Evil Monkey
member
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2006
- Messages
- 1,486
Recently, I've been thinking about these 2 rounds in low intensity combat, which is often times in urban terrain. Most of the time, it appears that low intensity combat is almost primarily an infantry vs infantry type of situation with combat support being held back significantly, or that the units involved are guerrilla in nature and don't have access to artillery, aircraft, and armored vehicles. So, they have to make due with arms that soldiers can carry out into the field. It is in this type of warfare that the small arms chosen become very important.
Pro 5.56mm arguments:
Some arguments that can be made is that the SALVO concept still applies, especially in an urban environment because of the close range battles. More rounds downrange means higher chance of connecting. You can say that barrier penetration is overrated because the goal is to suppress and use available explosive weaponry like 40mm GL's and rocket launchers to destroy a trapped enemy. You may even have mortar teams at the ready.
Pro 7.62mm soviet arguments:
Arguments for the 7.62mm are that the 5.56mm was designed to face an extremely large military in the open fields of Europe, which was exactly what the US was expecting in the Cold War. So, of course you want a 5.56mm so soldiers can shoot low recoil bursts into advancing enemy troops and attain much higher hit percentages than usual. That's not the case in urban low intensity combat. With the 7.62x39mm you can do the exact same thing as with the 5.56mm by creating suppressive and then destroying the enemy with explosive ordnance. However, if the 5.56mm can't penetrate the majority of barriers in urban terrain and 7.62mm can, then you can argue that 7.62mm is better because during suppressive fire from rifle and LMG's, there's a higher chance of striking the enemy behind their "cover". This is similar to the SALVO concept in that the 7.62 soviet, because of its better penetrative abilities, can attain higher enemy casualty rates than the 5.56mm during suppressive fire.
Other factors?:
5.56mm means you can have more ammo available? Not quite, small guerrilla units may have simplified or "localized" logistics and may have a much better time supplying troops than huge armies. 5.56mm does have a flatter trajectory but this is urban combat and neither round will make a huge difference in accuracy. A 16"-20" barrel 308 multipurpose/marksman rifle is better suited for engaging an enemy at extended distances, but that just my opinion.
So what do you think of all this? Given the type of conflict and type of forces doing the battling, do you favor the 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm?
Pro 5.56mm arguments:
Some arguments that can be made is that the SALVO concept still applies, especially in an urban environment because of the close range battles. More rounds downrange means higher chance of connecting. You can say that barrier penetration is overrated because the goal is to suppress and use available explosive weaponry like 40mm GL's and rocket launchers to destroy a trapped enemy. You may even have mortar teams at the ready.
Pro 7.62mm soviet arguments:
Arguments for the 7.62mm are that the 5.56mm was designed to face an extremely large military in the open fields of Europe, which was exactly what the US was expecting in the Cold War. So, of course you want a 5.56mm so soldiers can shoot low recoil bursts into advancing enemy troops and attain much higher hit percentages than usual. That's not the case in urban low intensity combat. With the 7.62x39mm you can do the exact same thing as with the 5.56mm by creating suppressive and then destroying the enemy with explosive ordnance. However, if the 5.56mm can't penetrate the majority of barriers in urban terrain and 7.62mm can, then you can argue that 7.62mm is better because during suppressive fire from rifle and LMG's, there's a higher chance of striking the enemy behind their "cover". This is similar to the SALVO concept in that the 7.62 soviet, because of its better penetrative abilities, can attain higher enemy casualty rates than the 5.56mm during suppressive fire.
Other factors?:
5.56mm means you can have more ammo available? Not quite, small guerrilla units may have simplified or "localized" logistics and may have a much better time supplying troops than huge armies. 5.56mm does have a flatter trajectory but this is urban combat and neither round will make a huge difference in accuracy. A 16"-20" barrel 308 multipurpose/marksman rifle is better suited for engaging an enemy at extended distances, but that just my opinion.
So what do you think of all this? Given the type of conflict and type of forces doing the battling, do you favor the 5.56x45mm or 7.62x39mm?