על מרכבה

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/asset...01206_Watts.pdf
7.62 Revisited

The British Army has had recent experience of the effectiveness of small arms fire in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Making alterations to suit changing tactics is to be welcomed, but doctrine appears to have been confused concerning the relative merits of the 5.56 and 7.62 calibres. As a result of experience in Iraq, additional firepower was needed at section level. The Light Support Weapon (LSW) was a heavier version of the SA80 rifle, but was magazine-fed – reminiscent of the old LMG/Bren gun. It lacked the ability to provide sustained fire. The FN Minimi was acquired for rifle sections; it was belt-fed and it also chambered the 5.56mm round.

Experiences in Afghanistan
In Afghanistan, British forces have found that the Taliban adjust their tactics very quickly. Close-quarter battles are usually won by British and ISAF troops, so gunfights are now conducted at longer range. Taliban fighters are usually equipped with Soviet-era AK47 derivatives, which chamber 7.62mm ammunition, probably produced locally and much more potent than standard issue. They also have ex-Soviet Dragunov sniper rifles. In this scenario the 5.56mm round lacks the lethality to reach the enemy. To provide suppressive firepower with sufficient lethality required the reintroduction
of a 7.62mm version of the Minimi weapon. The Minimi supplemented the
punch of the 7.62mm GPMG, which was also issued to section level. The
contract to buy the 7.62 Minimi was in the region of £10 million-£20 million.
In 2009, the MoD expressed its satisfaction with the standard-issue 5.56mm round, and in August of 2010, following a US trial, it issued a heavier 5.56mm round. This was judged to be effective out to 500 metres, against a 7.62mm round, reckoned to be effective out to between 600 and 800 metres. In January of the same year, the 7.62mm Sharpshooter was introduced. An initial batch of 400 of the US-produced weapons was ordered as an Urgent Operational Requirement at a cost of £1.5 million. The argument about lighter ammunition seems to have got lost in a campaign where soldiers regularly carry a 90-pound load on operations. Likewise, ‘fire for effect’ seemed to have replaced ‘shoot to kill’ as a doctrine in tactical engagements.

AN ARMY OUTGUNNED
http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Militar...0831_art004.pdf

Despite incremental improvements, the M16 riﬂe and its 5.56 mm NATO round are unable to compete effectively in current and anticipated combat environments because
of the physics of ballistic performance, combat terrain, and the nature and ﬁghting characteristics of the enemy. Eugene Stoner’s space-age design was the
result. Stoner’s “plastic” 5.56x45 mm (.223 cal.) M16, with the M193 55 gr. projectile and
a 30-round magazine was a light 8.79 pounds loaded. Unfortunately, it has a propensity to jam and fail due to its direct impingement method of operation that vents gas and residue directly into the internal action of the weapon. In both caliber and design, the M16 was a dramatic departure from any BCW previously adopted by the United States. The Army later adopted the improved 62 gr., M855, 5.56 mm cartridge that was less effective than the M193 against personnel under 200 yards, and more recently the 5.56 mm M855A1
“Enhanced Performance Round,” which is not yet fully assessed

“Effective” is the key word. In this instance, it denotes the maximum range a projectile is expected to inﬂict casualties or damage. Both projectiles ﬁred at a paper mache annequin at 460 meters may sail the distance, but one will probably bounce off. As previous studies concluded, a truly lethal maximum effective range for an M885, 5.56 mm NATO projectile is about 200 to 250 meters (218-273 yards). Therefore, because half of our ﬁreﬁghts occur well beyond 300 meters, our weapons are marginally effective. The M16’s weight, range, and caliber proved good for leaf-penetrating jungle warfare, but less so when ﬁghting in deserts, mountains, valleys, and close quarters combat. The Army itself demonstrated proof of the M16’s obsolescence when the
101st Airborne and other units started using signiﬁcantly enhanced 7.62 mm M14s in Afghanistan in mountain battles where the M16A4 and M249 proved basically useless. In the interim, the soldiers themselves used captured AK-47s to better compete in the mountainous terrain. As the title of this article emphasizes, we are clearly outgunned, and that situation will continue as we ﬁght a geo-diverse global war on terrorism and face advanced new weapons, such as the AK-12, the 5th-generation Russian AK

According to an Army report, the “super round” has better armor-penetrating performance at 350 meters than both the 5.56 mm M855 and 7.62 mm M80,as well as better hard-target performance than the 7.62 mm, and is highly accurate up to 600 meters. It also has better vehicle, glass, and structural penetration abilities, and snipers have reportedly killed enemy combatants up to 700 meters away using the new round. However, it is too early to assess the long-term performance of this new
round in a broad range of combat scenarios and environments, including what adverse impact it may have on the M16, M4, or M249 platforms.By contrast, there have been many instances, especially in close quarters, house-to-house combat in Iraq, when the small 5.56 mm projectile, with a high velocity of 3,000 ft/s, would zip through an
enemy combatant center mass without causing effective incapacitation, allowing further attacks on our forces. The projectile’s entrance and exit occurred so quickly (the ice pick effect) that the enemy combatant did not realize he had been shot until later when
either additional rounds or internal blood loss ﬁnally downed him

Two examples are the Barrett 6.8 SPC (Special Purpose Cartridge) Remington and the Alexander Arms 6.5 mm Grendel. Both were extensively tested and appear to well outperform the M885 5.56 mm NATO round. In Afghanistan, a Jane’s Defense Weekly posting in the Pakistan Defence Forum claims that more than half of Taliban small-arms attacks on British patrols took place between 300 and 900 meters, well outside the 5.56 mm NATO round’s effective range. The enemy is well aware of this and positions his forces accordingly. It is not certain what additional range the 5.56 mm Enhanced Performance Round will realize in a mountainous environment, nor what its terminal effectiveness is at any range

When U.S. forces are ﬁghting mountain battles ﬁring uphill or across mountain ridges with such a small caliber BCW, heavier enemy AK-47, 7.62x39 mm and larger caliber rounds rain down on them. Worse, the enemy’s AK-47 has a signiﬁcantly higher reliability rate than the 5.56 mm M4, M16, or SAW family, regardless of the cartridges
we adopt There is also a possibility that a 6.5 mm cartridge, which ﬁts into the 5.56 mm magazine, could also be “enhanced” with a steel penetrator and more powerful propellant. That would provide the 123 gr. package with theoretically double the
devastation and longer range than the M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round, giving our forces the edge in any combat environment and at any range. The Alexander Arms 6.5 mm ultra-light Grendel is another well designed 6.5 mm assault riﬂe that outperforms the current M16A4 in power and reliability. The Grendel uses a more reliable piston
gas system that is difﬁcult to jam, even after ﬁring hundreds of rounds and being exposed to water, mud, and sand

Is there a problem with the lethality
of the 5.56 NATO caliber?
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2010armame...erArvidsson.pdf

אפשרויות משלוח הודעות

אתה לא יכול לפתוח אשכולות חדשים

אתה לא יכול להגיב לאשכולות

אתה לא יכול לצרף קבצים

אתה לא יכול לערוך את ההודעות שלך

קוד vB פעיל

סמיילים פעיל

קוד [IMG] פעיל

קוד HTML כבוי

כלי אשכול	חפש באשכול זה
הצג גירסת הדפסה שלח דף זה ב E-Mail	חפש באשכול זה: חיפוש מתקדם
מצבי תצוגה	דרג אשכול זה
עבור למצב לינארי מצב כלאיים עבור למצב משורשר	דרג אשכול זה:

הדף נוצר ב 0.09 שניות עם 12 שאילתות
צור קשר - Fresh - למעלה