#MakeAmericaGreatAgain

User avatar
Holy_crap
Second-Lieutenant
Posts: 972
Joined: Fri 26 Oct 2012 21:25
Location: Putsie Capital Planet
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Holy_crap » Mon 7 Aug 2017 09:03

Being back .30-06 so we can truly make America great again
Leader of the glorious Putsie Federation. Saucer 1st Class.
Image
Steam - Tactical Tile Placement

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3731
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Vulcan 607 » Mon 7 Aug 2017 15:21

Killertomato wrote:The army is actually going for an issued 7.62 rifle.

The absolute madmen.


Why? the vast majority of soldiers can't handle 7.62 I predict if a rifle does get adopted (it won't it will cost too much) they will switch back in a few years.

The book Weapon of choice
https://www.amazon.co.uk/d/Books/Weapon ... 1849046506 goes into detail on this a series of tests involving the best shooters in the US army and the worst showed at 600 yards neither group could hit sod all!

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8146
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Fade2Gray » Mon 7 Aug 2017 17:56

Killertomato wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:.

Also, is this for real now or what? The Army has been looking into this for months, and if its official now this is the best birthday present ever. 7.62 is the way forward, especially with the new and "improved" 5.56 round being such a mixed bag.


It's real, also pointless. 7.62 steel core AP can't penetrate any body armor 5.56 steel core AP can't and tungsten 5.56 can penetrate any armor tungsten 7.62 can.

The range advantage is pointless since almost nobody can take advantage of it and the afghan overmatch comes from PKMs, which will still overmatch a 7.62 rifle.


Getting hit in a plate with a 7.62 is a whole lot harder to recover from than a 5.56, and if its a AP 7.62, well... you definitely are not getting up from that. 7.62 punches through cover a helluva lot better than 5.56, and this alone is the biggest advantage of 7.62. The differences in what you can use for cover between 7.62 and 5.56 are pretty damn significant. 7.62 still gives a range boost over 5.56, making it harder to overmatch.

Nice attempt to cherry pick data and ignoring the advantages of 7.62 with some silly nonsense of calling it "pointless." :roll: The only downside to 7.62 is that it will be a bigger rifle and it will not be as "CQCable" or whatever. Other than that? 7.62 is superior to 5.56.

The new 5.56 rounds a disappointment to me. For all the "advantages" that they create they add some serious downsides.

Vulcan 607 wrote:Why? the vast majority of soldiers can't handle 7.62...


wut
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Killertomato
More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
Posts: 13581
Joined: Mon 9 Jul 2012 02:46
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Killertomato » Mon 7 Aug 2017 18:43

Fade2Gray wrote:
Getting hit in a plate with a 7.62 is a whole lot harder to recover from than a 5.56, and if its a AP 7.62, well... you definitely are not getting up from that.


KE force is one thing, but 7.62 AP only penetrates more than 5.56 AP at 500+m. How many shots does the average soldier make at 500m, even with optics, even on a nice, calm range in the supported prone?

Fade2Gray wrote:7.62 punches through cover a helluva lot better than 5.56, and this alone is the biggest advantage of 7.62. The differences in what you can use for cover between 7.62 and 5.56 are pretty damn significant.


Not really. Not unless you're out beyond 600m.

Fade2Gray wrote: 7.62 still gives a range boost over 5.56, making it harder to overmatch.


The overmatch comes from PKMs, and you can't beat a PKM with an AR-10 any more than they could beat an M240 with an AR-10. If it's a real problem, there are loads of 7.62 MGs the military can push down to the squad level. Some of them are barely heavier than a 249.

Fade2Gray wrote:Nice attempt to cherry pick data and ignoring the advantages of 7.62 with some silly nonsense of calling it "pointless." :roll:


There are advantages to 7.62, in an accurized rifle used by one better-than-average shooter per squad. We have those now, we call them DMRs.

Fade2Gray wrote:The new 5.56 rounds a disappointment to me. For all the "advantages" that they create they add some serious downsides.


Like what? I got buds who deployed to Afghanistan with M855A1, they didn't have trouble with it.
orcbuster wrote:USSR gets prototype marsupials, why would you need moose when you got stuff with kickers like that AND transport capability? And I'm not even gonna START on the french Marsupilami, I don't even think thats a real animal! Why no trolls for Norway?

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3731
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Vulcan 607 » Mon 7 Aug 2017 19:24

Fade2Gray wrote:
Killertomato wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:.

Also, is this for real now or what? The Army has been looking into this for months, and if its official now this is the best birthday present ever. 7.62 is the way forward, especially with the new and "improved" 5.56 round being such a mixed bag.


It's real, also pointless. 7.62 steel core AP can't penetrate any body armor 5.56 steel core AP can't and tungsten 5.56 can penetrate any armor tungsten 7.62 can.

The range advantage is pointless since almost nobody can take advantage of it and the afghan overmatch comes from PKMs, which will still overmatch a 7.62 rifle.


Getting hit in a plate with a 7.62 is a whole lot harder to recover from than a 5.56, and if its a AP 7.62, well... you definitely are not getting up from that. 7.62 punches through cover a helluva lot better than 5.56, and this alone is the biggest advantage of 7.62. The differences in what you can use for cover between 7.62 and 5.56 are pretty damn significant. 7.62 still gives a range boost over 5.56, making it harder to overmatch.

Nice attempt to cherry pick data and ignoring the advantages of 7.62 with some silly nonsense of calling it "pointless." :roll: The only downside to 7.62 is that it will be a bigger rifle and it will not be as "CQCable" or whatever. Other than that? 7.62 is superior to 5.56.

The new 5.56 rounds a disappointment to me. For all the "advantages" that they create they add some serious downsides.

Vulcan 607 wrote:Why? the vast majority of soldiers can't handle 7.62...


wut



The issue is 7.62 is designed to kill out to 2000m you don't need that power. Another issue is that 7.62 is less likely to yaw or fragment potentially reducing wound potential.

An interesting thing I've also heard talking to squaddies is that they don't have the issues the US has with 5.56 because they use a 20+inch barrel.

Another thing you have to take into account is a soldiers refusal to stop fighting there are many accounts of soldiers riddled with 7.92mm fire continuing to fight on. In my view it's better to have a lighter easier to shoot cartridge that has greater hit potential and can also be carried in larger numbers,thereby increasing kill potential.

I really think you would find weapon of choice fascinating fade even if you still disagree with the authors hypothesis. So you know military enthusiasts soldiers and academics like Dr Ford regularly have discussions on the subject of lethality on twitter nobody wins!
http://www.hurstpublishers.com/book/weapon-of-choice/

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4266
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Shrike » Mon 7 Aug 2017 22:31

Fade2Gray wrote:It's real, also pointless. 7.62 steel core AP can't penetrate any body armor 5.56 steel core AP can't and tungsten 5.56 can penetrate any armor tungsten 7.62 can.

The range advantage is pointless since almost nobody can take advantage of it and the afghan overmatch comes from PKMs, which will still overmatch a 7.62 rifle.


Getting hit in a plate with a 7.62 is a whole lot harder to recover from than a 5.56, and if its a AP 7.62, well... you definitely are not getting up from that. 7.62 punches through cover a helluva lot better than 5.56, and this alone is the biggest advantage of 7.62. The differences in what you can use for cover between 7.62 and 5.56 are pretty damn significant. 7.62 still gives a range boost over 5.56, making it harder to overmatch.[/quote]
I'm sold, since Germany is looking to get rid of the G36, this may be the perfect time to standardize on a new round.

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3731
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Vulcan 607 » Mon 7 Aug 2017 22:59

Shrike wrote:
Fade2Gray wrote:It's real, also pointless. 7.62 steel core AP can't penetrate any body armor 5.56 steel core AP can't and tungsten 5.56 can penetrate any armor tungsten 7.62 can.

The range advantage is pointless since almost nobody can take advantage of it and the afghan overmatch comes from PKMs, which will still overmatch a 7.62 rifle.


Getting hit in a plate with a 7.62 is a whole lot harder to recover from than a 5.56, and if its a AP 7.62, well... you definitely are not getting up from that. 7.62 punches through cover a helluva lot better than 5.56, and this alone is the biggest advantage of 7.62. The differences in what you can use for cover between 7.62 and 5.56 are pretty damn significant. 7.62 still gives a range boost over 5.56, making it harder to overmatch.

I'm sold, since Germany is looking to get rid of the G36, this may be the perfect time to standardize on a new round.[/quote]

The Germans are going to adopt the hk416a5 like the French.
Also on the subject of standardisation the U.S. has done what it wants anyway regardless of whether it was a good idea or not, just look at the EM 2 vs m14 vs FAL in 280 and 7.62 the m14 was the least capable infantry rifle yet still won. Apparently the U.S. thought its soldiers needed killing power out to 2000m :roll: well the UK had the last laugh when the Vietnam war came along.


what we could have had if the U.S. wasn't totally pig headed.

User avatar
Shrike
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4266
Joined: Sun 22 Sep 2013 04:30
Location: Central California, US
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Shrike » Tue 8 Aug 2017 02:42

Vulcan 607 wrote:The Germans are going to adopt the hk416a5 like the French.
Also on the subject of standardisation the U.S. has done what it wants anyway regardless of whether it was a good idea or not, just look at the EM 2 vs m14 vs FAL in 280 and 7.62 the m14 was the least capable infantry rifle yet still won. Apparently the U.S. thought its soldiers needed killing power out to 2000m :roll: well the UK had the last laugh when the Vietnam war came along.


what we could have had if the U.S. wasn't totally pig headed.

Spoiler : :
Image

User avatar
Fade2Gray
General
Posts: 8146
Joined: Wed 1 May 2013 23:30
Location: IED proof in Iraq
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Fade2Gray » Tue 8 Aug 2017 03:45

Killertomato wrote:snip

You say "not really" and yet the 7.62 is mentioned in the source you provided as much better against types of surfaces common in urban environments, which is considered to be the focus of wars coming. Also not mentioned is how 7.62, like 50 cal, mulches up cover a lot faster than 5.56. This isn't about just punching through cover, actually breaking it down is critical in an extended firefight, ESPECIALLY in urban environments. You are trying to cherry pick again. 5.56 simply doesn't carve up a wall or car like 7.62 does, where as 7.62 will destroy cover faster.

Vulcan 607 wrote:snip


Again, wut.

Show me proof of soldiers "not being able to handle 7.62." I'll be more specific, in typical combat ranges that go out to 300+ meters, show me that soldiers are less capable with NATO 7.62 than with NATO 5.56. Are they less accurate, is the rifle more cumbersome, what exactly is causing soldiers to "not be able to handle it" as you say.
Image
Image
Think you have what it takes to enlist into the military? You sure about that?

User avatar
Vulcan 607
Major-General
Posts: 3731
Joined: Mon 31 Mar 2014 20:40
Location: Malton
Contact:

Re: #MakeAmericaGreatAgain

Postby Vulcan 607 » Tue 8 Aug 2017 10:48

Fade2Gray wrote:
Killertomato wrote:snip

You say "not really" and yet the 7.62 is mentioned in the source you provided as much better against types of surfaces common in urban environments, which is considered to be the focus of wars coming. Also not mentioned is how 7.62, like 50 cal, mulches up cover a lot faster than 5.56. This isn't about just punching through cover, actually breaking it down is critical in an extended firefight, ESPECIALLY in urban environments. You are trying to cherry pick again. 5.56 simply doesn't carve up a wall or car like 7.62 does, where as 7.62 will destroy cover faster.

Vulcan 607 wrote:snip


Again, wut.

Show me proof of soldiers "not being able to handle 7.62." I'll be more specific, in typical combat ranges that go out to 300+ meters, show me that soldiers are less capable with NATO 7.62 than with NATO 5.56. Are they less accurate, is the rifle more cumbersome, what exactly is causing soldiers to "not be able to handle it" as you say.


Fade can you operate a 7.62 Battle rifle on full auto? Say if your clearing a trench or room full of bad guys? On accuracy yes they are less accurate the greater recoil reduces hit probability the 5.56 also has a flatter trajectory, the British army issued the lighter more accurate m16 for SF in northern Ireland for this reason (it should also be noted this was with the early U.S. ammunition which had very high lethality due to its habit of fragmenting heavily).
Also the 5.56 is designed for a 20 inch barrel only the U.S. military have ignored this resulting in less performance.
The biggest problem and don't be offended is shot placement or straight up missing the target for example U.S. troops complaining in korea their m1 carbines didn't kill the reality was they didn't hit the chances are this is the same problem.

I will quote an extract from weapon of choice


"For example, in 1969, German Officers established that 10 per cent of the infantry failed to hit a man-size target during their marksmanship training. If this was not worrying enough, they also established that as many as 40 per cent of the total number of shots fired were within 10cm of the outside edge of the target".

Fade what you want is 280 British but those times have gone 6.5mm looks nice though.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests