groda
Member
I dont see how the war in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan differs.
oh god
I dont see how the war in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan differs.
In actual battles Jihadis have fired through interior walls to kill US troops and the M4 Carbine rounds could not penetrate to strike back at them.
In one such action Jihadis lay on the basement floor firing up to kill several of our troops and return fire was completely ineffective.
Armor had to be diverted from another area to blast the house. While waiting for the Armor to get there several more US troops were killed or wounded while making a brave but fruitless attempt to remove our dead and wounded before the house was blown up.
Jihadis have been paying premium prices for WW2 surplus Machineguns for some time now, because they offer an advantage the intermediate round chambered guns do not. Thats much greater penetration.
I read somewhere that the average distance for police to engage a suspect at is 6 feet and that only about 50% of their shots hit their target even at that range.
There are a lot of anti-personnel land mines designed after WWII that are meant to wound. They have enough explosive to destroy feet and legs, but not enough for a clean kill.I have never seen any evidence that "wounding" instead of killing has been a deliberate design function of any weapon system except for a few small Soviet-era explosive devices.
I heard little else in defense of the 5.56 use during the Viet Nam War.But rifle designs? You are correct, I've never heard of that or seen it.
Roswell 1847 said:At the end of WW2 while retreating from the Russians the NAZI actually scuttled a number of river freighters and barges loaded with their own wounded in order to used the remaining land transport for troops that could still fight.
…long distance engagements just didn't make sense. Why start shooting far away, when you can draw your enemy into your artillery net and then murder them with small arms fire?
Why park a truck a mile away when you can park it 500 yards away and assault from there? Why potshot at troops a long distance away when the machineguns can rake them? In other words, the rifle was just not the best long-range weapon, and so it became a short range weapon, which is still is, more or less, today.
I dont see how the war in Iraq and the campaign in Afghanistan differs.
First off theres probably not anyone who was alive in the 60's that didn't hear the "wounding theory" crap evertime the subject of the .223 cartridge came up. Its one of the most commonly quoted of all time when the subject is rehashed, and as I pointed out it sounds good on paper only.How about a documented example of this since you were unable to provide any documented example of the 5.56 "wounding" theory?
Last Updated: Friday, 19 September, 2003, 17:24 GMT 18:24 UK
E-mail this to a friend Printable version
Danube reveals its metal graveyard
By David Shukman
BBC science correspondent, in Prehovo
The Danube has fallen to its lowest level for more than 120 years, paralysing shipping and at one stretch, between Serbia and Romania, revealing the wrecks of a long-forgotten fleet of World War II German warships.
The Germans were in fast retreat
You cannot mistake just how dramatically the Danube has dropped when you stand here on the quayside at the Serbian port of Prehovo.
A series of depth markers, some 10 metres in height, slips down towards the river only to run out before the surface of the water.
The harbour master jokes that for the first time in his career there is no point even trying to record the river's depth.
In retreat
But his is the only joke along the banks of what is meant to be Europe's mightiest waterway.
Usually, at least a dozen so-called "convoys" of vessels - massive tugs pulling long lines of barges - plough their way between the Black Sea and the heart of the European continent.
We saw people on board a hospital ship one night and the next morning the ship had been sunk
Vojislav Lapadatavic
The economic loss is incalculable. But there is another reason for the Danube's level to cause concern as well.
Just upstream of Prehovo, a tangle of metal shapes has broken through the rippling surface - the remnants of what was once Hitler's Danube Fleet.
The river was as strategically important then as it is now but when in 1944 the Nazi forces were in retreat, the German admirals felt they had only one option - to scuttle more than 80 of their river-going warships.
No mercy
Now, all because of the drought that has afflicted great swathes of Europe this summer, this footnote in history has resurfaced.
The river authorities were amazed at this discovery and immediately began questioning local people for more information - with startling results.
One old man we spoke to, Vojislav Lapadatavic, who had worked in the German military kitchens, described how the ships were sunk even though there were wounded crewmen on board.
"We saw people on board a hospital ship one night and the next morning the ship had been sunk," he said.
What else?
According to local accounts, as many as 2,000 German sailors who were too badly wounded to be evacuated during the retreat by land would have perished in the operation.
A hazard to modern-day shipping
The thought of so many men doomed in that way - even the enemy - still haunts those who work on the river.
A local TV company hired divers to try to get a look underwater but to no avail - there was too much silt and mud for clear pictures.
Many people in Prehovo blame global warming for what is happening to the Danube.
They also wonder what other grim discoveries there may be before the waters rise again.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/57JMMAVI.
In his 1967 paper, the US Army scientist Eugene T. Roecker lamented the fact that bullet designers seldom tried to maximize the wounding effect:
"The design of a rifle bullet for combat purposes has generally been dictated by interior ballistics, exterior ballistics, and manufacturing conveniences. Lethality was rarely considered at the designing stages because of a lack of an adequate theory for lethality prediction".[25]
Roecker proceeded to construct what he described as "a means of designing a more lethal bullet". But if wound ballistics can be used to maximize injury, it can also be applied in reverse for humanitarian purposes.
In 1981, NATO announced its decision to adopt a second standard calibre for small arms, alongside the previous standard calibre of 7.62 mm. The second calibre selected was 5.56 mm, the same as that of the M16 rifle, but a Belgian round, the SS 109, was adopted rather than the M16 round as a basis for standardization of ammunition for NATO rifles.
In a presentation to the fourth International Symposium on Wound Ballistics in 1982, a representative of the Ballistics Laboratory of the Belgian Fabrique Nationale, manufacturer of the SS 109, said that the new bullet had a "high coefficient of essential stability" and a high rate of spin imparted by a rifling twist of one turn in 7 inches, as compared with the M16 twist of one turn in 12 inches.[26] He made it clear that the SS 109 design programme had been heavily influenced by the 1979 resolution of the UN Conference cited above, appealing to governments "to avoid an unnecessary escalation of the injurious effects" of small-calibre weapon systems.[27]
Test results presented by Beat P. Kneubuehl at the ICRC expert meeting in 1994 showed the superiority of the SS 109 over some other bullets in terms of compliance with humanitarian rules. The results were presented in the form of graphs showing the amount of energy transferred to the test medium during each centimetre of penetration. According to the test results, which are based on only a limited number of firings, the SS 109 bullet starts transferring energy rapidly (at a rate of 50 Joules or more per centimetre) only after penetrating 14 centimetres; by the time it penetrates 20 centimetres, it has deposited 600 Joules of energy in the tissues. In contrast, the Russian AK-74 5.45 mm rifle, which for some years had been reported to cause severe wounds, starts transferring energy rapidly after penetrating 9 centimetres and has deposited 600 Joules of energy by the time it penetrates 14 centimetres. The AK-74 bullet will cause a severe wound much closer to the surface of the body than the SS 109.
VII.
U.S. ASSAULT RIFLE SALVO PROJECT .22 T65 Duplex
Manufactured by Winchester, New Haven, Ct. - An experimental, automatic, gas-operated rifle, designed as part of the SALVO project conducted by the Operations Research Office at John Hopkins University. The goal of the project was to develop a new automatic weapon due to dissatisfaction with the M14 and the 7.62x51mm cartridge. This particular piece has two side-by-side barrels, dual magazines and a two faced bolt. Operates on a single gas cylinder (has been plugged). Weapon uses a large volume cartridge. Rubber buttplate. Weapon weighs approximately 11.8 lbs.
Markings:
Receiver cover: (Sticker) U.S. GOVERNMENT PROPERTY/U.S.-01-19-059-2318-2.
Butt: PACHMAYR/GUN WORKS. LOS ANGELES, CALIF. MADE IN U.S.A.
Weapon transferred to the Museum on 7 January 1965. At that time weapon was appraised at $100.00.
Exhibit label: "Salvo Rifle - Studies of combat injuries in several wars indicated that a wound is more likely to be inflicted by a piece of shrapnel or a stray bullet than from an aimed rifle. A project was assigned to Springfield Armory that would have led to a complete revision of infantry tactics and weapons systems. Project 'Salvo' proposed a rifle that would spray a deluge of small caliber, high velocity projectiles from multiple barrels."
Well my experience is artillery has much greater range than small arms fire. Per the fundamentals I was taught, as the enemy comes to you, you engage each weapon at maximum effective range of that weapon. Artillery, mortars, guns, then Rifles, then your 40mm grenades etc. All employed at each weapons maximum effective range. If your weapon and training allow you to, you would hopefully start your rifle engagement at 1200-1000 yards. Or maybe today with the M16 500 yards would be where you begin accurate fire. That is assuming your troops are trained for it.
One reason the Marine Corps is big on the ACOG is magnification, that allows precise engagement at longer ranges. In fact if you use the 4 power that the Corps is using times the 300 yards that is the holy grail of combat today, you get 1200 yards. Amazing what coincidences pop up when studying this subject.
I simply don't know. I am not talking about special builds like the Mk 12 or M4's built for SPECOPS.
This may be true of Army troops. It is not true of Marines. The Corps has always put a premium on the ability of the line troops to shoot at 'long' ranges with the service rifle. Those long ranges are now 500yards with the M16A2.
The Marines already have done better, in actual combat, not simulated. As stated in the earlier answer. The Corps line infantry had already proven it’s capability of aimed accurate fire in the recent conflict in Fallujah. Done deal.
When they knew for a fact the enemy was on the other side of the wall it was exactly what they tried to do with their M4 Carbines and failed because the 5.56 wouldn't penetrate.
Reports from the theatre indicated that the jihadis were making special efforts to obtain the more powerful 7.62X54 Caliber MGs whenever possible.
Discoveries of Caches showed that these weapons were being smuggled in and stockpiled.
I heard little else in defense of the 5.56 use during the Viet Nam War.
Everytime someone brought up the subject some War dept suit would drag out that old saw from studies done in WW2.
Maybe you guys should look up some of the literature of the time in which arguments for adopting and keeping the M16 were flying fast and hard.
Since the only comment I made on that subject was that it looked good on paper but not in the real world. Just exactly how would that make me a proponent of that theory?Wounding the enemy rather than killing him sounds good on paper, but in real life a wounded enemy will still trigger a Claymore or cover his retreating comrades as long as he can pull a trigger.
Thats the job of those who believe the theory is still valid.I think you'd do well to look up the literature yourself
I see, you prefer to set off a grenade in the room you are in to try to breech the wall, or would you rather have fired an RPG or SMAW inside that room?That's why guys have access to grenades, rockets, grenade launchers, and everything else.
Yep because available stocks of the ready to Hand WW2 surplus won't meet the demand and they've been paying as much for the old stuff as they'd expect to pay for more modern equipment less easily obtained and smuggled in. They'll pay for whatever 7.62X54 or equivalent caliber beltfeed or hicap full auto they can get because it offers them the chance to strike the opponent with a high volume of rounds with high penetration power.Saying "World War II surplus machineguns" and then saying they are trying to get 7.62x54 MGs simply is not the same thing. Like Evil Monkey noted, the RPD is an antique, but several nations are cranking out PK and PKM machineguns even as I type.
I see, you prefer to set off a grenade in the room you are in to try to breech the wall, or would you rather have fired an RPG or SMAW inside that room?
So?Roswell, your quote does not say anything about wounding vs. killing being a deliberate design function.
And how many times were you machinegunned to death blowing that wall while jihadis poured full auto AP through the wall while you were setting up?No, you use C4 and saline bags. And yes, you are quite close by when it goes off.
John
The Germans designed and probably used trapguns rigged to the perimeter wire around some camps. It was a fullauto 7.65 ACP caliber with a cross shaped cutter mounted at the muzzle to cut each bullet into four pieces spraying the area where an inmate would be trying to crawl under the wire.
The torn up and bleeding inmate would of course be dragged around the camp as an example before execution.
Several examples of these weapons survived the war, very crude devices.
And how many times were you machinegunned to death blowing that wall while jihadis poured full auto AP through the wall while you were setting up?
And to repeat there have been firearms designed to wound rather than kill.
Because if you hadn't noticed most combat at under three hundred yards today involves sturdy third world dwelling of one sort or another and/or barricaded diehards that hope to take you with them.how did this go from the difference between average combat range of today and 50 years ago to shooting through walls and the purpose of a rifle and its round?
Actually there were two in the Basement firing up and one or more at the eand of a hall firing through the wall and basement door, the story didn't mention the fire coming through the interior walls. I'll try to find a more complete account later.The actual story being referenced here involved some cornered bad guys shooting up through the floor, and was acknowledged by the embedded reporter to have been something the marines involved had not encountered before.
Couldn't find any instance where I said that wounding rather than killing was deliberate design function of any military rifle in use now did you.Quote:
Roswell, your quote does not say anything about wounding vs. killing being a deliberate design function.
So?
Look over my posts and find where I supposedly said it was a Deliberate design Function.
Remember I'm not the one that said the wounding rather than killing was a valid practice in the real world of today.