War winning weapons

MP-Willow · 07-08-2004, 11:20 AM

Thanks. But are we a little away from aircraft?
What about field care for the rifle?

Andrew · 07-08-2004, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Quote:

Empty a clip, pick it up after all the Germans are dead, get their lugers, manually remove the bullets, put them in the Sten clip...

I understood that the Sten Gun was designed to use up all the ammo that the Italians left behind in North Africa, after the failed atempt to Invade Egypt.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-08-2004, 04:28 PM

but a bolt action .303 will have even more stopping power, greater range and a good soldier will still get off allot of rounds ..........................

Lightning Guy · 07-08-2004, 11:21 PM

Good stopping power, but the Garand could match it and put out more rounds.

dead parrot · 07-09-2004, 04:05 AM

From the point of view of "war-winning", no infantry light arm is going to be a candidate I don't think, because the differences between rifles just aren't that great. Maybe the Stg44 was a major step, but as with all German innovations, it was too little to late.

Would the Mustang be a good possible choice? It was the largest factor in establishing air supremacy over western Europe, thus making the invasion landings possible (or at least, a lot less costly).

plan_D · 07-09-2004, 07:33 AM

The Garand was a better overall rifle but this does not make it war winning, that's my point. Had the American troops had the Springfield .03 as standard the war would have been the same ending.
The major advantages being semi-auto, and wait, that's about it except three extra rounds. The Lee Enfield was more reliable, easier to clear and more accurate. It depends what you want.

You cannot knock the Ak-47, it wasn't copied off the Stg-44 but created from studying the design. Soviet propaganda was always going to say they created it. It's a simple look on both. There were and are many 'AK' copies the Ak-47 CZ being the Czech copy. The Ak-47 SU was the folding stock version, being much lighter.
The major thing with the Ak-47 was the reliability which far surpasses anything NATO had except the SLR (which is a beautiful gun). The Ak-47 could be dug into sand, shoved under-water or covered in mud and you could shake the gun off, clear the barrel, load and it'd fire. No such luck for the M-16 it'd have to be stripped. The effective range of the AK-47 is something like 1500m (obviously rough estimate) matched by many bolt-action rifles and the SLR.

My Dad is the best opinion I have on these guns, having handled the SA-80, M-16, SLR and AK-47. Sa-80, too light, unreliable, under-powered, basically crap. M-16 good weight not too light and easy to carry. 5.56mm isn't really powerful enough but could make do. Reliability leaves something to be desired. SLR, brilliant, perfect weight, gives some feel to the rifle. Easy to maintain, reliable, 7.62mm gives good hitting power and very easy to handle. Pistol grip makes for easy holding while guard.
Ak-47 basically the same as the SLR but he doesn't like the handling as much but prefers the reliability.

The firing mechanism in the AK-47 is the same as in the SVD Dragnov.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-09-2004, 01:29 PM

which is amazingly simple..................

Lightning Guy · 07-09-2004, 02:16 PM

Most things Russian are. The major advantage of the 5.56mm was it's lighter weight and works fine for most infantry roles. You really only need a 7.62mm in machine guns to serve as support weapons.

Gemhorse · 07-09-2004, 10:27 PM

The whole point of infantry weapons is to kill...- We used to call the M-16 the 'boy, oh boy, the Lincoln Toy...' after a Toy manufacturer. It was very light compared to it's predessors, with a 750 rpm firing-rate, but in heavy bush, couldn't stand-up to abuse as readily as an SLR. If a 5.56mm round passed thru your leg muscle, for example, it would leave a nasty little hole and give you quite a limp....if a .308 went thru the same place, it would leave a nasty little hole going in, shatter your femur and blow a hole the size of a small fist out the back...alot more incapacitating. For memory, the 5.56mm travels around 3400 fps, the 7.62mm /.308 at around 2800 fps, but almost twice the 'hitting-power'....the range for both is about the same....

Lightning Guy · 07-09-2004, 11:11 PM

The 5.56mm is still powerful enough to kill and to punch through most body armor. It has more punch than the Russian 5.45mm and also their 7.62mm I think. But it's light weight allows a soldier to carry ALOT more ammo than was possible with the 7.62mm NATO round.

the lancaster kicks ass · 07-10-2004, 03:19 PM

and the AK's amazingly easy to maintain, it will keep going after anything really as it's so simple...................

plan_D · 07-10-2004, 03:25 PM

The NATO 5.56mm hasn't got the hitting power of any 7.62mm. Nowadays the idea isn't to kill, but to injure. That is why the 5.56mm is used more in NATO.
The 5.56 could kill if hit in the right areas. One step further from Gemhorses' example, if a 5.56 goes into your gut it will go straight through and leave a clean hole (if missing your spine). A 7.62 will go in and basically rip your gut out.

The range on the M-16 is 400m (estimate) and on the SLR it is 1500m.

I'm sorry LG, your idea of being able to carry "ALOT" more because it is lighter (refering to 5.56) is bull. In the Gulf the British standard forces carried four clips of SLR, 20 rounds in each clip. That is enough for any combat situation. If you are going to over load yourself with rounds you probably could carry an extra two clips of 5.56 but to get that far you aren't suitable for combat anyway, too heavy.

The Delta Force in the Battle of Black Sea (Mogadishu ~ Black Hawk Down) complained that their titanium tipped 5.56 from the CAR-15s they were using was not killing who they fired upon but going straight through. While the SAW carriers were obliterating their enemies with the 7.62.
Yes I know the SAW is an infantry support weapon but the Delta Force had to hit who they were shooting at about 6 times before they were dead, with a SLR you could do it once or twice in the body and they'd be dead.

Lightning Guy · 07-10-2004, 03:37 PM

If by SAW you mean the M249 in is also chambered in the 5.56mm. The range on the M16A2 is considerably higher, 800-900m. And many troops, like the airborne and the Marines are required to carrying everything they need for three days on their backs. Carrying around 3 days worth of 7.62mm doesn't help anything.

plan_D · 07-10-2004, 04:03 PM

Three days worth of ammo means nothing, it depends what they expect. You could carry plenty of 7.62 ammo, just as much as 5.56. The carrying weight is a dead argument for the 5.56.
The 400m range isn't the complete range, on any M-16 you could probably get it to 1000m. But with that you probably could get the SLR to 2000-3000m.

The SAWs were using 7.62 in the Battle of the Black Sea. Which is a deadlier calibre of round.

Gemhorse · 07-10-2004, 06:10 PM

We carried 4 x 20 round magazines plus a full one on the rifle, with the SLR. Plus the rest of our gear. Furthermore, we didn't throw away the mags when finished, as supply-drops were cases of ammo, which we then reloaded our mags from. US troops biffed their M-16 clips when empty. In fact, the way we were trained is nothing like you see in 'movies', jungle-training was most intense, as your life preservation skills were honed to being a 'ghost' in the jungle, where all six senses were working...you could literally 'smell' your enemy, by what he ate, smoked & excreted...- Probably why Kiwi SAS had the highest prices on their heads by the Vietcong...Try pig-hunting in NZ with some of our Maori guys, and you'll get the picture...or Deerhunting with a .22, by rolling in some cattle crap and stalking the deer from downwind for the head-shot...I prefer 7.62 x 51 for the reach and hitting-power, but a silenced .22 is my favourite around here for all game except Pig....ballistically speaking, a .22 is just as deadly as a .45, they just riccochet around the insides tearing vitals...