The AK-47 or the M16 ?

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#81

Injured arent treated until the Re-org anyway, If we win the firefight we have to treat the enemy injured as well as our own, now Im all for the Hague and Genevea conventions but if the enemy are all dead then the and medical care goes to my guys… We cant shoot prisoners of war, therefore what is the point of a round that means fewer enemy fatalities?

I adhere to Stoats principals ahead of yours Mars.
the 3 for 1, aspect of 556 developed in populairty only ater it was introduced, not as part of the “plan.” If I was lying in a ditch next to my dead best mate, my desire to fight would certainly be affected in a different manner to if I waved my ma of in hte back of a ambulkance to get patched up. oversimplifaction intended. 7.62 is a more effective round, if 5.56 is such an excellent round then why is it not used by MG? MG use more ammuntion than an assault rifle and are primarily used for suppressing fire? Truth is that when things kick off youd prefer dead bodes piled up on the wire than screaming blokes withth missing limbs.

No Ive not seen combat but I will do in time, and ive spent a fair amount of time on ranges and exercises.

Cheers.

Welcome Mars, sorry for any agrro just thought Id clear that up - not that I have the definitive opinion, jsut thought Id clarify my perspective.

#82

if 5.56 is such an excellent round then why is it not used by MG?

Doesnt the UK Army use the Minimi now though, thats 5.56? Is the GPMG not gradualy being phased out?

Isnt it all about suppression? And you can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62.

I know as a Crab I shouldnt be involved in this but need enlightenment.

Editted for addition.

#83

the Minim is a “treat” from what Ive heard and IIRC isnt a standard issue weapons. I am trying to show that 5.56’s advatage is wieght based and has nothing to do with this 3;1 ratio that we get told about. I dont want to set myself up to be a fount of knowledge on this matter. But Ill ty and dig some sources up on the relative values of 7.62 versus 5.56 and rarely does this idea of wounding being favourable to killing crop up.

It is touched on in the SLR SA80 thread on this site but im sure ive found a bigger in depth article elsewhere.

#84

Bluffcove,
5,56mm SR88-Singapore
5,56mm FA MAS rifle-France
5.56mm Galil assault rifle-Israel
5.56 AR 70/223 Beretta-Italy
5.56 Colt Commando-US
5.56 M-16-US
5.56 M249 Squad automatic Weapon(SAW)-Belgium
Even the Soviets made smaller calibers:
5.54mmAk and AKS74
5.54mmAKR

The Galil was first made with a 7.62,but the 5,56 replaced him very quickly.
Belive me,carying 10 mag of 5.56 is much easy then 10 of 7.62.
And belive all those who fabric 5.56 know what they are talking about.

#85

Again though I thought the object was to suppress the enemy, not necessarily kill him.

Stop him from shooting back by laying down firepower while you outflank his position. So does it really matter what calibre you use as long as you keep his head down? And as Mars says, you can carry a lot more 5.56 than 7.62.

#86

Hmmm I take your point, and I am now suitably confused by my own logic regarding MGs, however i stand by my claim that the 5.56 as claimed earlier in this thread is better due to its ability to injure as opposed kill.

the premies was that 5.56 is superior in that it injured the enemy and didnt kill them 3;1 etc

I have been trying to state my point that the appeal of 5.56 lies in its weight advantage. not in its ability injure instead of kill, The claim was made that 5.56 was better because it would injure an enemy and take 3 from the field, drain the enemy resources etc (well only if the enemy wins the firefight and does the re-org otherwise we win and have to sort out hteir wounded, draining our supplies).

The 5.56’s lack of stopping power is not THE advantage of 5.56, but rather the saved wieght in the smaller calibre round - was the advantage.

5.56 is not an ideal calibre, if that were so then there would not be as much interest in re-chambering to IIRC “6.1” Grendel. a round that is of comparable if not identical weight to the 5.56 but with a much deadlier effect hydrostatic shock characteristics comparable to the 7.62 at approximately similar ranges. The idea of an “intended injury” is being replaced with the research into grendel, and idea of killing the opponent is coming back into vogue.

5.56 is lighter and more plentiful and I agree this is its great advantage. The claim was made earlier in the thread that the principal merit of the 5.56 was that it didnt offer the same stopping power. I objected to this and said that of the plentiful merits of 5.56 its less than deadly effect was not one of them.

Hope that has cleared this up. Im sure we are both arguing on the same side…

#87

Ah, apologies, I have now laboriously read back through and I agree. We are arguing the same side.

My fault for not getting in on this in the begining.

As to kill or incapacitate, I suppose that now we are out of the Cold war and our enemies consist of Insurgent types, it may be better to kill than incapacitate as if they are fanatical, they may still carry on.

Or are we getting sucked into us doctrine?

#88

In the case of Insurgencys like in Iraq, it’s probably impossible to incapacitate them while insuring they won’t get back up and fight. You’d have to kill those types.

#89

“Incapacitiate whilst ensuring they wont get up and fight” - large hole in the centre of mass normally conforms to these pre-requisites.

I never understood the desire to have injured enemy on the battlefield. presuming that you want to over run the position where is the sense in “planning” on their wounded getting exfiltrated to their own side and consuming resources.

If you over-run and occupy the position - normally the aim you suddenly have the Joys of Field amin and tirage with a load of screaming foreign none to happy enemy types, lying on grenades and pilfering all your rations and medical supplies. Where is the logic in having the enemy survive your attack?

#90

Thats where your argument is seen through today.

In the Cold War, we were the ones being attacked. So to make the enemy suffer casualties was seen as beneficial to us, as they would be suffering the incapacitating casualties.

For example, Russian hordes in the Fulda Gap.

Diffrent times diffrent ideas I suppose.

#91

Forgot to add, maybe thats why the Sovs stuck with the biger rounds, as they accepted your premise of killing is better than incapacitating.

Could be totally wrong though.

#92

Injure attaackers
Kill defenders

If IRONMAN were still about htis would have helped explain the results of Chosin and the inneffective M1 Carbine so well… Mores the pity.

EDIT: Oh no, It isnt,

#93

Umm, there weren’t any actual battles in the Cold War, it was a war fought by the CIA and the KGB and by both nations trying to get into space first.

#94

Umm, there weren’t any actual battles in the Cold War, it was a war fought by the CIA and the KGB and by both nations trying to get into space first.[/quote]

You reckon ?

What about all the proxy wars ?

Heard of Vietnam ?
Rhodies ?
Angola ?
The Afgan ?

Many good soldiers fought hard to keep the poison of communism from spreading.
Ask those that were there !

#95

Aspects of the Arab-Israeli wars were also proxy battles for the Cold War.

In the Yom Kippur war (1973) Israeli pilots flew with some of the best US technology available against Soviet Aircraft and Air Defences manned by Soviet pilots and technicians. Both the Septics and the Soviets did this to test their own hardware and tactics against the others. The US came away with a rather warmer feeling than the Soviets.

Edited to correct date of Yom Kippur war. Thanks to Mars for pointing this out.

#96

True, remember the Syrians scuttling out of the APCs carrying Gucci suitcases ?
These proved to be a bit of a shock to the Front Wheelers as the cases unfolded to reveal Saggers.

#97

Umm, there weren’t any actual battles in the Cold War, it was a war fought by the CIA and the KGB and by both nations trying to get into space first.[/quote]

You reckon ?

What about all the proxy wars ?

Heard of Vietnam ?
Rhodies ?
Angola ?
The Afgan ?

Many good soldiers fought hard to keep the poison of communism from spreading.
Ask those that were there ![/quote]

Rhodies? A lot of fat men with black T-shirts and facial hair?
(If my own typing were more accurate I might attempt a joke about that, but Ill get my coat!)

#98

Guys, more posts on topic, please!

#99

Umm, there weren’t any actual battles in the Cold War, it was a war fought by the CIA and the KGB and by both nations trying to get into space first.[/quote]

NATO was all geared up to fight the battle in central Europe. I remember serving years in Germany when all we would do was to prepare for this. Do you realsise how many forces were stationed in Germany and the exercises that were very frequently carried out?

#100

If the Cold war had gone hot it was going to go hot with Soviet troops rolling through the German plains. Consequently we trained for a defensive war. Just because no all out war was waged does not mean the Cold War was not “fought” in training manuals, exercises and hypothese by every military unit in the NATO forces, and presumably by the WArsaw Chaps as well.