low intensity conflict: 5.56x45mm vs 7.62x39mm

[Hokkmike]

low intensity combat

This is a new term for me. How would you define it? Seems paradoxical to use the words low intensity + combat togther.

 

[Evil Monkey]

I've always thought of low intensity combat as small groups of guerrillas/irregulars fighting each other in a military fashion. They may be well equipped or not, but rarely have tanks, aircraft, helos, arty, or even mortars.

Battles rarely involve more than 50-80 combatants, tactics are mostly "hit hard and retreat, come back the next day", basically the opposite of say, WW2 for example.

 

[TestPilot]

No, but the 5.56 is a poor penetrator through many typical non-armored barriers you find in urban environments compared to AP 7.62 M43.

Why are you comparing regular 5.56mm to a AP 7.62mm M43?
How is the availavility of 7.62mm M43 in AP?

Back to regular FMJ, they can both penetrate things like car doors. Only significant disadvantage a 5.56mm would have is bullet fragmenting or deflecting more when it passes a medium like glass. Both would easily penetrate through multiple layers of dry wall or plywood, and both would not go through heavy layer of brick walls, altough both may go through a single layer brick wall, depending on the material used.
Yes, there may be some barriers the 7.62mm M43 with more mass may penetrate that 5.56mm may not, but is that the majority of the barriers encountered or just some? Is that significant enough to justify the bulk, recoil, and lower accuracy most 7.62mm M43 platform comes in?

In Vietnam, there were many fights between US troops armed with 5.56mm and VC armed with 7.62mm M43. But, I never read of heard about 5.56mm penetrating less than 7.62mm M43 rising as a major complaint, or contributing to any significant amount ot US casualties. It's not as if NVA slaughtered a whole lot of Marines because 7.62mm M43 was penetrating covers found in the streets of city of Hue so much better than 5.56mm M193.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Yes, there may be some barriers the 7.62mm M43 with more mass may penetrate that 5.56mm may not, but is that the majority of the barriers encountered or just some?

If someone was shooting at you, would you take shelter behind a barrier his bullets were going through, or would you seek more substantial cover?

If you were digging in, would you deliberately make your paraphets too thin to stop the enemy's bullets?

But, I never read of heard about 5.56mm penetrating less than 7.62mm M43 rising as a major complaint, or contributing to any significant amount ot US casualties.

I and other company commanders filed repeated complaints, citing actual incidents. I even included photographs.

 

[trinydex]

where are you getting your info testpilot?

 

[Evil Monkey]

I want some more of vern's thoughts on this subject.

I would like details from this quote:

I and other company commanders filed repeated complaints, citing actual incidents. I even included photographs.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'll give two examples:

When I was an adviser, an American convoy was ambushed near my battalion heaquarters near Tan Yuen. The VC fired on the lead vehicles, bringing most of the convoy to a stop (to avoid entering the killing zone.) Small groups of VC were strung out along a river, about 5 or 600 meters away, shooting at us across the rice paddys. While I was down with the convoy, a man next to me was hit in the shoulder, smashing the shoulder socket and penetrating into the chest cavity (I later learned he died before reaching the hospital.) Troops were shooting back with M16s (you could splashes all along the treeline) without apparent effect.

I rounded up a machinegunner and directed his fire, using some mini-binoculars I had. I identified targets to him, and had him shoot low, in the water, and walk his bursts into the target. The enemy was soon suppressed.

I later took an ARVN patrol into the enemy position -- I found blood (lots of it), expended cartrige cases, and prepared fighting positions. I took pictures -- lying an M1 rifle down to show scale -- and illustrated how the M16 had had no effect on the enemy, but the M60 had punched through.

As a company commander, I got into a base camp. Fortunately, I got a couple of my M113 APCs up, and used the Ma Deuce to good effect.

After wards, I ran and photographed weapons tests. Twenty rounds each of 5.56 and 7.62 (from an M60) were fired at enemy bunkers, and just for the hell of it, a few rounds of .50 caliber.

The results were, 5.56 had no effect. Concentrated 7.62 would eat holes in the bunker. The .50 cal blew the bunkers apart.

Those pictures went with my report.

 

[trinydex]

were they firing on you with 7.62 soviet rounds?

 

[Wolfgang2000]

If you want a quick look at the difference between the two dig up the news tape on the Hollywood bank shootout.

The BG's used AK and H&K 308 till the end. One then switched to a M16.

In the beginning (with the AK and H&K) they were shooting through cars with ease. In the end he couldn't make it though 2 wind shields with the M16.

It's not a scientific test, but it is a good "real world" visualization.

 

[RP88]

once again bringing back to the point about how 5.56 would have much luck against a good vest compared to the 7.62. If a 5.56 will deflect from glass, then whats to say that it wont fold and begin to yaw and fragment too soon to get through a vest?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

were they firing on you with 7.62 soviet rounds?

Yep. We found both 7.62 X 39 and 7.62 X 54R cases.

 

[Soybomb]

once again bringing back to the point about how 5.56 would have much luck against a good vest compared to the 7.62. If a 5.56 will deflect from glass, then whats to say that it wont fold and begin to yaw and fragment too soon to get through a vest?

Soft armor, even 3a, isn't doing anything to stop 5.56.

 

[Evil Monkey]

vern's story makes it look like the 223 is inadequate, but times have changed.

Today, every soldier is capable of having a underbarrel grenade launcher. There's also revolving grenade launchers should there be a need for more firepower on target. These weapons take away the need for a bullet from an infantry rifle to penetrate many barriers that a 223 could not do very well.

With that and new tactics, equipment, new weapons, I think it may be a non issue.

 

[trinydex]

so the anecdote also speaks to the "effectiveness" oft he 7.62 round, at least for one poor guy...

 

[Vern Humphrey]

vern's story makes it look like the 223 is inadequate, but times have changed.

Today, every soldier is capable of having a underbarrel grenade launcher. There's also revolving grenade launchers should there be a need for more firepower on target. These weapons take away the need for a bullet from an infantry rifle to penetrate many barriers that a 223 could not do very well.

With that and new tactics, equipment, new weapons, I think it may be a non issue.

I am reminded of a commercial Arnold Palmer did (for what, I don't remember) but he used the phrase, "The rules allow 16 clubs." But Arnold had a golf cart and a caddy -- he didn't have to carry all those golf clubs.

The great problem with all those gee-whiz weapons is soldiers have to carry them. That's why attempts to develop the next super-weapon for infantry keep failing.

The modern M16, with optical sights, better ammunition, and rifling adequate for long, heavy bullets, is a whole different ballgame than what we carried in Viet Nam.

However, the same improvements applied to a larger cartridge would have even more effect.