Interesting....Russians considering 7.62x39mm again?

[elmerfudd]

His statements usually fall along the lines of, "the rifle was perfect as I designed it." Fortunately for him he has been right more often than he has been wrong.

 

[9mmepiphany]

i buddy of mine just got back last year from the sandbox training their new police.

he said the preference for the AK-47 over the M-16, has alot to do with the rounds ability to penetrate into on-coming cars.

 

[Quickill]

Makes sense, that was one thought that had not occured to me.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I found this at ar15.com
http://ar15.com/lite/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=655565

In the later pictures, you see alot of PKM machine guns being used and very little RPK-74's. It is known that they use PKM's as squad machine guns. However, it makes you think whether if they use it because of the firepower in comparison to the RPK-74, rather than the round it uses.

 

[HorseSoldier]

TTPs?

Tactics, techniques and procedures.

Our approach to MOUT on a complex battlefield with civilians in the mix and such has become increasingly focused on precision in identification of bad guys and their engagement. The Russians rely on a less precise, more firepower-centric approach.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Now whether this was because of the inherent reliablity of the AK compared to the M-16 or that they felt the M-16 was insuficiant to drop a charging insurgent (Something I have seen all too frequently) I don't know.

Might've just been that they all knew the AK, did not know the M16. Particularly if they've never been taught much about combat shooting beyond "weapon on auto, butt plate on hip" the strengths of the AR over the AK are not necessarily obvious.

 

[Quickill]

However, it makes you think whether if they use it because of the firepower in comparison to the RPK-74, rather than the round it uses.

I would have to say it's because of the amount of lead the PKM can sling. Being belt fed it can generate quite a bit more firepower than the magazine fed RPK, that and the damn thing only weighs 19 lbs, the newer all stamped ones only are 17 lbs! Compared to the RPK's 10.5 lbs that's not too much more to carry for a greater punch.

Of course the round it fires does contribute to the reason you see PKM's more than RPK's, as most know the 7.62X54R hits with a considerable amount of force and when you add that fact with the belt feed capacity and relatively light weight of the PKM it's not too hard to see why it's perfered.

 

[RP88]

I hope they do. Even with the 5.45, the saying 'The Russians got it right when they did the 7.62' never went away.

Also, another thing that always made me curious...

alot of people cite the 5.56 as superior not because of the (very disputed and unreliable) damage it causes, but because you can shoot it faster and further. Then, I think about what I read just a few minutes ago that I forgot on how US troops always favored marksmanship, which usually means NOT firing at a fast rate so that you can aim well. When you think about the idea on the 5.56 versus how the guns it comes in are used, then do the same for most other common rifles, it seems like almost every moden assault rifle in general (AKs and Ars alike) is using the wrong caliber for their design

 

[Evil Monkey]

When you think about the idea on the 5.56 versus how the guns it comes in are used, then do the same for most other common rifles, it seems like almost every moden assault rifle in general (AKs and Ars alike) is using the wrong caliber for their design

Not really, there are some countries who use, for example 5.56mm, and favor more burst fire than semi auto fire. The British are an example. For the most part, you're right.

The way I see it, the only solid reason why rounds like the 5.56mm and 5.45mm are better general purpose calibers is because you can carry huge amounts of ammo, thus increasing the survivability of the soldier.

You know because of that reason, I never understood why the Russians never made 5.45mm belt fed MG's. I've seen prototypes based on the PKM but they never went anywhere. However, I cannot say that they may think carrying more ammo is overrated, but distributing an existing weapon (the PKM) is much quicker and affordable than having to develop, purchase, and supply thousands of troops with a new belt fed.

 

[ma96782]

We all know that a 7.62 will penetrate barriers (walls etc) when 5.56 won't. So instead of clearing houses from the outside we're forced to go inside or use grenades, bombs, and rockets to do that job.

The troops are forced to go inside because, some ^%$# said we have to minimize collateral damage. You know……probably the same sort of ^%$# that said we need to win hearts and minds, in order to WIN THE WAR.

Aloha, Mark

 

[HorseSoldier]

Some of these houses people keep claiming 7.62x51 will shoot through (and somehow magically eliminate threats that aren't seen) are stout enough that they resist .50 cal and 14.5mm KPV hits. It's kind of a non-issue, really.

As for going inside versus just levelling buildings full of non-combatants . . .

 

[Quickill]

When my father went through armor training in 59' he was taught that the first thing you do when entering a urban enviroment is to use your main gun and destroy any tall structures (steeples, clock towers, bell towers, etc) in order to limit hiding places for snipers and anti-tank squads. If you had a group of troops enter a building you simply put a round into it and then send in Infantry.

World's changed a bit in 50 years.

 

[Run&Shoot]

Quickkill, I was thinking the same thing last week. In WWII non-combatants had the sense to get the heck out of town when fighting forces moved in to duke it out. Armor and artillery were used heavily to root out snipers and any collection of troops. My dad fought in the Pacific and on any inhabited island there were usually twice as many civilians killed as the Japanese and US losses COMBINED. That was just accepted that if they stayed then they would take casualties because the town/village had to be cleared of all enemy forces. can you imagine what WWII would have looked like, how long it would have lasted, and what the outcome might have been if we fought then under the same rules of engagement we have now?

Somehow we have gotten to where non-combatants feel they should be able to carry on with shopping, and sitting in their living rooms and the fighting forces should tip-toe around them and not break the china, and certainly not spill any civilian blood.

I get the whole, we're here to help, so you carry on we'll fight around you idea. It just seems weird. I mean if car bombs were going off around your town, and automatic fire and mortars were being thrown around the neighborhoods, wouldn't you pack up your family and leave, or else join the fight on one side or the other? I can't imagine leaving wives and kids in town to become inevitable collateral damage.

It seems sometimes that we fundamentally do not want to win decisively (i.e., quickly) and so we put tighter and tighter restrictions on ourselves so that we can just maintain an edge but not really eliminate the enemy.

 

[Ash]

Well, the issue is that folks have completely forgotten the truth in Iraq. The war is over. We won. What is happening now is, in an ironic twist, similar to Yugoslavia or France in WWII: armed internal resistance. Whereas in those countries it was largely indigenous citizens resisting oppressive rule, in Iraq it is a quantity of locals supplemented by large number of foreign irregular mercenaries. All the same, the war ended. When it ended, so ended our being able to drive an M1a2 down the street and level the city should enemy tanks be on the other side, or armed and uniformed troops be firing on us.

The very same thing could have happened had the Germans truly initiated Operation Werewolf (or was that just the code phrase?) where the military was to be broken up into small squad and smaller level groups to continue the fight guerrilla style. The same could have happened instead of Lee surrendering at Appomattox. The same, but different again as a large number of combatants are not Iraqi.

In any case, the war ended with the toppling of the Iraqi regime. The current phase of war, or the current circumstances following the end to formal hostilities (whether or not there is a formal surrender), depending on how you look at it, means civilians are certainly in the way. After all, getting Iraq stable and self-sufficient is the goal and that cannot happen unless civilians move in an get back to business.

Of course, we could just kill them all and let Allah sort them out, but last I heard we were not that kind of people.

Ash

 

[Evil Monkey]

It seems like I've definitely been over thinking this whole 7.62mm thing.

Isn't it possible that elite Russian forces use 7.62x39mm just because of the lower ricochet probabilities? The reason is so they don't end up hurting themselves or their team mates in a CQB situation, rather than having the superior penetrating abilities.

Sounds right.....I read somewhere the short 9A-91 9x39mm's were marketed as "low ricochet" weapons for CQB.

 

[Number 6]

Quickkill, I was thinking the same thing last week. In WWII non-combatants had the sense to get the heck out of town when fighting forces moved in to duke it out. Armor and artillery were used heavily to root out snipers and any collection of troops. My dad fought in the Pacific and on any inhabited island there were usually twice as many civilians killed as the Japanese and US losses COMBINED. That was just accepted that if they stayed then they would take casualties because the town/village had to be cleared of all enemy forces. can you imagine what WWII would have looked like, how long it would have lasted, and what the outcome might have been if we fought then under the same rules of engagement we have now?

Somehow we have gotten to where non-combatants feel they should be able to carry on with shopping, and sitting in their living rooms and the fighting forces should tip-toe around them and not break the china, and certainly not spill any civilian blood.

I get the whole, we're here to help, so you carry on we'll fight around you idea. It just seems weird. I mean if car bombs were going off around your town, and automatic fire and mortars were being thrown around the neighborhoods, wouldn't you pack up your family and leave, or else join the fight on one side or the other? I can't imagine leaving wives and kids in town to become inevitable collateral damage.

It seems sometimes that we fundamentally do not want to win decisively (i.e., quickly) and so we put tighter and tighter restrictions on ourselves so that we can just maintain an edge but not really eliminate the enemy.

Iraq and WWII are two very different types of war. An insurgency is fought very differently than a conventional conflict and direct comparisons are difficult to make.

I am curious what Max Popenker has to say about the 5.45 vs. 7.62 debate.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Somehow we have gotten to where non-combatants feel they should be able to carry on with shopping, and sitting in their living rooms and the fighting forces should tip-toe around them and not break the china, and certainly not spill any civilian blood.

Depends on the particular scenario. Fallujah was conducted like a classic conventional urban mopping up kind of operation, after they cordoned the city and told the civilians to hit the road (and be screened at check points for bad guys trying to slip away). That's just not really practical for, say, Baghdad or big chunks therein, if only for the logistics of dealing with the resulting refugee population (though, of course, the political fall out is as big or bigger a consideration).

 

[rr2241tx]

One of the principal reasons the Iraqi civilians haven't left is that they know there is a high risk of injury/death if they stay put and an absolute certainty that they will be killed if they leave. Iraq is not Kansas, you can't just pack your satchel and troop off to another town to wait it out. There's no love lost between the tribes and the sooner we encourage them to set up 3 countries the sooner there will be relative peace in that area of the world. The Allies did a very poor job of redrawing the maps at the end of WWII and a lot of people have died as a direct result.

rr2241tx

 

[9mmepiphany]

The Allies did a very poor job of redrawing the maps at the end of WWII and a lot of people have died as a direct result.

a perfect example is Africa

 

[Ash]

You mean, WWI. The lines were largely drawn with the breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

Ash

 

[roscoe]

Man - the Ottomans. I say we give it all back to the Turks.

 

[Tony Williams]

Man - the Ottomans. I say we give it all back to the Turks.

Sounds good to me. They can have Iraq, Iran, Palestine, Israel, the whole region which has caused such grief over the past half-century. In fact, we should never have taken it away from them...

 

[Ash]

Well, you know, I have pondered that. At times I thought perhaps Germany should have won WWI as there were really no true bad guys in WWI, except for the Ottomans. Had Germany won, the government could have still toppled, but they would have probably avoided National Socialism and so much of the mess in the Middle East might have been avoided. Of course, the Ottoman Empire was in no better condition than China of the 1920's so who knows, it may have crumbled apart on its own. But, it may not have.

However, the Ottomans still had eyes on Europe. Had they survived intact, the oil boom there would have been very dangerous indeed. The wealth it would have brought to an intact and beligerent Ottoman Empire could have made it a far more lethal opponent. The Cold War could have been averted (or not, we may have fought WWII but with Germany on our side against the Soviets), but a continuance of the original Islam-Versus-Everyone war that has been going on since Muhammed. You know, the war the ended the Eastern Roman Empire, Coptic rule in Egypt, and brought Moors into Spain and almost into Vienna.

So, we have terrorism and a big mess in the Middle East - due to the split up of the Middle East among France and England. Sure, Persia was not involved so the Iranian mess may or may not have occurred. However, is what we have today (and the catastrophe of WWII that may still have happened) worse than what we may have had with a unified and very wealthy Ottoman Empire?

Ash

 

[Run&Shoot]

Agree that Irag insurgency is not the same as WWII, but my comment was more on just the practical safety of individual families. I can't imagine just staying put and let my family live under those conditions (with 7.62 and 5.56 lead flying, just to keep this gun related). I wasn't aware of the severe tribal conflict and danger of relocating, but man, staying put with IEDs going off and mortars chunking nearby, that just seems bad.

Back to the caliber discussion though, someone made the comment about how in that area the walls are so sturdy that it makes little difference whether it is 5.56, 7.62x39 or 7.62x51. I recall a segment on the History channel about a squad being attacked from a mosque minaret. They hit it several times with a M2 .50 BMG and it did not penetrate. I thought a .50 would chew up even a reinforced concrete wall, but those guys behind the chest high wall were still popping up and shooting.

In an urban environment like most Western cities with glass, drywall, wood or steel framing then it would make a difference what caliber, bullet weight and velocity you were shooting. But perhaps in areas where the walls are think adobe/concrete the cartridge is not really as relevant in terms of penetrating cover.

I have never shot any so I have zero experience which cartridge is best for terminal ballistics on a human adversary. But, if I were hunting deer sized animals I would rather have the 7.62x51, and if not that then the 7.62x39, and my last choice would be the 5.56. I really don't understand how a cartridge that in civilian sports is pretty well recognized as only being a varmit cartridge, and even illegal for medium size game in many states, is somehow deemed to be the cartridge of choice for military engagements. I only have a civilian/hunter perspective, so am open to being enlightened by someone with both hunting and military firefight experience.

I can see a reason for the 5.56 if you can say that it is at least somewhat effective in terms of accuracy and terminal bllaistics at a normal engagement range that the 7.62x39 cannot reach. But if most exchanges are at 200 meters or less, then can the 5.56 really be better then the 39?

 

[Evil Monkey]

only have a civilian/hunter perspective, so am open to being enlightened by someone with both hunting and military firefight experience.

I can see a reason for the 5.56 if you can say that it is at least somewhat effective in terms of accuracy and terminal bllaistics at a normal engagement range that the 7.62x39 cannot reach. But if most exchanges are at 200 meters or less, then can the 5.56 really be better then the 39?

The military like weapons that give each soldier a higher chance of hitting the enemy. Hit's are what count, not misses. It's easy to put lead downrange accurately and quickly with 223 than 308 for most soldiers. Soldiers can also carry more ammo with 223, and that contributes to possibly more enemy casualties. Of course, there are some armies that put 308 marksman rifles in the squad. So all is not lost for long range capability.

Can the 5.56mm NATO be better than 7.62x39 soviet under 200m? I don't know, I like both.

About the ability to penetrate cover, anybody remember when the US military fought Uday and Qusay trapped in that house? The battle last 4 hours, they had to use multiple TOW missiles and air support to demolish the house.