CWRPHILLIPS said...

Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles

There is a statement in there which I have not seen anywhere else: “Current U.S. statistics reveal that 21% of small arms KIA’s and WIA’s in Afghanistan are from 7.62x54R caliber weapons” does anybody know if it is true?

It seems to correlate fairly well with the chart on Tony's site:

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Assuming that most of the other 79% were 7.62x39mm it suggest that long range fire-fights are not the main problem; possibly not even a significant problem.

From what I gather, they are mostly harassing fire that inflicts few friendly casualties.  So yes, it does not seem to be a problem that requires a change to a GPC.

stancrist said...

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Jim Schatz's article on future assault rifles

There is a statement in there which I have not seen anywhere else: “Current U.S. statistics reveal that 21% of small arms KIA’s and WIA’s in Afghanistan are from 7.62x54R caliber weapons” does anybody know if it is true?

It seems to correlate fairly well with the chart on Tony's site:

In statistical terms misleading without for example separation into two classes, one: long range, and two: close range firefights as initiated by adversary, and for each two ratios: 7.62 x54 casualties per number of such fired, and ditto 7.62x39 casualties per.

Also useful to calculate similar statistics for firefights initiated by own forces where own suppression is more of a factor from the start.

Of course all the above is impractical without accurate wide-azimuth sound recording which can be essential for useful operational research.

                stancrist said...

CWRPHILLIPS said...

Assuming that most of the other 79% were 7.62x39mm it suggest that long range fire-fights are not the main problem; possibly not even a significant problem.

From what I gather, they are mostly harassing fire that inflicts few friendly casualties.  So yes, it does not seem to be a problem that requires a change to a GPC.

The tactical problem is that harassing fire can force friendlies to ground with loss of actual or potential initiative. Without prompt return fire - from for example own suitably long range MG and preferably light mortar, or in slower time (unless fully pre-arranged) friendly fire support - an adversary can more readily withdraw and/or manoeuvre some or all of its own elements.

A basic tactic for both sides is to draw them in rather than be drawn in. Also the capability for an infantry platoon/patrol to apply or obtain prompt long-range fire is almost indispensable at any time of day, and in the dark and even at night.

Am surprised Carniflex or Kirk hasn’t had a go at you already.

Depending on the resultant ballistics, the cartridge when fired from 14.5" barrels could potentially meet the specific energy threshold of 7.62 NATO at 1,000m if very fine projectiles are used.

Why change the goal post from total retained energy to specific retained energy? 

H_Minus said...

 

Depending on the resultant ballistics, the cartridge when fired from 14.5" barrels could potentially meet the specific energy threshold of 7.62 NATO at 1,000m if very fine projectiles are used.

Why change the goal post from total retained energy to specific retained energy? 

 

It's one of several standard ballistic metrics by which I evaluate different cartridge designs. I typically look at drop at 500m with a 25m zero and 2.6" sight height (considering changing either the zero or the range), maximum range of retention of 2,000 ft/s velocity, energy at 500m, maximum supersonic range, energy at 1,000m, and specific energy at 1,000m, but sometimes I throw in other metrics, and often for smaller calibers that already meet or exceed the absolute energy figure at a kilometer, I drop specific energy because I know the answer is "higher than 7.62mm".

compost2 said...

...the capability for an infantry platoon/patrol to apply or obtain prompt long-range fire is almost indispensable at any time of day, and in the dark and even at night.

They already have that capability, in the form of 7.62mm machine guns and DMRs.

compost2 said...

Am surprised Carniflex or Kirk hasn’t had a go at you already.

Well, Kirk got pissed off at me a couple years ago, and put me on "ignore."   ;^)

As for Carni, who knows.  Maybe he's on vacation?  I haven't noticed him here for a few days.

Pleased to see you put 7.62 MGs and DMRs together. Believe they need to share a round just a bit heavier than .308, also that platoon needs ready access to its own 60mm short barrel mortar. Expect am yet again preaching to another believer.

stancrist said...

autogun said...

...bearing in mind that MGs are always likely to have longer barrels than IWs...

Two words that should never be used -- "never" and "always"   ;^)

Basic English comprehension: "always likely to have" does not mean the same as "always have" - it's describing a probability.

There is already one current thread concerning (just for a change) the merits of a GPC. 

One at a time is enough. This thread is reserved for its original purpose - anything other than technical discussions of ammunition design and performance will be deleted.

Not vacation, working.

Aortic repair conference, organising, chairing and co. Computer links not working, and crap.

Cardiac surgeons, cardiologists, sonographers, radiology working together to fix aortas from valve to iliacs.

Had a ripper CT of split mid aorta, blunt trauma, car vs tree.