't use a white phos as an offensive grenade... Nor to my knowledge do you use the M67 as an offensive grenade, considering I believe you would have to have a very strong arm indeed to throw it outside the recommended safety level. The white phos is especially useful as a defensive grenade, or for use as an offensive grenade when for example throwing it in a pillbox or foxhole or building, where a grenade sump cannot stop its destructive effects, and where the thrower would be outside of its destructive radius.

Of course the enemy could throw it back, but thats a risk you take when throwing any grenade.

Wow though, I had never seen the Flash launcher, why isn't it more widely used?

THR primarily deals with civilian self defense issues. I don't know of too many places where grenades are legal to use in self defense.

You and I just participated in a thread entitled "The soldiers load". On this exact sub forum.

we won't discuss how to make grenades or incendiary devices. Nor will we discuss any other illegal acts.

I carefully avoided giving any information about this subject.

40mm HEDP is a good round. We've also got the AT4 and the old LAW floating around. These are issued as ammunition, not as a weapon. All in all, I'd say that between the M203 the AT4 and the LAW, we've pretty much got the direct fire explosives thing covered.

Actually from what I have heard, the 40mm grenade launcher projectile has less than a 3 foot blast radius in real life... Have I read incorrectly? Anyone with real life experience care to comment? Even if it was more effective wouldn't it be super if practically everyone had the ability to stop a "technical", or blow away a group of insurgents with a single shot?

AT4s are great but how many of them does a rifle squad carry?

 

[hso]

http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/flame/M202.html

Yea Gods!

The M202A1 multishot rocket launcher (Flash) is a lightweight, reusable, four-tube rocket launcher. It is half as heavy as the M9A1-7 and M2A1-7 portable flamethrowers, has five times the range against point targets, and requires less servicing and maintenance.

The Flash can be used in both an offensive and defensive role because it is lightweight, has an extended range, and has a minimal maintenance requirement. Due to the weapon's accuracy and the trajectory of the rocket, it can get into areas and enclosures which other weapons cannot enter. It can produce personnel casualties in bunkers, buildings, and covered or open foxholes, as well as damage unarmored vehicles and destroy combustible supplies, ammunition, and materiel.

 

[Jeff White]

ghost squire said;

Uhh... You don't use a white phos as an offensive grenade... Nor to my knowledge do you use the M67 as an offensive grenade, considering I believe you would have to have a very strong arm indeed to throw it outside the recommended safety level. The white phos is especially useful as a defensive grenade, or for use as an offensive grenade when for example throwing it in a pillbox or foxhole or building, where a grenade sump cannot stop its destructive effects, and where the thrower would be outside of its destructive radius.

Of course the enemy could throw it back, but thats a risk you take when throwing any grenade.

The M67 fragmentation grenade is the most common one issued. It's used for both offensive and defensive purposes. They aren't as destructive as Hollywood would have you believe. If you think the enemy may throw the grenade back, you cook it off before throwing it into the bunker/room/fighting position.

Quote:
THR primarily deals with civilian self defense issues. I don't know of too many places where grenades are legal to use in self defense.

You and I just participated in a thread entitled "The soldiers load". On this exact sub forum.

The key word is primarily. We don't get off on purely military subjects that often. They are more on topic then the SHTF threads, but still not THR's primary focus.

Actually from what I have heard, the 40mm grenade launcher projectile has less than a 3 foot blast radius in real life... Have I read incorrectly? Anyone with real life experience care to comment?

I think you're mistaking feet for meters. A big difference between a 3-5 meter bursting radius and a 3 foot blast radius. I always found them effective in their intended role. But I do doubt the armor piercing capablilty of HEDP. They always told us they were good against the thinner armor on top of a BTR, but I couldn't penetrate a dumpster with one.

Even if it was more effective wouldn't it be super if practically everyone had the ability to stop a "technical", or blow away a group of insurgents with a single shot?

Go back to the thread on the soldiers load and think of how much more weight you're giving every man. Soldiers don't often fight alone.

AT4s are great but how many of them does a rifle squad carry?

As many as the commander wants to issue. It's isued on the basis of being ammunition not a weapon.

Jeff

 

[ghost squire]

As many as the commander wants to issue. It's isued on the basis of being ammunition not a weapon.

Comeon now, realistically speaking were talking about maybe 3 or 4 warheads for MOUT, unless specific targets are part of their FRAGO or whatever its called...

Go back to the thread on the soldiers load and think of how much more weight you're giving every man. Soldiers don't often fight alone.

Yes, 1 modern good rifle grenade is 1-2 pounds. Thats really not much, and you double or triple the antipersonnel effects of a 40mm. Specialized antitank ones are heavier (and realistically not anti-tank), but again, far more effective than a 40mm low vel. I wouldn't mind at all carrying an extra 3-6 pounds for that kind of firepower. I know its not the same, but I'm a backpacker so I'm not totally in the dark about weight.

A rifle squad depending on country is usually 6 or more men, I think its 11 for the Marines but I'm not sure. If everyone in the squad carried two of these, which we will say will add up to 3 pounds, you now have the capacity to completly knock out of the fight anyone in 18 or more rooms of you choice.

The M67 fragmentation grenade is the most common one issued. It's used for both offensive and defensive purposes. They aren't as destructive as Hollywood would have you believe.

I'm not advocating replacing frag grenades, that would be crazy of me, I'm just saying if we weren't bound by PC bull???? we might be using a hell of a lot more white phos in Iraq.

Hell I'm not even advocating replacing the M203. But I do advocate giving every man carrying a rifle with webbing gear on a couple rifle grenades and making a combination flashider spigot, which would cost the government probably .50 cents a unit.

PS from what I've heard in real life you'll be lucky to wound someone past 3 feet if the 40mm round hits behind them or to the side of them. If it hits in front of them then it extends further... But its still not exactly a devastating weapon... Especially for blooping through windows, when it hits the wall behind it will send a solid hot copper rod through the wall and deafen everyone but I doubt its going to clear that room.

 

[strambo]

Jeff, 40mm didn't penetrate a dumpster? I've had the pleasure of lettin' some HEDP go with a MK-19, but never got to inspect the results. Too bad there aren't dumpsters along the streets of Baghdad, they sure could use them for their intended purpose from what I saw, and great cover!

 

[Jeff White]

ghost squire said;

Quote:
As many as the commander wants to issue. It's isued on the basis of being ammunition not a weapon.

Comeon now, realistically speaking were talking about maybe 3 or 4 warheads for MOUT, unless specific targets are part of their FRAGO or whatever its called...

It's called the OPORD or Operations Order. FRAGO is Fragmentary Order or part of an OPORD usually given to change something in the original order. How many At4s a squad carries is going to depend on the mission and the ROE (Rules of Engagement).

Quote:
Go back to the thread on the soldiers load and think of how much more weight you're giving every man. Soldiers don't often fight alone.

Yes, 1 modern good rifle grenade is 1-2 pounds. Thats really not much, and you double or triple the antipersonnel effects of a 40mm. Specialized antitank ones are heavier (and realistically not anti-tank), but again, far more effective than a 40mm low vel. I wouldn't mind at all carrying an extra 3-6 pounds for that kind of firepower. I know its not the same, but I'm a backpacker so I'm not totally in the dark about weight.

What makes you think current ROEs would allow you to indiscriminately clear rooms with fire? The first MOUT training I received in the 1970s was more suited to Stalingrad then what the mission is in Iraq and Afghanistan. It was very demolition heavy. I'm talking about blowing holes in walls instead of using doors, firing through doors before opening then etc. Those tactics assumed the civilian population had left the area and barely paid lip service to killing non-combatants. It's a different world now. It's ironic, when police departments started forming SWAT teams, they borrowed MOUT tactics from the military and modified them. Now the military has taken to borrowing from the police and copying SWAT tactics to minimize civilian casualties.

A rifle squad depending on country is usually 6 or more men, I think its 11 for the Marines but I'm not sure. If everyone in the squad carried two of these, which we will say will add up to 3 pounds, you now have the capacity to completly knock out of the fight anyone in 18 or more rooms of you choice.

A current light Infantry squad is 9 men in the Army. A mech squad is also 9 but they are organized differently. How do these rifle grenades interface with the M4 and M16? What about subjecting the optics and lasers we use to such great effect to that kind of recoil? Would you give up our advantage in the night for that effectiveness?

I'm not advocating replacing frag grenades, that would be crazy of me, I'm just saying if we weren't bound by PC bull???? we might be using a hell of a lot more white phos in Iraq.

Any war where the enemy hides among the civilian population is going to have restrictive ROEs. You can't defeat an insurgency by burning out the idiginous population. Perhaps in a conventional mid intensity conflict in Korea would be more like WWII and have freeer use of weapons. I don't see it happening in the GWOT unless we were raiding an insurgent basecamp or other situation where there were no friendlies.

PS from what I've heard in real life you'll be lucky to wound someone past 3 feet if the 40mm round hits behind them or to the side of them. If it hits in front of them then it extends further... But its still not exactly a devastating weapon... Especially for blooping through windows, when it hits the wall behind it will send a solid hot copper rod through the wall and deafen everyone but I doubt its going to clear that room.

I am not aware of any complaints about it's lethality.

Strambo,
Many years ago I was NCOIC of the battalion's M203 range at Ft Campbell. They gave us HEDP instead of the HE we usually drew for training. I had always heard about how well HEDP did on light armor. There was an old dumpster that was supposed to be a TP target 125 meters from the firing point. I waited until everyone but the range staff had departed and just before calling range control and going cold so we could clean up the range, we shot the dumpster. It was big no-no because that target was too close by the range reg to shoot at with anything but TP. We put a half dozen rounds of HEDP into it. The effects were underwhelming. I decided that either BTRs were not as heavily armored as US dumpsters, or that HEDP wasn't as good against light armor as advertized.

Jeff

 

[NMshooter]

Ghost Squire, while I enjoy discussing military topics very much, especially when I can get Jeff White and Vern Humphrey (among others) to participate, I generally have multiple motives when I post.

While discussing the soldier's load I am trying to make folks who might never have considered such boring subjects as load planning and transport to think about them. Not to mention it is my way of taking a poke at all the 7.62x51 fans, some of whom really believe they can carry 200-400 rounds in magazines without any problems along with a lot of other stuff.

I try to promote discussion and contemplation of subjects that seem neglected, in the hopes that I and others will learn something.

As far as explosives and incendiaries go, other than manufacturing some new M-202 launchers and ammunition our military has quite a few ways to blow stuff up at a distance, and more effectively than rifle grenades, which are short ranged and inaccurate.

I sure would not mind getting to shoot a few for fun, though...

 

[ghost squire]

Jeff White: apparently you perhaps have not seen combat footage of Fallujah? What I saw were AT-4s being fired at just about every target of opportunity available. Bradleys firing tracers and incendiaries, and M240s being emptied into houses from atop a roof.

I seriously doubt that buildings made out of mud could sustain a burn. Those buildings didn't light on fire from all of that. I understand white phos isn't an ideal weapon for peacekeeping operations, but we are going to fight Fallujahs in the future, somewhere, some time.

NMShooter: I do value your opinion. What I'm saying is that carrying a couple of rifle grenades couldn't really hurt, and isn't it true that the key to victory is to get there firstest with the mostest (rain as much aimed fire as possible until the enemy shrivels away)?

About 5.56, sure you can carry 3 or 4 times more ammunition. And in your experience, and I invite others to chime in here, how many bullets does the average US infantryman shoot when engaging an enemy? I was watching simulated MOUT operations on the Discovery Channel (laugh if you want they have some great programs), and British Royal Marines training on the Military channel, and what I saw was sickening. Basically, random shooting over barricades while "simulated" civilians were walking around... Using up a mag just spraying at literally nothing. One guy was in a ditch and he just held the gun over his head and kept emptying mags. The 5.56 can't penetrate brush and jungle for crap and thats a fact. Maybe we should revert to 7.62 NATO, just because it gives you a punch on the shoulder every time you fire it... But I digress.

I can definately see how rifle grenades could have helped us in Vietnam. In Rhodesia pointmen would often go into the bush with a rifle grenade on their FAL so that when they came into contact with the enemy, they wouldn't have a chance to disperse. They'd just go poof!

I can definately see how these could help in ambushes, recieving or giving, jungle or urban.

 

[Jeff White]

ghost squire said;

Jeff White: apparently you perhaps have not seen combat footage of Fallujah? What I saw were AT-4s being fired at just about every target of opportunity available. Bradleys firing tracers and incendiaries, and M240s being emptied into houses from atop a roof.

I've seen plenty of footage from the entire Iraq war. I've seen plenty of footage from all of our recent conflicts. I've read most of the AARs and developed and conducted training plans to take advantage of the lessons learned. I was on a deployment on the Honduran/Nicaraugan border in July of 1990 as part of a show of force while the Sandanista regime stood down. During that operation we trained members of the Sixth Bn, Fifth Bde of the Honduran Army. My son Mark is a SGT in a mech Infantry company that just deployed to Iraq. They leave their Bradleys and Abrams in the FOB most of the time and patrol in uparmored HMMWVs because of the current ROE.

I seriously doubt that buildings made out of mud could sustain a burn. Those buildings didn't light on fire from all of that. I understand white phos isn't an ideal weapon for peacekeeping operations, but we are going to fight Fallujahs in the future, somewhere, some time.

I believe I alluded to that in my earlier post, ref North Korea.

About 5.56, sure you can carry 3 or 4 times more ammunition. And in your experience, and I invite others to chime in here, how many bullets does the average US infantryman shoot when engaging an enemy?

In my experience and that of others, about 400 rounds per man was sufficient for heavy contact and leaving a sufficient reserve to hold you over until resupply. I think you're bringing a rifle range philosophy to combat. You don't often have a highly visibe target, you expend a lot of ammunition shooting into bushes etc. where the enemy is hiding.

I was watching simulated MOUT operations on the Discovery Channel (laugh if you want they have some great programs), and British Royal Marines training on the Military channel, and what I saw was sickening. Basically, random shooting over barricades while "simulated" civilians were walking around... Using up a mag just spraying at literally nothing. One guy was in a ditch and he just held the gun over his head and kept emptying mags.

The thing about the documentarys on Dicovery Channel, the History Channel and the Military Channel is hat they use so much file footage that you can't believe much of the video you see. The recreations by the actors aren't usually well done either. You can only trust the stuff that is actual footage. There is no telling how old the footage of the Royal Marines was. CQB is about fast accurate firing. I doubt you'll see much footage of FISH (fighting inside houses an acronym made up by a contact of mine who teaches this for a living). You also won't see any footage taken inside the shoot houses, even though we use it as training aids, it would reveal specific TTPs and certainly wouldn't be released.

The 5.56 can't penetrate brush and jungle for crap and thats a fact. Maybe we should revert to 7.62 NATO, just because it gives you a punch on the shoulder every time you fire it... But I digress.

Would you care to hide in the brush from a squad with their M4s and M249s and depend on 5.56's inability to penetrate brush to save you life? The day of the 7.62x51 assault rifle is over. Modern combat doesn't require every soldier to be armed with that type of weapon. People can whine and moan about the M14, FAL and G3 from now until the Sun goes supernova and wipes out all life on earth and it won't change the fact that those weapons have had their 15 minutes of fame.

I can definately see how rifle grenades could have helped us in Vietnam. In Rhodesia pointmen would often go into the bush with a rifle grenade on their FAL so that when they came into contact with the enemy, they wouldn't have a chance to disperse. They'd just go poof!

What's the minimum distance you can use one of your retro rifle grenades? Most weapons of that type have a minimum arming distance to prevent the soldier from blowing himself up with them. I would imagine they would have the same drawbacks in the jungle that the 40mm grenades have, they fly slow enough to bounce back at you in the trees.

I can definately see how these could help in ambushes, recieving or giving, jungle or urban.

Again, lets talk minimum range. In a near ambush you would probably be too close for the rifle grenades to arm. In a far ambush you could most likely maintain a higher rate of fire with the M203, and also make use of mortars or other indirect fire assets. I doubt they'd be much use in the jungle. Anytime you are under the trees you have to really be careful using any munition that doesn't fly fast enough to penetrate. This includes hand grenades.

Jeff

 

[strambo]

I appreciate the reply on 40mm effectiveness. It reminds me of the last claymore range I ran. I set up an E type 10m in front expecting it to get shredded. Nope, jut tinsy tiny holes. So, I set it up only 10 FEET away...surely it will be shredded, if not blasted and mangled. Nope, just tiny holes, it might have fallen over. So, I set it up right in front of the claymore, 1 foot away. Well, this time I got the results I was expecting... I wasn't expecting Hollywood results...just more than what I got.

All I know is I hope those extremely small fragments do a good job on an enemy, there are thousands of them at any rate. I think they changed the fragments in the claymore from when it was origionally developed. I'm no expert on the history of them, just settin' em up and blowin' em! On the plus side, the fragment pattern was very dense.

 

[GunnySkox]

All I know is I hope those extremely small fragments do a good job on an enemy, there are thousands of them at any rate. I think they changed the fragments in the claymore from when it was origionally developed. I'm no expert on the history of them, just settin' em up and blowin' em! On the plus side, the fragment pattern was very dense.

Hmmm... I bet some claymores'd do a number on the Trap and Skeet fields!



"Pull!
"Fire in the hole!

~GnSx

 

[Creeping Incrementalism]

Would you care to hide in the brush from a squad with their M4s and M249s and depend on 5.56's inability to penetrate brush to save you life? The day of the 7.62x51 assault rifle is over. Modern combat doesn't require every soldier to be armed with that type of weapon. People can whine and moan about the M14, FAL and G3 from now until the Sun goes supernova and wipes out all life on earth and it won't change the fact that those weapons have had their 15 minutes of fame.

Jeff, could you summarize why you think the day of the 7.62 rifle is over--is it just the weight? And is that in terms of just the military, or civillian too? What do you think of 6.5 or 6.8?

Regarding civillian use (this goes out to everyone), I always thought the object would be to be at (or you'd end up being near) your home, car, or cabin in the woods, so weight wouldn't be a big deal. Or just take half the ammo for the .308. The object would to avoid trouble, anyway.

I've gone backpacking a bit and know what it's like to carry a lot of weight up high-altitude mountains, but I still think I would prefer .308, because I'd either have it at home, or up in the mountains where the bears not infrequently break into homes and go wandering through camp or town at night. I've heard many stories about charging bears shrugging off hits from bolt-action big-bore rifles, and even if I'm semi-auto, I don't know if I'd want to trust .223.

 

[Jeff White]

Creeping Incrementalism asked;

Jeff, could you summarize why you think the day of the 7.62 rifle is over--is it just the weight? And is that in terms of just the military, or civillian too? What do you think of 6.5 or 6.8?

I think it's day as a general issue military rifle is over. It's not just weight, it's over all size, ease of training and the fact that despite all the whining all over the internet (or as Pat Rogers likes to say, the errornet), 5.56x45 is doing the job. I think there still is a place for the 7.62 rifle as a snipers weapon and for special missions. I don't think you'll ever see it become general issue again. It has plenty of use for civilians.

I really like the 6.8 SPC but the Army has already nixed it. I don't think you'll see a caliber change any time soon. I think 6.5 and 6.8 will just be niche chamberings. You won't see a lot of LE purchases of them. The LE agencies will stay with 5.56 probably just because the military did.

Jeff

 

[ghost squire]

In my experience and that of others, about 400 rounds per man was sufficient for heavy contact and leaving a sufficient reserve to hold you over until resupply.

Interesting... So in fact since soldiers of the Vietnam era with their M-14s didn't even carry this much ammunition, they either did it with far less, or simply ran out of ammunition and died. Now I highly doubt the latter. I also highly doubt Marines fighting in the pacific jungles in the 40's used up 3-5 times their ammunition supply to kill a single man.

You don't often have a highly visibe target, you expend a lot of ammunition shooting into bushes etc. where the enemy is hiding.

I understand that, and there is a specific method of shooting potential areas of cover, and it certainly doesn't require 400 rounds of ammunition. Maybe if everyone had a rifle grenade in this situation it would help as well.

The thing about the documentarys on Dicovery Channel, the History Channel and the Military Channel is hat they use so much file footage that you can't believe much of the video you see. The recreations by the actors aren't usually well done either. You can only trust the stuff that is actual footage. There is no telling how old the footage of the Royal Marines was. CQB is about fast accurate firing.

The Discovery channel thing was no older than 4 years as they made references to Afghanistan, and the Military Channel one was just shot within a year by ABC I believe, under contract of the Military Channel.

CQB is about fast accurate firing.

Well they got the fast part down allright... But apparently they were fascinated by the low recoil and fast fire rate of a 5.56, because they were emptying it at random ????. And the British Royal Marines are a damn elite bunch. Its sad to see what they've turned into.

· Marksmanship is not as important as volume of fire
· Random shots have more chance of wounding than aimed fire

Hmmm... I wonder where those ideas came from. Oh right an official government study, which turned out to be the main reason we adopted the 5.56.
If you believe these "findings" then I've got a bridge to sell you. Of course there is a grain of truth in everything. But if you seriously believe these things then I feel sorry for you.

PS These rifle grenades don't have a blast radius of anywhere near 30-50 meters... So you're safe in a near ambush. Unless you're so close you can't use them, in which case you can't use them... So? Use them while retreating. At least you have them, it doesn't mean they have to be useful every single place. Arming distance between 5 and 10 meters, is my guess, an if you're prone and behind cover like you should be in an ambush you'll be fine.

"More impressive was watching those Marine infantrymen scramble out of the UH-34 helicopters and moved towards the tree line in front of them. Before they could reach the trees, their own mortar sections had covered the area with smoke rounds to obscure their movement. I mentioned to Sergeant Haferkamp that I had never witnessed 60mm mortars fire so fast or so accurately. The vision remained with me as an idea to be used later".

Later on, he discovers how the fire was delivered so quickly in a conversation with Staff Sergeant Pete Connors In the mess hall. Sgt. Connors was in the company he had been watching and it was his idea to use rifle grenades in a helicopter assault. I'll pickup his later statement as to how his company employed them.

"I told him I had watched their progress that day and was impressed with how rapidly they had been able to put their 60mm WP rounds into the tree line. Staff Sergeant Connors laughed and said that what I had witnessed was not 60mm mortar fire, but rifle grenade used in a unique manner. Connors told me he assigned one M-14 grenade launcher to each squad. Since new men had a problem telling where enemy fire was coming from, he gave the rifle grenade launcher to his most experienced men. The M-14 required the spindle valve be turned to the OFF position to fire the rifle grenade. Connors said he required his Grenadier to have one WP grenade attached to the rifle and a crimped cartridge in the rifle's chamber. The Grenadier also had a full magazine of 7.62mm rounds locked in his rifle's magazine well. As soon as he fired the WP grenade, the Rifleman/Grenadier immediately turned the spindle valve to the ON position, pulled back on the operating rod, and loaded a live round into the chamber. He followed the burst of his WP grenade with a stream of nineteen rounds of accurate rifle fire. Knowing where the enemy was located, the rest of the rifle squad could key in on the bursting white phosphorous grenade and deliver more accurate fire."

"SSgt Pete Connors, Fox Company, 2/7, was killed in action trying to save one of his men who lay wounded in a rice paddy."

Maybe his method can be used to save other men's lives. That would probably make him smile.

Vietnam bad: a near disaster from enemy rifle grenades
Congressional Medal of Honor Citation:

Near Chu Lai, Republic of Vietnam, 18 August 1965. In violent battle, L/Cpl. Paul's platoon sustained 5 casualties as it was temporarily pinned down, by devastating mortar, recoilless rifle, automatic weapons, and rifle fire delivered by insurgent communist (Viet Cong) forces in well entrenched positions. The wounded men were unable to move from their perilously exposed positions forward of(the remainder of their platoon, and were suddenly subjected to a barrage of white phosphorous rifle grenades. L/Cpl. Paul, fully aware that his tactics would almost certainly result in serious injury or death to himself, chose to disregard his safety and boldly dashed across the fire-swept rice paddies, placed himself between his wounded comrades and the enemy, and delivered effective suppressive fire with his automatic weapon in order to divert the attack long enough to allow the casualties to be evacuated. Although critically wounded during the course of the battle, he resolutely remained in his exposed position and continued to fire his rifle until he collapsed and was evacuated. By his fortitude and gallant spirit of self-sacrifice in the face of almost certain death, he saved the lives of several of his fellow Marines.

Panama: Disaster at Punta Paitilla Airport

Two platoons from U.S. Navy SEAL Team 4 are pinned down by enemy automatic weapons fire attempting to get in close to set explosive charges against Panamanian strongman, Manuel Noriega's Learjet to prevent his escape from Panama. As bullets skip across the runway into SEALs who were trying to block the runway with a light airplane, casualties mount from automatic weapons fire. Someone has to silence the enemy guards firing behind the cover of dirt filled barrels.

A SEAL with a 40mm M203 grenade launcher attached to his M-16 Assault rifle rushes forward to get into firing position. He is cut down and later dies.

4 SEALs dead, 8 seriously wounded before fire superiority is gained and the enemy killed.

A high price to pay for an attack that could have been done at a safe stand-off using the maximum effective ranges of the weapons in their hands as suggested vigorously by LTCDR Mike Walsh before the mission but over-ruled.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) are big believers in rifle grenades. An IDF Paratrooper writes:

"Haven't used the bullet-trap type. We always used a Mecar type, fired by a blank. We keep the blanks in a special magazine in a pouch...I've used both, the 203 and the Mecar type. Used the Mecar type very effectively in Lebanon... One of my guys stopped a moving car full of Tangos with a Mecar...Our Paras always carry rifle grenades, plus the 203...Good thing about the rifle grenades is their light, you can carry a whole quiver...We tend to favor them over the 203... It's a quiver pouch on your back, like a quiver of arrows...[See photo above] We carry the RPG warheads the same way...Well, not everyone gets them. You give them to the trained Grenadiers...The neat thing is you can train on practice ones over and over again... not like M203 which gets ignored (doesn't have a resuable practice round)...and shooting rifle grenades is FUN"

From: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/2116/riflehandgrenades.htm

 

[Jeff White]

ghost squire said;

Interesting... So in fact since soldiers of the Vietnam era with their M-14s didn't even carry this much ammunition, they either did it with far less, or simply ran out of ammunition and died. Now I highly doubt the latter. I also highly doubt Marines fighting in the pacific jungles in the 40's used up 3-5 times their ammunition supply to kill a single man.

Where did the amount of ammunition used to kill a single man come into this discussion from? There is no way to estimate how many rounds must be fired to kill a single enemy soldier. There are way too many variables to make any figure you could come up with meaningful.

Soldiers and Marines did in fact run out of ammunition. Sometimes they died. Often great efforts were made to resupply them. Perhaps you should read a little history.

Quote:
You don't often have a highly visibe target, you expend a lot of ammunition shooting into bushes etc. where the enemy is hiding.

I understand that, and there is a specific method of shooting potential areas of cover, and it certainly doesn't require 400 rounds of ammunition. Maybe if everyone had a rifle grenade in this situation it would help as well.

Why don't you tell me what specific methods of shooting sreas of potential cover there are? What is the proper rate of fire and how do you control it? I might have forgotten those things after spending 21 years as an Infantryman

How much ammunition does it require? You might note that I never said it takes 400 rounds per man per engagement. I said that was enough to have heavy contact and have enough left to sustain yourself until resupply.

Why have you avoided answering my questions about the rifle grenades? Are they compatible with the other things we mount on our weapons these days? Is my CCO and PEQ-2 going to lose it's zero from the recoil of the rifle grenade? Do I need to carry a special ballistite round to launch the rifle grenade? If so, that means I have to unload my ball ammunition to employ it. How about sights for it? Do my soldiers have to carry them in a pouch or pocket and attach them when they want to shoot a rifle grenade? Do they have to remove their CCO or ACOG to use them?

Quote:
The thing about the documentarys on Dicovery Channel, the History Channel and the Military Channel is hat they use so much file footage that you can't believe much of the video you see. The recreations by the actors aren't usually well done either. You can only trust the stuff that is actual footage. There is no telling how old the footage of the Royal Marines was. CQB is about fast accurate firing.

The Discovery channel thing was no older than 4 years as they made references to Afghanistan, and the Military Channel one was just shot within a year by ABC I believe, under contract of the Military Channel.

And how old was the file footage? Just because they made those documentaries 4 years and 1 year ago doesn't mean that they had actual footage. The average viewer of those shows wouldn't be able to tell how current it was by the footage. But if you watch enough of those things, you'll see the same footage used over and over.

Quote:
CQB is about fast accurate firing.

Well they got the fast part down allright... But apparently they were fascinated by the low recoil and fast fire rate of a 5.56, because they were emptying it at random ????. And the British Royal Marines are a damn elite bunch. Its sad to see what they've turned into.

I'm sure they'l be pleased to know that in your expert opinion they aren't elite any longer. Perhaps you ought to discuss that personally with them over a beer or two .

Marksmanship is not as important as volume of fire
· Random shots have more chance of wounding than aimed fire

Hmmm... I wonder where those ideas came from. Oh right an official government study, which turned out to be the main reason we adopted the 5.56.

Volume of fire is important. No one here has suggested it's more important then marksmanship. However when you need to gain fire superiority in order to maneuver, you have to have a volume of fire greater then the enemys.

Random shots are random shots. Only effective if they hit something. Mostly a lot of noise. What government study said that this was the way to fight? For that matter, what government study led us to the adoption of the 5.56 round? Do you know?

Jeff

 

[ghost squire]

I only have a little time before I have to go to bed so:

Random shots are random shots. Only effective if they hit something. Mostly a lot of noise. What government study said that this was the way to fight? For that matter, what government study led us to the adoption of the 5.56 round? Do you know?

An ORO study done in '58 IIRC. Obviously not completely responsible for it, but the study did make those exact points and in fact directly led to the adoption of a .22 caliber rifle.

The average viewer of those shows wouldn't be able to tell how current it was by the footage. But if you watch enough of those things, you'll see the same footage used over and over.

I know what you're saying, but it wasn't stock footage. It wasn't fragmented like that, it was documenting the training of one specific group of Royal Marines through a 30 week period. The filmstock was new. They interviewed all the recruits and showed the stages of training. It was like a reality show but very good and about the Royal Marines. And the footage they showed was frankly disheartening, as was the footage of MOUT training by the US military (not sure which branch). Severe training deficiencies if you ask me, not the soldiers fault in the slightest.

Soldiers and Marines did in fact run out of ammunition. Sometimes they died. Often great efforts were made to resupply them. Perhaps you should read a little history.

What about the soldiers who have died because the .223 failed to fragment? Or because their bullet deflected several inches off course after passing through a single leaf? Stop dodging my point. You said soldiers now expend 400 rounds in an engagement with the enemy (sorry I wasn't more clear, I meant how many rounds does a modern soldier on average fire at an enemy soldier) . Soldiers in the past managed to do it with far less. You probably witnessed firsthand the fire control troops had in Vietnam. Isn't it true that you tend to spray and pray less when you know you have to conserve ammunition and you have a "hard bucking" (LOL)cartridge like the 7.62 NATO? Read Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden. They would all have been a lot better off with 7.62s. Am I willing to stand in the jungle while you fire into it with a light machinegun? No, are you willing to stand in front of me and get hit by a pellet gun... No. Does that make it an ideal self defense cartridge... No. The 5.56 is a notoriously poor penetrator in bush.

Why have you avoided answering my questions about the rifle grenades? Are they compatible with the other things we mount on our weapons these days? Is my CCO and PEQ-2 going to lose it's zero from the recoil of the rifle grenade? Do I need to carry a special ballistite round to launch the rifle grenade? If so, that means I have to unload my ball ammunition to employ it. How about sights for it? Do my soldiers have to carry them in a pouch or pocket and attach them when they want to shoot a rifle grenade? Do they have to remove their CCO or ACOG to use them?

I'm supposed to know all of this how? Obviously tests would have to be conducted. Some things I CAN answer: Sights could attach to a picatinny rail on the back, or if it doesn't have one I suppose it could be modified to clamp onto the carrying handle. Obviously you could make it so that the regular sights could be used at all times... You could simply use a regular ball round to fire it, it would be a bullet trap type. It would add slightly more bulk to the grenade but... Still better than having 3 pounds of M203 grenade launcher attached to the front of your gun.

Apparently the Israelis and SADF disagree with your negativity about this idea. And since they have more combat experience than you, by your logic there conclusions matter more.

 

[Jeff White]

ghost squire said,

An ORO study done in '58 IIRC. Obviously not completely responsible for it, but the study did make those exact points and in fact directly led to the adoption of a .22 caliber rifle.

Nope, the work on .22 caliber rifles goes back farther then 1958. Look up the Hall Study which was commissioned by the Chief of Ordnance in 1950 and released in 1952. Donald I Hall, an engineer at Aberdeen's Ballistics Research Laboratory concluded that:

Three somewhat interdependent factors governed the effectiveness of a rifle; the probability that a soldier would hit his target (dependent on range and muzzle velocity); the ability of the bullet to wound (a function of bullet mass, shape and striking velocity); and the weight of the rifle and ammunition. Hall concluded; In general it can be stated that if the combined weight of rifle and ammunition is fixed at 15 lbs., a man carrying the cal. .21 rifle would have an expectation of killing about 2 1/2 times as many targets as with the M1 rifle. The range at which this occurs depends on the amount of charge. The 0.6 charge is most effective at the short ranges because of the lighter ammunition. The 1.0 charge is most effective at the longer ranges because of it's flatter trajectory.

The report ended with a reasoned plea that while the bulk of the study was only theoretical, the results were valid and worthy of serious consideration:

The final curves of relative overall expected number of kills show that rifles with heavy charges are preferable at the longer ranges, but those with the lighter charges are made preferable at the short ranges. It is beyond the scope of the present report to state which is the optimum rifle, for this would depend on the most probable combat range. An indication of this range may be obtained from a wound ballistic report from Korea...the mean range is about 120 yards. From this it might be concluded that a rifle that is more effective at ranges up to 500 yards should be favored over one that is more effective at ranges greater then 500 yards.

There is no mention in this report about firing a lot of bullets randomly as you asserted in an earlier post. In fact the report makes note of the fact that a soldier armed with the smaller caliber has a higher probablity of hitting what he aims at.

Of course the Hall report was purely theoretical. No one actually fired any ammo. However it interested the Ordnance department enough that The Chief of Ordnance and the Small Arms Section of Aberdeen's Development and Proof Services produced a 60 grain bullet almost the same shape as the bullet from the .30 caliber M2 bullet and fired it out of a special Winchester rifle with a 1/10 twist to provide ballistic, accuracy and penetration data. From the addendum:

[COLOR=Red[I]]An interesting comparison is made in the ability to penetrate 10 gauge (.137") cold rolled sheet steel. The experimental cal. .220 round gave complete penetration at 500 yards (or 1,800 fps velocity) and partial penetration at 600 yards (or 1,600 fps). A cal. .30 ball M2 round will completely pentrate at 625 yards (or 1,400 fps) and partially penetrate at 725 yards. If, however the cal. .22 was made with a 7.0 caliber ogive, (so as to give the same form factor as the cal. .30), the range at which velocity would drop below 1,800 fps would be 700 yards or approximately equal to the cal. .30.[/I][/COLOR]

The addendum also addressed wounding. You have to remember that wound ballistics were in the stone age and this was more then 30 years before Dr. Fackler ever documented the wounding mechanism of these small high velocity rounds.

It could be concluded that for the same striking velocity the cal. .220 is practically as effective as the cal. .30. This may be due to the fact that the cal. .220 appeared to tumble in clay at all velocities considered. Furthermore, since the cal. .220 will have a higher striking velocity then the cal. .30, the severity of the wound for a given range should be much greater for the cal. .220 than for the cal. .30.

Even though they didn't understand why the rounds performed the way they did, the Hall report drew the correct conclusions. Check out the wounds between the .22 sand the .30 calibers here:
http://home.snafu.de/l.moeller/military_bullet_wound_patterns.html

I have tried to find your Random Shots report. The closest thing I could come up with was the SLA Marshall's Commentary on Infantry Operations and Weapons Usage in Korea which was prepared for the Operations Research Office in October of 1951. This report made the conclusion that;

the best and worst marksmen stood about an equal chance of getting a hit in combat. Indeed while taking fire from the enemy, a soldier could just as easily be hit by a random shell fragment as a bullet supposedly aimed at him; time and degree of exposure were the chief variables.

In June of 1952 ORO published The Hitchman Report. The Hitchman report took Marshall's findings and combined them with Hall's to attempt to come up with ways to improve hit capability and hit severity of the man-rifle combination. It was the Hitchman Report that started us down the road to Project SALVO which ran from 1953 to 1960 and concentrated on multi barrel salvo rifles, multiple bullet cartidges (which we visited again in 1989 in the Advanced Combat Rifle Program) and flechettes. It also started the process of developing the SPIW (Special Purpose Individual Weapon) which was the father of the current OCIW program and the weapon that was the reason development of the M14 was stopped.

The Army continued to test .22 caliber rifles throughout the 1950s in the Small Caliber High Velocity Program. Winchester produced a rifle of conventional design that looked much like the current Ruger Mini 14 for these tests.

I know what you're saying, but it wasn't stock footage. It wasn't fragmented like that, it was documenting the training of one specific group of Royal Marines through a 30 week period. The filmstock was new. They interviewed all the recruits and showed the stages of training. It was like a reality show but very good and about the Royal Marines. And the footage they showed was frankly disheartening, as was the footage of MOUT training by the US military (not sure which branch). Severe training deficiencies if you ask me, not the soldiers fault in the slightest.

You're not going to see much footage of the American military that would reveal current TTPs. I didn't see the documentary on the Royal Marines so I'll take your word for it. But I doubt they'd let much in the way of current TTPs get into the documentary.

What about the soldiers who have died because the .223 failed to fragment? Or because their bullet deflected several inches off course after passing through a single leaf? Stop dodging my point

Not nearly as many who have died because they ran out of ammunition and couldn't be resupplied under fire. I don't know if it's still available, but you might try to find an old video call Deadly Weapons. You might be surprised how much a few twigs and branches defelct even a .50 caliber BMG.

You said soldiers now expend 400 rounds in an engagement with the enemy (sorry I wasn't more clear, I meant how many rounds does a modern soldier on average fire at an enemy soldier) .

I said soldiers normally carried about 400 rounds so that they had enough ammunition for heavy contact and enouugh left over to hold them over until they could be resupplied. There is no way to tell how many rounds a modern soldier would fire at the enemy in any engagement. You would obvioulsy use less ammunition if the enemy was clearly visible and you ambushed him then you would when making unexpected contact and having to put out a large volume of fire in order to gain fire superiority so you can maneuver. I never implied that he fired all 400 rounds in one engagement. Go back a few posts and re-read it.

Soldiers in the past managed to do it with far less. You probably witnessed firsthand the fire control troops had in Vietnam.

Soldier in the past also ran out or ran critically short of ammunition. I went in the Army after the ground troops had pulled out. My sole contribution to that conflict was refugee operations.

Isn't it true that you tend to spray and pray less when you know you have to conserve ammunition and you have a "hard bucking" (LOL)cartridge like the 7.62 NATO?

That's total BS. For one thing fire control is a leadership function. Units develop SOPs on rate and distribution of fire. A good chain of command doesn't allow spray and pray. When I was a platoon sergeant there were only a few situations where a soldier could place his selector switch on auto.
1) When making a chance contact with the enemy and you needed to gain fire superiority so you can maneuver. Everyone who could engage would fire on automatic for a magazine. The idea was to convince the enemy that he's blundered into a much larger force then you are. Then the rate of fire would drop to a rapid semi auto rate. 2) When you needed to break contact the same thing. 3) In the initial stages of an ambush. That was it. Flip that selector swich to auto under any other condition and you delt with me, which wasn't pleasant at all. Vern Humphrey used to hand out Article 15s in his company. You fight the way you train. Drill your soldiers enough on rate and distribution of fire in training and it's not a problem in combat.

Read Black Hawk Down by Mark Bowden.

I have, at least four times. There is a lot to be learned from it.

They would all have been a lot better off with 7.62s.

Really? How long do you think they'd have lasted carrying 120 rounds per man? They were critically short of ammunition by dark. How many more aircraft would have been lost trying to resupply them. How many body bags do you think General Garrison would have had to fill the next day? The battle of the Black Sea is not a very good argument for giving soldiers less ammunition.

I'm supposed to know all of this how? Obviously tests would have to be conducted. Some things I CAN answer: Sights could attach to a picatinny rail on the back, or if it doesn't have one I suppose it could be modified to clamp onto the carrying handle. Obviously you could make it so that the regular sights could be used at all times... You could simply use a regular ball round to fire it, it would be a bullet trap type. It would add slightly more bulk to the grenade but... Still better than having 3 pounds of M203 grenade launcher attached to the front of your gun.

What makes you think tests haven't already been done? We are constantly looking at new things and trying out things other armies are using.

Apparently the Israelis and SADF disagree with your negativity about this idea. And since they have more combat experience than you, by your logic there conclusions matter more.

Neither the Israelis or SADF have more combat experience then the US Army. Did you ever think that they have stayed with the 1940s technology of the rifle grenade for economic reasons? They certainly are less expensive then 40 mm hi/lo projectiles. This quote from the Israeli paratrooper tells a lot about why they don't use the M203;

The neat thing is you can train on practice ones over and over again... not like M203 which gets ignored (doesn't have a resuable practice round)...and shooting rifle grenades is FUN"

They don't train with it, so they aren't familiar with it. They probably don't buy much 40mm TP. I assure you that M203s and M79s are fun to shoot too. There are members of this forum who own their own M203s and shoot TP rounds in them.

Jeff

 

[ghost squire]

Really? How long do you think they'd have lasted carrying 120 rounds per man? They were critically short of ammunition by dark. How many more aircraft would have been lost trying to resupply them. How many body bags do you think General Garrison would have had to fill the next day? The battle of the Black Sea is not a very good argument for giving soldiers less ammunition.

Lets see somewhere around 16 US soldiers killed somewhere around 300 Somalis... Black Hawk Down very clearly states that it most often took a minimum of 3-4 rounds to down a single person. And those are the hits that connected, theres no telling how many were missed considering the M4 is technically a 4 MOA weapon. I'm gonna have to go with 7.62 here.

Nope, the work on .22 caliber rifles goes back farther then 1958. Look up the Hall Study which was commissioned by the Chief of Ordnance in 1950 and released in 1952. Donald I Hall, an engineer at Aberdeen's Ballistics Research Laboratory concluded that:

Did I say it was the first study ever about this subject? No... I said it directly led to the adoption of the 5.56. And I stand by that.

"Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon" published by the ORO. Basically it states that a gun that provides a random cone of controllable fire is superior to one that provides precise single shots, and that the chance of hitting someone with a rifle bullet is as random as the chance of getting hit by a shell fragment.

However did our predecessors do it? They didn't have helicopters to bring them ammunition and they had to go through jungles with a bolt action rifle.

That's total BS.

Really, interesting, so a gun that can go full auto and has virtually no recoil does not tempt troops at all to fire more rounds off then say... a garand? Very interesting statement indeed.

 

[Manedwolf]

On the matter of artillery, I still think it was a mistake to retire the Iowa-class battleships with their massive deck guns. If they ever need to go after another coastal/port area...

What's more profound psychological warfare than hearing the whistle and roar of those 16-inch deck gun shells going overhead, then explosions, over and over, and wondering if the next one's going to come for you?

That, and I just remember it seemed a very powerfully patriotic thing for the USS Missouri, the WWII armistice ship, to be still kicking behind with her massive 16-inchers and Tomahawks in the first Gulf War, almost fifty years later.

 

[Blackhawk 6]

Jeff, you are a better man than I.

 

[Too Many Choices!?]

Don't feed the... Must..Follow....High....Road...

Ah screw it, don't feed the troll. 5.56 deflected several inches by a,"single leaf", wich then magically morphs into a few "twigs and branches". 5.56 will penetrate steel at 600 yards but be deflected by a leaf at short range...

Missed this gem,"Considering the M4 is a 4moa weapon", ***

You just said a mouthfull...

What is that smell?