Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Erkki]

Those ceramic plates do stop rifle rounds, .308, 30-06, 7,62x54R and such too, even at close range. Russians and I think the Chinese too use steel plates because they're cheaper, but those have the nasty habit of either spalling within the man they're supposed to protect or letting the hitting bullet or parts of it "slide" to the side and penetrate. Theres some videos of that happenining in Youtube too, idiots toying with their equipment and getting hurt.

But those plates only cover ones torso, partially, and they're pretty heavy. The rest of the protection, that is kevlar fiber or similar, fully protects one only from long range or light caliber hits, shrapnel, flying debris and so forth. Upper legs with some major blood vessels remain vulnerable, as do arms, neck etc. Also most helmets dont fully stop a rifle bullet at close range; the fiber may contain the bullet, but it'll also extend within your brain. 

[Parsely]

Body armor can't stop a rifle round at under 100 meters, why wear it?

Most engagements don't happen at under 100m unless you're doing MOUT, and that is an acceptable risk when wearing more armor would be really awful for a rifleman's stamina. Not to mention that the insurgents in Afghanistan today normally initiate ambushes from 200-300m*.

*Marine Force Recon After Action Report (slide 21, first paragraph, third line)

[Rolepgeek]

If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?

It did though. Also because you fight more than arrows. Like, you know. Swords and shit. And those can be a lot more deadly than an arrow. An arrow, as long as it doesn't hit something vital and you don't get gangrene, you'll live. Look at Henry. You take a sword to the face and you're dead. Armor helps a lot with that. Like, a lot a lot.

Crossbows would just go straight through, though. The good ones, anyway, which are the only ones worth comparing to longbows, because otherwise you should just compare shoddy bows to shoddy crossbows. Genoese crossbowmen. Pavises are great, man.

[Erkki]

Actually, most engagements happen at under 100 m. Typically 150 meters is the maximum... Afghanistan making an important exception.

US Army's standard issue rifle is the M4 Carbine. Most Marine units are swapping to it by end of 2016 too. It has much shorter barrel than old M16(14½" vs. 20") and lower bullet muzzle velocity and thus range too. The M855/M855A1 bullet is likely to rapidly tumble and shrapnel within tissue depending on entering velocity and angle, and that best effective range is at most about 150 meters. Possibly only 100 m. Outside of that, it mostly just makes a hole.

I dont have very reliable or vast data on average or maximum engagement ranges, but it should be telling that US Army and USMC are valuing the compactness of the M4 over the better reach of longer-barreled M-16, and have been reducing the number of .308/7,62 NATO weapons too. The Marine 43-man(3 13-man squads + command fireteam) USMC Infantry Platoon has only 5.56x45 weapons. Only attached support teams may have 7,62 NATO marksmen rifles or M240 machine gun. Same goes for US Army, here is a nice illustration, where the only non-5.56 weapons are the SR-25/M110 marksmen rifles:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That said one can get .223 Rem/5.56x45 cartridges that reliably expand and make horrible wounds up 400 m and beyond... Most of those are just prohibited by Hague convention and dont penetrate steel or protective gear as well, and they're all very expensive. 

edit: the UK and Russians actually still have a 7,62 NATO or equivalent caliber rifle in every fire team.

[NullForceOmega]

My training sure as hell didn't focus on close engagements, intended engagement range on foot was between 150 and 300 meters.

[mainiac]

The M4 muzzle velocity is 95% of the M16 muzzle velocity and 25% higher then the AK-74M.  Just because it's a little shorter doesn't mean it's not an assault rifle.

Internet couch warriors spent years scoffing at the overkill of the M16 and how you dont need a muzzle velocity that high.  Why one earth would you expect regular soldiers to need to shoot targets 500 meters away in the middle of a firefight?  Now it turns off the slightly reducing the range from the alleged pointless overkill means that you might as well be spitting at the target.

[Erkki]

Well yeah, you dont need all that velocity most of the time and you get a lighter gun, soo... 

Over the years they also went from lighter 55 gr M193 ball with very high muzzle velocity to the more penetration-oriented 62 gr M855/SS109 and then to penetrating-tip M855A1. The old M193 is brutal, at least Israel still uses it. I have some of it myself too... Also some even lighter SAKO 50 gr FMJ with muzzle velocity of almost 1100 m/s or 3500 fps.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The muzzle velocity difference is nearing 6%, thats 13% energy advantage. But I think the trajectory is flat enough and the real advantage is in the extended range of tumble and fragmentation. I couldnt find an equivalent of the lower chart for the modern cartridges(M855, M855A1, Mk318), but its worse than the displayed performance for M193. Or well Mk318 could be better.

But none of those gun-cartridge combinations penetrate a ceramic plate, which is why they're worn! And at typical shooting range M4 is just as good.

[Parsely]

High muzzle velocity is really helpful when you're zeroing sights as well. If you set your sights for 300m on the M-16 and shoot center mass on a standing target at 200m you'll still hit him. Or at least you won't miss by very much.

-snip-

Do consider the enemy the US military finds themselves up against today. Most insurgents don't wear body armor, therefore distributing a carbine increases effectiveness, because the soldiers have a handier and lighter weapon and you still have plenty firepower for reducing infantry.

If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?

It did though.

That was my point. People wore armor because it was fantastic protection against the weapons of the day. And armor doesn't just refer to plate. This idea of longbows arrows punching through the thickest part of plate armor, the chainmail underneath, the gambeson underneath that, and then wounding the man underneath, is ridiculous.

[Erkki]

High muzzle velocity is really helpful when you're zeroing sights as well. If you set your sights for 300m on the M-16 and shoot center mass on a standing target at 200m you'll still hit him. Or at least you won't miss by very much.

Oh yeah but 5.56 is such as fast cartridge that there isnt much difference in point blank ranges between barrel lengths any more. Zero to 150 meters or so and you can hit a man's chest tall target all the way to 350-400 meters by just going for the middle of the mass.

Those lightweight 50grs come out from my 22" fast!! 

Compare that to, say, 7,62x39. Not only is the trajectory bad because of the slow muzzle speed, the recoil worse, the gun itself heavier, but those also mostly come with iron sights only too...

Do consider the enemy the US military finds themselves up against today. Most insurgents don't wear body armor, therefore distributing a carbine increases effectiveness, because the soldiers have a handier and lighter weapon and you still have plenty firepower for reducing infantry.

I would like to agree but I dont think an army should optimize too much for fighting a fairly weak, secondary foe in an asymmetric war somewhere in sandbox. Where the performance matters most is a real shooting war against a large, organized, modern enemy, and the US potentially has several of those.

But I still think M4 is okay. But maybe you Americans should consider using 7,62 support weapons slightly more.

[Amperzand]

Lots more marksman rifles would be a nice step, I'd think.

[Parsely]

I would like to agree but I don't think an army should optimize too much for fighting a fairly weak, secondary foe in an asymmetric war somewhere in sandbox. Where the performance matters most is a real shooting war against a large, organized, modern enemy, and the US potentially has several of those.

But we're not in a real shooting war with an large, modern enemy, and it's been shown that the same tactics and weapons you use against that kind of threat are not the kind you ought to bring to bear against this type of threat. It is also a mistake to assume they're weak or disorganized, at least in the case of Afghanistan, where the enemy has been practicing their insurgency techniques for half a century, and they've managed to effectively ambush Marines time and again. Not to mention this conflict has been dragged out for more than two decades. At some point you need to adapt or die. Obviously they can never win, but we can make things less costly by adapting our weapons and tactics to the situation.

[Arx]

If armor couldn't protect against arrow fire why did they wear armor?

It did though.

That was my point. People wore armor because it was fantastic protection against the weapons of the day. And armor doesn't just refer to plate. This idea of longbows arrows punching through the thickest part of plate armor, the chainmail underneath, the gambeson underneath that, and then wounding the man underneath, is ridiculous.

At short range I'd believe it. But actually, armour doesn't do too amazingly well against direct hits. It's designed to make any slightly skiff blow skate straight off (and just suck it up, too). That's why mail is useful even though it's pretty easy to burst the links with a rondel.

Also, later period knights (post about 1350) would wear voiders and skirts instead of a full hauberk. Less weight.

[Erkki]

I would like to agree but I don't think an army should optimize too much for fighting a fairly weak, secondary foe in an asymmetric war somewhere in sandbox. Where the performance matters most is a real shooting war against a large, organized, modern enemy, and the US potentially has several of those.

But we're not in a real shooting war with an large, modern enemy, and it's been shown that the same tactics and weapons you use against that kind of threat are not the kind you ought to bring to bear against this type of threat. It is also a mistake to assume they're weak or disorganized, at least in the case of Afghanistan, where the enemy has been practicing their insurgency techniques for half a century, and they've managed to effectively ambush Marines time and again. Not to mention this conflict has been dragged out for more than two decades. At some point you need to adapt or die. Obviously they can never win, but we can make things less costly by adapting our weapons and tactics to the situation.

No you are not, but that threat also isnt existential to US or her allies(besides Afghanistan if US decides to leave). Taliban is not a foe that can defeat you. Most casualties are to IEDs and other bombs any way. Asymmetric warfare against Taliban isnt very cost effective with the gear you have had perhaps.

In my humble opinion one is better off preparing and practicing for WW3 and overkilling those ragheads(shooting individual combatants with Hellfire missiles, or artillery and all that), than preparing for those an unfair playing, weak goat herders with Lee-Enfields and AK-47s and bombs but instead end up in having to fight the Chinese.

That said I dont think M-16 vs. M4 debate still matters much for Afghanistan, both are about equally mediocre there out of inhabited areas. Outside of Army and USMC, the USN and USAF are about all but just varmint control at somebody elses lawn, and those two branches are the ones where US is most superior to anyone else any way. So situation under control, I guess.

[Parsely]

I don't see how the US military could make itself more prepared for war by avoiding a fight.

[Erkki]

I don't see how the US military could make itself more prepared for war by avoiding a fight.

?