הבעיה המרכזית מובלעת בגישה של tony williams: יש הרבה מאוד גורמים בנשק שמשפיעים על איכות הירי שלו, אבל הבעיה המרכזית שלו היא שהוא לא לוקח בחשבון גורמים יותר חשובים.
Perhaps he doesn't appreciate these factors enough because he did not serve in the military and thus lacks experience about how soldiers function in real conditions
בראיה שלי, אני מעדיף קליבר קטן יותר כי אפשר לשאת יותר חימוש ממנו, והמשקל הכולל של הכלי + תחמושת קטן יותר. עכשיו, נכון. אני לא אקח קליבר קטן מדי, אבל אני אקח כזה שהוא מספיק טוב.
לצורך העניין, אם אני צריך לבחור בקוטר גדול עם מסלול שטוח יותר, וקטלניות גבוהה יותר מקוטר קטן יותר, אבל אתה משלם במשקל ויכולת נשיאה - אז אולי לא תעדיף את הקליבר העדיף מבחינת ביצועים.
Your arguments are certainly valid for comparing the small caliber high velocity (SCHV) rounds against the full power rounds like 7.62 NATO. But I think that you are missing my point. My original comparison was between the SCHV vs the AK round, both of which are intermediate power cartridges
To try and better explain what I mean, let me briefly rehash the history behind the assault rifle ammo.
Full-Power--from around the beginning of the century to WW2, soldier rifles shot “full-power” cartridges firing a heavy bullet weighing 150grain (9.5gram) at muzzel velocity of about 2600-2800fps. These are equivilent to the current 7.62NATO or 7.62x54R Russian. Used in FN FAL and M14
Advantages-Good long range ballistics and power
Disadvantages-heavy recoil, large size and weight of weapon and ammunition
As combat studies showed that the overwhelming majority of rifle hits were made under 300m, this meant that the large, full power cartridges were unecessary powerful. It was also concluded that it would be more effective to provide soldiers with ammo that weighed less so that more could be carried and had less recoil so that automatic fire would be possible (and perhaps more importantly, easier to fire rapidly in typical semiauto fire)
There were two basic ways to design an intermediate power cartridge: Reduce the velocity or reduce the bullet mass
Large Calber Low Velocity – The first generation Nazi and Russian assault rifles used the same 7.62/8mm diameter as previous full-power cartridges, but used shorter bullets that weighed about 120grain (8gram) and shot them at lower speed of about 2300fps.
Advantages-Low recoil, small cartridge size and weight; good short range penetration of barriers.
Disadvantages-high trajectory, short effective range (200-300m
Small Caliber High Velocity (ie 5.56NATO, 5.54x39 Russian, 5.8x42 Chinese) shot small, light ~60grain (4gram) bullet at relatively high speeds of around 3000fps.
Advantages-Low recoil, small cartridge size and weight; flat trajectory, effective range up to 450m. Improved terminal effects
Disadvantages-low mass doesn’t penetrate barriers well
Conclusions: Both intermediate power ammo types let the soldier get more hits and carry more rounds than with the previous full-power ammo.
Since both the SCHV and LCLV they have about the same recoil and weight, the main difference here is the flatter trajectory of the small caliber higher but faster 5.xx bullets vs the better barrier (ie cinder blocks, wood, metals, cars) penetration ability of the slower but heavier 762x39.
But SCHV increases the PH compared to 762x39mm because it has a flatter trajectory and thus makes it more likely to hit the target when aiming center of mass at unknown typical battle ranges up to 300m. Like I posted before, when both are zeroed for 250m, already at 300m the -26cm drop for the AK bullet. Is twice that of the M16. With all other factors contributing to shooter error are equal, this is exactly why the SCHV bullet will give the higher hit probability.
And despite all the talk about terminal effectiveness issues with the current 5.56mm, I think that any non-superficial hit with any bullet will in 90% of the time cause the target to become combat ineffective-and this is sufficient for a practical infantry rifle.
I think that what is most important to the military about the infantryman’s weapon is in fact Probability of Hits (PH). Remember the ACR trials
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Combat_Rifle in the 1980s where the US Army looked for a possible replacement for the M16 and demanded a 100percent increase in PH? This was the drive behind the XM29 OICW project with its smart air bursting grenades
Of secondary importance was the superior terminal effects of the new Russian and Chinese ammo-early yaw upon impact for increased wounding with the original 5.54 and better armor penetration with the 5.8 and later versions of 5.54
לדוגמה, האם השיפור שנעשה מ-300 מטר ל-450 מטר ניתן לניצול ע"י החייל הממוצע? כי אם לא, הרי שההשקעה הזו לא בדיוק שווה את הכסף שהושקע בפיתוח.
Is it worth the expense? The Russians and Chinese obviously think so
ראשי
צ'אט
20-05-2010, 16:15
מצב כלאיים
