Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!cbnews!military From: paulf@mcnc.org (Paul Damian Franzon) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: posting on small arms development Message-ID: <11643@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 22 Nov 89 04:13:55 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Lines: 75 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Paul Damian Franzon > From: > > I have noticed a lot of discussion concerning the relative merits between > weapons of a smaller caliber (like the M-16) and larger weapons (7.62 or > 9 mm). In addition, some have argued against flachette based weapons > because if its relative lack of hitting power. The argument I hear > most often in support of flachette or smaller calibers is that the idea > is to wound, not kill, the enemy soldiers. The theory is since it requires > > Has anyone discussed this with those that would actually be involved > (like some soldiers)? How do they feel? I myself would probably want > to take a weapon with long range ability for any open European fighting > but a heavier weapon for any close fighting (like cities or jungle) > where the hitting power prevents any 'returns from the dead'. > As an infantry officer I use direct fire weapons for two purposes: 1. To obtain what we call `mission kills'. This requires killing enemy soldiers, wounding them or making their systems ineffective. 2. Suppress the enemy so that he can't fire (because doing so will expose himself to my fire.) 1 requires: a. penetrating a steel helmet and messing up what is inside at up to about 300m (or more if possible) b. accurately and quickly firing a single shot out to about 300m to hit a man in the body while the firer is under the stress of combat. c. In jungle or cities being able to (i) bring your weapon quickly to bear and being able (ii) to penetrate bushes/trees and brick masonry and still achieve a mission kill. 2 requires: a. Reasonably accurate firing out to about 600m b. Sufficient ammo to keep this up for the time required (up to 30min.) The current M16 has the following limitations: o Iron sights makes 1b difficult o The round can not do 1c(ii) (dont know about 1a) 7.62mm round have all the penetration and accuracy requirements, except o weapon weight means more strength is required for 1b o weapon length makes 1c(i) difficult o round weight makes 2b difficult The nations currently using 7.62mm weapons are moving to 5.56mm weapons with optical sights (not scopes with cross hairs -- eg. The Steyr has a 1.5X optical sight with circle for sighting.) I understand that the new 5.56mm rounds have many of the penetration properties of the old 7.62mm round (anyone out there know for sure? I know it can penetrate helmets but I dont know about its foilage/tree/brick penetration ability.) I have the current comments on the M16 o Properly maintained (ie. cleaned at least twice a day, as any good infantryman will do) it is as good as most other rifles of the same physical age. o Its inability to penetrate foilage was always mucched laughed at by non-US forces in Vietnamn. o I believe that the new M16A2 is outclassed by weapons such as the Austrian Steyr and the British indivdual weapon. However I doubt if the US forces will buy foreign. And a final comment: o Most of the small arms firepower of the squad lies in its automatic weapon(s), not in its rifles. (Even in the US this was 7.62mm until the new better 5.56mm round came in.) The rifleman's job is to hold and take ground and to protect the automatic weapons, amongst other things. Paul Franzon Captain Royal Australian Infantry