shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

bmallick wrote:So if both bullets start at the same speed, the bigger bullet would have same energy at 1.414 times the distance & more crucially at that distance it would have 1.414 times momentum.

If we simply talk about momentum, i.e stopping power, then the bigger bullet would have the same amount of momentum at twice the range.

So, in conclusion , if both bullets start at the same speed, a bigger bullet would have same energy 1.414 times range & same momentum at 2 times the range.

OK thanks. Shows how well I remember my fizzics. There is something interesting here and I am sure I am missing something Are you saying stopping power (momentum)will be the same at 2x the range for a bullet twice as heavy, but the KE would be the same for 5.56 and 7.62 at 1x and 1.4x range respectively?

Why do I feel that KE is more related to penetration than mere momentum? Like I said I am missing something.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

shiv wrote:Are you saying stopping power (momentum)will be the same at 2x the range for a bullet twice as heavy, but the KE would be the same for 5.56 and 7.62 at 1x and 1.4x range respectively?

Why do I feel that KE is more related to penetration than mere momentum? Like I said I am missing something.

Yes thats what I am saying. lets say the two bullets start with the same velocity, v and m & 2m are the weight of the small & bigger bullet. If the speed reduces linearly with distance and x is the unit where speed reduces by half, ie for every x distance travelled speed becomes v/2:

Range ----- Big bullet Momentum ----Small bullet momentum ----- Big bullet Energy ----- small bullet energy
0 ---------- 2mv ------------------- mv ------------------------ mvv ----------------- mvv/2
1x --------- mv ------------------- mv/2 ---------------------- mvv/4 --------------- mvv/8
1.4x ------- mv/1.4 --------------- mv/2.8 -------------------- mvv/8 --------------- mvv/16
2x ------- mv/2 ----------------- mv/4 ---------------------- mv/16 --------------- mv/32

You see, if velocity falls linearly, momentum would fall linearly too, but KE would fall squarely. But since the big bullet has twice the weight compared to the small one, it would have two times momentum at same range, hence same momentum at twice the range. However, in case of KE, the big bullet starts with 2 times the energy of the small one, but energy falls squarely to the velocity, hence if the velocity falls by half, the energy falls by 4 times. Hence energy drops faster than momentum. Hence the same energy at 1.4x distance.

With regards to penetration:
Generalized Newtons second law,
F = m * a ( m = mass & a = acceleration )
=> F = m * dv/dt ( where v = velocity , acceleration = dv/dt, ie rate of change of velocity)
=> F = d(mv)/dt ( where mass remains constant)
=> F = dP/dt ( since momentum P = m*v)

So as you see force is nothing by rate of change of momentum, which is actually what Newtons second law states. Its this force which would determine the impact power of the bullet. You are right that penetration & tissue damage would be based on the actual energy of the bullet. The tissue damage is what would kill you, but the initial force is what would make you loose your balance & fall to the ground or stop you on your path if you are running towards me. These are two different things. I can slowly stab you with a knife and do tissue damage, that's not going to knock you to ground but can sure can kill. Also I can punch you hard, with out causing tissue damage, but sure can knock you down, with bruises as bonus. You get it, one knocks the person down to the ground & the other kills him.

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

tsarkar wrote:if the situation rapidly escalated from most-of-the-time to once-in-a-while...in the event the firearm is designed to switch calibers, then familiarization time is reduced because of the commonality of the weapon system, and only new ammo needs to be switched.
This indeed seems to be the official line of thinking http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 226877.cms
"Soldiers will use the 7.62 x 39mm barrels for counter-insurgency operations since they are more effective for that role. But if deployed for conventional warfare, then they will use the 5.56 x 45mm barrels," said a source.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

tsarkar wrote:
"Soldiers will use the 7.62 x 39mm barrels for counter-insurgency operations since they are more effective for that role. But if deployed for conventional warfare, then they will use the 5.56 x 45mm barrels," said a source.

That probably makes sense and even i have read soldier in COIN ops prefer to use AK over any other weapons .
Do we use the AK-74M series weapon or the AK-100 series ( 101 -107 ) ?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

As I have repeatedly pointed out that the caliber change though attractive concept has not been effective in practice, just like generating power through "fusion"

nachiket
Forum Moderator
Posts: 7555
Joined: 02 Dec 2008 10:49

Austin wrote:Do we use the AK-74M series weapon or the AK-100 series ( 101 -107 ) ?

The AK-74 uses 5.45X39mm ammo not 7.62. I have seen AKMs, both the old ones and the new Bulgarian polymer furnitured ones with our soldiers in pics. Never seen the 100 series.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

tsarkar wrote:
"Soldiers will use the 7.62 x 39mm barrels for counter-insurgency operations since they are more effective for that role. But if deployed for conventional warfare, then they will use the 5.56 x 45mm barrels," said a source.

I had a sudden "aha" moment here. COIN against jihadis are against men on a suicide mission. I have read that they keep coming even when hit by smaller caliber bullets and secondly, the others are not concerned about taking any wounded "back"

So they need to be stopped dead. Hence 7.62. Different against regular army.

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Would we be better served by two different guns. One large caliber, 7.62 *39, small low weight carbine to be used for COIN, CQB & related operations. This design can be a bull-pup for lower weight & size. It has the stopping power & ability to kill ASAP. The carbine also replaces the sub-machine guns. The other a 5.56mm full fledged rifle, with traditional layout, rail for attaching grenade launcher, place to put in a bayonet. More ammo can be carried, because of lower weight.

Two different guns to cater for two different problems, each optimized for the bullet & cartridge it uses.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 11825
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

bmallick wrote:Would we be better served by two different guns. One large caliber, 7.62 *39, small low weight carbine to be used for COIN, CQB & related operations. This design can be a bull-pup for lower weight & size. It has the stopping power & ability to kill ASAP. The carbine also replaces the sub-machine guns. The other a 5.56mm full fledged rifle, with traditional layout, rail for attaching grenade launcher, place to put in a bayonet. More ammo can be carried, because of lower weight.

Two different guns to cater for two different problems, each optimized for the bullet & cartridge it uses.

Isnt that happening now, Ak-47 for COIN, INSAS for normal ops. But that mean twice the no of guns in inventory, twice the no. of Holographic sights etc..

Question if the barrels are changed and given the different characteristics of the 7.62 X 39 vs 5.56 X 45, would the soldier need to against realign the sights, find the zero suited for him when the barrel is changed?

bmallick
BRFite
Posts: 303
Joined: 05 Jun 2010 20:28

Aditya_V wrote:Isnt that happening now, Ak-47 for COIN, INSAS for normal ops. But that mean twice the no of guns in inventory, twice the no. of Holographic sights etc..

Question if the barrels are changed and given the different characteristics of the 7.62 X 39 vs 5.56 X 45, would the soldier need to against realign the sights, find the zero suited for him when the barrel is changed?

Yes thats what is happening now but there are a few caveats.

1. Ak-47 being used in COIN, is not a carbine but a full fledged rifle. What I have proposed is a Carbine, that too if possible a bull-pup. Much smaller in size, so that troops can easily work around in urban areas, as is the current case in quite a few areas. Also in Jungle area for ease of operation, if the same weapon is used in the mao infested jungles or Naga/ULFA jungles.

2. The current INSAS is a good rifle, no doubt about. But whats needed is an upgrade, with piccatani rails for easy attachment of Sights, UBGL and other accessories.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

since khan SOCOM mostly deals with jihdis these days they abandoned the 5.56mm version of FN SCAR and will uptake the 7.62mm version whose most compact version is below with 13" barrel and overall just 25" length
http://www.fnhusa.com/le/products/firea ... id=FNM0113

can gun gurus look at its specs and comment on if it can replace the folding stock AK47 family used by our COIN units and in what senses it is better if any?

BRF Oldie
Posts: 11825
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

Since we are on the subject of small arms, any reason why we don't use flame throwers like US or allied troops did to japanese and Germans in well fortified positions. Definately with today's tech something throw flames 0-80 yards away and save us a lot of trouble while demotivating Jihadis regarding Hell fire death.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

wiki:- perhaps we subscribe to same views. a bullet , CG or Shipon is a lot more far reaching.

Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. They are not banned in any international treaty the U.S. has signed, thus the U.S. decision to remove flamethrowers from its arsenal is entirely voluntary.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

Singha wrote:can gun gurus look at its specs and comment on if it can replace the folding stock AK47 family used by our COIN units and in what senses it is better if any?

From wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hk416

In July 2007 the US Army announced a limited competition between the M4 carbine, FN SCAR, HK416, XCR, and the previously-shelved HK XM8. Ten examples of each of the four competitors were involved. Each weapon fired 60,000 rounds in an "extreme dust environment". The purpose of the shoot-off was for assessing future needs, not to select a replacement for the M4.[7][8] The XM8 scored the best, with only 127 stoppages in 60,000 total rounds, the FN SCAR Light had 226 stoppages, while the HK416 had 233 stoppages. The M4 carbine scored "significantly worse" than the rest of the field with 882 stoppages

I guess it would be fair to assume that AK47 to be comparable to M4 if not worse. Not to mention the inclusion of rails etc on SCAR.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

here is a norweigan soldier in Af with a HK416 having telescopic sight and bipod. have weapons like this replaced the traditional sniper with his trusty old bolt action rifle and small mag or they have both now?

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Aditya_V wrote:Since we are on the subject of small arms, any reason why we don't use flame throwers like US or allied troops did to japanese and Germans in well fortified positions. Definately with today's tech something throw flames 0-80 yards away and save us a lot of trouble while demotivating Jihadis regarding Hell fire death.

Aditya my personal feeling is that flamethrowers are not so "hot" as a weapon. Only dramatic. They were used in WW2 to flush out Japanese hiding in bunkers without surrendering.

I am not at all sure they will be any good against jihadis holed up in mountains or in houses in crowded urban areas or villages. A Carl Gustav can get them through a window from hundreds of meters away. The flame thrower wielder can get ripped to shreds by gunfire if he has to come up close to use the weapon.

Gurneesh
BRFite
Posts: 465
Joined: 14 Feb 2010 21:21
Location: Troposphere

traditional sniper rifles might be overkill in urdan to semi-urban CQB's, specially for the attacking force as elevated grounds might not be available untill one reaches hostile territory. And by then comabt distances are small enough for traditional rifles to be at an disadvantage.

Having an arrangement with AR's as shown above will provide a squad with decent sniping capabilities while enabling the designated sniper to keep up with the squad and not feel helpless when automatic fire is required.

I was watching a HBO documentary on Battle of Marjah which showed real footage of actions of Bravo company. Bravo company was the first to get in and were surrounded by taliban for a couple of days till they flanked taliban and won. Here also some marines were carrying M16's with high power scopes and were mainly indulging in single shot fire.

On the other hand for defenders of town, a sniper with longer range rifle will be very useful. It was also reflected in the above mentioned documentary wherein a taliban sniper gave Bravo a lot of problems (he even hit 4 soldiers).

Brando
BRFite
Posts: 675
Joined: 26 Feb 2008 06:18

The Indian Army should look into getting combat shotguns, especially for Cordon and search operations that they do. Nothing like a combat shotgun in room clearing. Plus, modern combat shotguns can launch thermobaric, air-burst grenades and a whole host of really awesome stuff from flares to 12 gauge taser rounds!

Gaur
Forum Moderator
Posts: 2009
Joined: 01 Feb 2009 23:19

Aditya_V wrote:Since we are on the subject of small arms, any reason why we don't use flame throwers like US or allied troops did to japanese and Germans in well fortified positions. Definately with today's tech something throw flames 0-80 yards away and save us a lot of trouble while demotivating Jihadis regarding Hell fire death.

We use Bumblebee. Much more badass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPO-A_Shmel

vanand
BRFite -Trainee
Posts: 61
Joined: 12 Apr 2011 13:19

Gurneesh wrote:I was watching a HBO documentary on Battle of Marjah which showed real footage of actions of Bravo company. Bravo company was the first to get in and were surrounded by taliban for a couple of days till they flanked taliban and won. Here also some marines were carrying M16's with high power scopes and were mainly indulging in single shot fire.

seems M16 is used as CQB sniper, M16 advantage over presently used M4 by US forces is the barrel length and very accurate even over 400 mts. M16 barrel length is 20 inches and M4 is 14 inches.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

Brando can you point us to good examples of combat shotguns?

Indrajit
BRFite
Posts: 166
Joined: 19 Feb 2004 12:31
Location: Mumbai
Contact:

seems M16 is used as CQB sniper, M16 advantage over presently used M4 by US forces is the barrel length and very accurate even over 400 mts. M16 barrel length is 20 inches and M4 is 14 inches.
Gurneesh wrote:I was watching a HBO documentary on Battle of Marjah which showed real footage of actions of Bravo company. Bravo company was the first to get in and were surrounded by taliban for a couple of days till they flanked taliban and won. Here also some marines were carrying M16's with high power scopes and were mainly indulging in single shot fire.

seems M16 is used as CQB sniper, M16 advantage over presently used M4 by US forces is the barrel length and very accurate even over 400 mts. M16 barrel length is 20 inches and M4 is 14 inches.

Offlate the more powerful M-14 is used in the field,this rifle was advanced of it's ages during the Vietnam war,still hits hard.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

singha Ji the AA-12 is a 12 gauge automatic Combat shotgun which can also fire flares or special Frag-12 19 mm fin-stabilized HE, HEAP, and sensor fused HEAB air-burst fragmentation shells that can detonate in mid-air.

reference article

Auto Assault-12 (AA-12) Full-Auto Machine

jimmy_moh
BRFite
Posts: 179
Joined: 14 May 2009 12:33
Location: LOC

if we see some of the modern assault rifles... it is comes up with Forward hand grip....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SOPMOD_2-2005.jpg

but none of our DRDO design for our new assault rifles dont have this ... is there any particular reason for this...

tsarkar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2938
Joined: 08 May 2006 13:44
Location: mumbai

^^^ on the importance of training and practice -

Taliban sniper kills 2 British soldiers with one shot http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... istan.html
Brits react with jingogiri http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -shot.html
Taliban sniper kills his hunters http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-storie ... -22179406/
Finally they kill his spotter using a hellfire from predator http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... niper.html
But what weapons do Taliban snipers use? Our friendly neighbourhood 0.303 rifle, some of them made in India! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/ ... -in-marja/
Why do they use those old rifles? http://kitup.military.com/2010/04/talib ... field.html

Using a Predator to kill a man with a gun is the surest way of out-spending your opponent and losing.

If old rifles are doing wonders there, then what is the issue closer at home? The sad truth is the ordinary Indian policeman is so busy doing bandobast duties that he doesnt get time to practice. The establishment believes policemen are like chowkidars, just giving gun is sufficient, who needs to practice? Firing ranges and adjacent lands are given to builders and developers.

So those who believe jazzy gizmos will foil the next terrorist attack or win the next war are in for a rude shock. The gizmos dont matter as much training and practice. But then, who listens and who cares!

Note: The Indian rifles are standard 7.62 mm rather than 0.303 inch, but Hindi movies has kept 0.303 popular.

BRF Oldie
Posts: 11825
Joined: 05 Apr 2006 16:25

tsarkar, simple, if Mumbai Police was used to firing their .303 rifles. Then alteast Kasab, his pal and few others who were firing in the open would have fell to their bullets and saved lives.

Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

I have seen Mumbai Police with INSAS and SLR so i think they have moved on with .303

Although yes training is a big issue for the common havaldar as he will be the first man and first point of defence during any terror strike till the specialised force comes in a little later.

From what I have read the only time they actually fire those rifle and practise on it is during training once they get inducted into service most dont get an opportunity to practice live firing or even train on regular basis , the daily grind of bandobast and other work takes away the rest of policing life.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

two questions:
[1] jesse ventura is using a gatling gun handheld in predator, is it done or just hollywood drama
[2] at 3:03 what is the grenade launcher his buddy uses to take out a treehouse? sounds like a useful piece of kit for a platoon level unit?

I would imagine such a compact grenade launcher and heavy automatic shotgun (clear rooms, shred wooden doors) would be great assets in CQB and more nimble and less collateral risk than a Shmel/Shipon/Carl Gustav which are all fine for taking out a house from 50-150m but not useful inside a warren of houses at CQB.

VinayG
BRFite
Posts: 181
Joined: 07 Apr 2010 19:02
Location: chicago

two questions:
[1] jesse ventura is using a gatling gun handheld in predator, is it done or just hollywood drama
[2] at 3:03 what is the grenade launcher his buddy uses to take out a treehouse? sounds like a useful piece of kit for a platoon level unit?

I would imagine such a compact grenade launcher and heavy automatic shotgun (clear rooms, shred wooden doors) would be great assets in CQB and more nimble and less collateral risk than a Shmel/Shipon/Carl Gustav which are all fine for taking out a house from 50-150m but not useful inside a warren of houses at CQB.

1) Some sources claim the weapon is an XM214 Gatling gun, part of the "Six-Pak" system which fires the smaller 5.56mm NATO rounds. The XM214 never made it beyond testing only detail info about all the weapons used in predator movie
2)The grenade launcher used by Poncho (Richard Chaves), was custom built specifically by the armorers. It is built from Heckler & Koch HK94 parts (mainly the stock and pistol grips) and uses parts from an AN-M5 aircraft pyrotechnic discharger (a 37mm flare launcher)

Predator

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

tsarkar wrote:But what weapons do Taliban snipers use? Our friendly neighbourhood 0.303 rifle, some of them made in India! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/ ... -in-marja/

The blog says That 188 US deaths by gunshots amounting to 25% of casualties is not a lot and therefore Taliban fire is ineffective .

I will quote stats from a book called "Acts of war" by Richard Holmes. I have the book in frooont of me:

Deaths in WW1 (British)
Shells and Mortar 58%
Bullets 39%

Deaths in WW2
Mortars, shells, aerial bombs, grenades: 75%
Bullets and anti-tank shells- 10%
Misc blast/crush/phosphor burns - 15%

Deaths in Korea:
Small arms: 3% (plus 27% of wounds)
Shells and mortar fragments 60%

Deaths in Vietnam where artillery was rare
Artillery 36%
Small arms 51%

Falklands:
Artillery rare - but deathsabout 40%
60% by small arms

The Afghan figure of 25% deaths from gunshot injuries is not particularly different from wars in which the use of artillery and air power (against the US at least) is low.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

shiv wrote:
tsarkar wrote:But what weapons do Taliban snipers use? Our friendly neighbourhood 0.303 rifle, some of them made in India! http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/ ... -in-marja/

The blog says That 188 US deaths by gunshots amounting to 25% of casualties is not a lot and therefore Taliban fire is ineffective .

I will quote stats from a book called "Acts of war" by Richard Holmes. I have the book in frooont of me:

Deaths in WW1 (British)
Shells and Mortar 58%
Bullets 39%

Deaths in WW2
Mortars, shells, aerial bombs, grenades: 75%
Bullets and anti-tank shells- 10%
Misc blast/crush/phosphor burns - 15%

Deaths in Korea:
Small arms: 3% (plus 27% of wounds)
Shells and mortar fragments 60%

Deaths in Vietnam where artillery was rare
Artillery 36%
Small arms 51%

Falklands:
Artillery rare - but deathsabout 40%
60% by small arms

The Afghan figure of 25% deaths from gunshot injuries is not particularly different from wars in which the use of artillery and air power (against the US at least) is low.

I don't know how they have computed but in modern warfare 80% casualitites are due to aerial bombing. Then out of remaining 20% around 80% is due to artilllery. After excluding machine gun, grenades etc only around 1% is due to small arms

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Vic I have quoted the figures in the book from published figures. Actual counts of dead men. I think your figures are just a rough guesstimate. It's simply not correct to say that 80% of deaths are caused by aerial bombardment. Not military deaths anyway. But I would be happy to be shown papers/publications that back up your figures.

ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 54247
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

shiv if you can I think have the basis of an article on lethality effects of battlefield munitions. Please consider a writeup.

Thanks,ramana

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

ramana wrote:shiv if you can I think have the basis of an article on lethality effects of battlefield munitions. Please consider a writeup.

Thanks,ramana

ramana my knowledge extends to copy paste of gyan from a series of books I bought (on recommendation) after a BRF discussion with RayC on fragging and suicides about the psychology of men at war. The interesting thing that made me look up annotations I had made was the idea that casualties from aerial bombardment are highest. In fact that is not true. It is mentioned that when men at war are asked about what type of fire is most frightening, aerial bombardment stands out on top. But in terms of actually death and casualty causing fire it has always been artillery. In the context of this thread and the discussion of small arms lethality in Afghanistan, it was interesting to me to find that even Afghanistan, where the idea is that the Taliban have only small arms - those small arms still resulted only in 25% of deaths - while explosives have cause most of the other casualties.

But what is most remarkable is how ineffective all types of fire actually are in killing men. Data on wars in the last 200 years have shown that rifle ammunition can be used up at the rate of 5 to 200 rounds per casualty (wounded/killed - not always incapacitated) cause to the enemy. Artillery shells fare similarly - with maybe a 100 or more not causing one casualty. These figures have all been questioned but they all indicate that a huge volume of fire may not actually cause the casualties that one may want to cause.

This has a bearing on logistics and how much a man can carry. The idea of a single man carrying a mini Gatling seems attractive but judging from the experience of war he can fire off over 90% of his rounds without hitting anyone. That means that he is carrying 90% more weight than he should be carrying if his fire was really effective. Imagine the tonnage of transport that amount to coming from the rear to the frontlines to keep the soldiers firiing off rounds ineffectively.

Of course psychology plays a huge role here. Battle is a highly stressful situation of the sort that one of us on BRF will face only if we are about to be murdered by someone and we know it beforehand. Humans behave in all sots of odd ways in such a situation and training is all about trying to modulate that behaviour. Modulate? behaviour? Oddball words - but all piskology of men at war.

Men may start battle firing off rounds judiciously but suddenly all may let loose with their weapons together and use up a whole lot of ammunition in one go with no effect. Others may not fire at all and lie low because all they can see is smoke and dust - or not even that and may hear distant gunfire. they may not see a single enemy soldier so why fire? The philosophy of having 2 round or 3 round bursts is related to human behaviour. A stressed man may empty off three magazines he has in a moment of extreme stress and have virtually no effect.

The video linked from the site tsarkar posted shows American soldiers expressing surprise at accurate fire. They do that time and time again. And two things come out from that video - the first is that fire is so often inaccurate that accurate fire surprises them. Secondly the Americans themselves cannot see exactly where the enemy is. Later a target is bombed from the air mistakenly killing civilians showing that the Taliban who were firing were not located accurately so "calling in support" can have its limits even with the highest tech army fighting the lowest tech army.

Singha
BRF Oldie
Posts: 66601
Joined: 13 Aug 2004 19:42
Location: the grasshopper lies heavy

^ and a army that has reflex sight on every rifle, some have scopes and most guys manning a outpost have helmet NVG or HHTI.

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

shiv wrote:Vic I have quoted the figures in the book from published figures. Actual counts of dead men. I think your figures are just a rough guesstimate. It's simply not correct to say that 80% of deaths are caused by aerial bombardment. Not military deaths anyway. But I would be happy to be shown papers/publications that back up your figures.

These are not my estimates, but I remember them as they were cited in some forum discussions and were picked up from authorative studies. I will try to google for references. Though it seems that "your" reference is only for US casualities which in lot of wars will be lopsided in US favor.

shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

vic wrote:
shiv wrote:Vic I have quoted the figures in the book from published figures. Actual counts of dead men. I think your figures are just a rough guesstimate. It's simply not correct to say that 80% of deaths are caused by aerial bombardment. Not military deaths anyway. But I would be happy to be shown papers/publications that back up your figures.

These are not my estimates, but picked up from studies. I will try to google for references. Though it seems that "your" reference is only for US casualties which in lot of wars will be lopsided in US favor.

No vic - most were British estimates from WW1 and 2 and teh Falklands of course. Vietnam and Korea were American wars. I am not insisting on saying that i am right, but I have a ref sitting right here next to me with numerous quoted cross refs. So I would be happy to see some other stats to correlate against this one. I am particularly interested in Indian stats.

I have forgotten the figure of Paki dead in 1971. Was it 8000? Now how many India small arms rounds, tank round and artillery rounds were fired. How many of those deaths were caused by each?

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

On Finnish casualties at the Continuation War. Data from A. A. Pönkänen's "Tulivoima maarintaman taisteluissa" (1955). Finns attacked in 1941, trench war on both sides in 1942-1943 and a Soviet attack in 1944.

Men
WIA---------------------1941---------------1942-1943----------1944
Shrapnels---------------54%---------------49%-----------------67%
Rifle caliber-------------46%---------------51%-----------------33%

KIA----------------------1941---------------1942-1943----------1944
Shrapnels---------------46%---------------42%-----------------66%
Bullets-------------------45%---------------47%-----------------30%
Mines--------------------9%----------------11%-----------------4%

Horses
Losses------------------June-October 1941---------------June-August 1944
Artillery-----------------75%-------------------------------76%---------------
Infantry-----------------12%-------------------------------5%----------------
Bombs------------------7%---------------------------------16%--------------
Strafing-----------------4%--------------------------------2%----------------
Mines-------------------2%---------------------------------0,2%-------------
Shrapnels--------------82%-------------------------------92%--------------
Rifle caliber------------18%-------------------------------8%---------------

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

The cause of wounds suffered by soldiers varied widely depending on specific circumstances. A British Corps reported 42.8% wounds caused by bullets during the El Alamein offensive. However the percentage of battle wounds to british soldiers by weapon 1939-45 overall was:

Bullet, AT mine................................10%
mine & booby trap...........................10%
Blast and crush.................................2%
Chemical..........................................2%
other................................................1%

from J Ellis WWII Databook table 57 p257

vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00