The US Military Outgunned, outclassed?

[volkssturm]

Here's a YouTube video from Inrange TV. They're testing the M855 and M855A1 5.56mm rounds against Russian level 4 body armor.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=agWDW2jTsZk


M855A1 is now the standard issue cartridge for the M4/M16. It was designed, in theory, to improve performance from the shorter carbine barrel and to defeat body armor. It does this with a steel tipped copper bullet and a powder load that pushes chamber pressure to 68,000 pounds per sq. inch (chamber pressure for the M855 was like 55,000). There's questions about the longevity of M4's running with that chamber pressure. And the results of their tests against a Russian ceramic plate aren't very reassuring.

[norseman]

This is unacceptable. Pushing reciever CUP pressures to almost max levels to boost round performance at the expense of reliability? Bad idea. And then it still failed against level 4 Russian body armor?

How many turbos do you put on a 4 cylinder before you realize that the engine simply does not have enough cubic inch displacement for the job at hand?

I think it comes down to the fact that Airlift command can put many more rounds of 5.56 on a 4x4 pallet than 7.62 or a modern replacement. This has very little to do with the performance on the ground.

[volkssturm]

And they were shooting at 15 yards. I think the Ordnance people are waiting for the next big advance in cartridges (caseless telescoped rounds probably) to be perfected before they make a big investment in replacing rifles and MG's. But they've been working on that stuff for the last 40 years.

[Dracul]

There this good article with Larry Vickers about his time in the Gulf War. Explaining how much more effective the 7.62 round was at combat than the 5.56, "A limited number of M14s had been employed by our snipers, but we did not have enough to go around."

No one is going to argue that the 5.56 was better for closer engagements and quarters, like in Vietnam, but it more open and longer distance warfare, bigger cartridges are definitely needed.

While I was a part of Naval History and Heritage Command (NHHC, as a civilian), I heard a few history tidbits from historians, that I'm not sure if there is articles about these or not, but somehow I feel there is truth behind them. One, the only reason we switched away from 7.62 was because of the senators and media who didn't like how effective and deadly the 7.62 is, and all that stuff about the 5.56 being more effective with its tumbling is just propaganda high command told the troops when they were taking away their M14's. Two, the only reason we even switched to the M9 was due to public, international relations with Italy.

So, its definitely worth noting that is more to consider when it comes to why we changed our rounds and even weapons. Typically, its the decision of someone who is far away from the battlefield, instead of the guys who are actually doing the fighting.

[2nd Bat]

I interviewed returning troops as part of a DOD contract for 6 months. Parts are (or were) restrited but I am comfortable sharing that the weapons from my era were widely praised. The M14 was better at range and punched through the mud walls in the sandbox where the 5.56 typically did not. The .45 was prized and praised and the MaDeuce was well....no surprise everone loved it. The only modern weapons getting universal raves was the MK19 grenade launcher.

Reports on small unit leadership even Lts was generally positive which has to be a first in the anals of military history. This waz 10 plus years ago hopefully that is still true.

[volkssturm]

The Atlantic reprinted this story from James Fallows about the screwups surrounding the adoption of the M16. It dates from 1981. Long, but interesting. US Ordnance does not come out looking too good.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1981/06/m-16-a-bureaucratic-horror-story/545153/

[norseman]

Full circle. I came across a Green Beret on YouTube giving weapons training. He was training his civilian students “zipper drills”. In which you aim your M4 at the belt buckle and pull the trigger 4 times. Walking the shots up into the chest cavity. I asked him if he thought WW2 soldiers, sailors and marines practiced zipper drills armed with the M1 Garand? And if 4 shots of 5.56 were required to neutralize a threat? Was he really packing more ammo than 7.62? He responded by saying it’s the world we live in, gotta do what you gotta do. I agreed but reminded him civilians are under no obligation to be forced to use what the military uses.

Another thing about the Ordnance report is they talk about bullets being destabilized quickly after striking an object as a good thing. What about trees, bushes, walls, sand bags, helmets, flak vests, etc? You do not want a bullet flat smacking a target after passing through a obstacle or worse the obstacle stopping it.

If I was deploying to Vietnam tommorow and could pack anything I wanted? Historically speaking I think I would want a Tommy gun. It served in the Pacific with distinction. It was a heavy milled receiver but you gotta love 230 grains with each shot. I might burn through a lot of ammo though!

If I could go back in time with a weapon I think I would want a Tavor TS 12 shotgun. Holds like 15 plus one. Semi auto. Buckshot loads and rifled slugs. A very nice small package with ridiculous amount of firepower.

I would even prefer a M1A scout or cqb model to a M4.

But I’ve never been in combat. But I do own two M4s, and that caliber certainly has its limitations. I think it’s lethality is certainly predicated on careful bullet selection. Which is also a no go with the military. I also own a .22-250 and with hollow points it’s pretty scary. It’s also traveling at 4000 FPS, and rifling don’t last long in barrels.

[norseman]

Tavor

m.youtube.com/watch?v=jjW4z6uirkg

[norseman]

With number 4 buckshot? 16x28=448. 448 .25 caliber projectiles ready to go before reload. With tactical reloads easily accomplished. Just get SAW pouches and started pouring shot shells in. Just don’t want to get caught in a longer engagement.

[volkssturm]

There was an interesting point made in the article above. After WWII there were studies of what infantrymen did in battles and they found that a large percentage didn't fire their rifles. I've run across comments about this before, and the problem seems to be related to marksmanship training. They were taught to aim at the enemy and not waste ammo. But in actual combat it was hard to spot people to shoot at. When you're shooting one round at a time you want it to count. The idea of suppressive fire doesn't seem to have been grasped. The BAR men, on the other hand, always fired, because they were on full auto and felt they could have an impact saturating places where the enemy might be.

I can relate. The very first ROTC field exercise I was in (at Gonzaga University, in Spokane) we were schlepping our M1's through the pines outside town. I think I fired all of one time the whole day. We kept encountering the aggressors and I heard people firing, but I never saw a friggin' one of them and even though we were shooting blanks (of course) it just didn't seem right to shoot when I didn't know who I was theoretically shooting at.

[2nd Bat]

Firing in the direction of the enemy does a lot of positive things even when you dont have clearly identified targets. As long as you have a general idea where they are and are sure there are no friendlys the biggest thing is it psychologically gets you in the fight which motivates you and your team members. It has a reverse impact on the enemy as incoming rounds are disorienting and demoralizing. They dont know you cant see them and odds are most of them are no longer actively seeking targets. The scene in BOB where Winters gets the trooper who croze to just start firing is quite telling and illustrates my point qhite well. As we know from airsoft if your side isnt moving eventually you get eliminated.

Violence of action is often more bluff than lethal. The rebel yell was a tide turner in many engagements. More rounds downrangs typically decides mors bAttles than fewer carefully aimed shotz. Having lugged an M14 and its ammo and while I thoroughly enjoyed firing a couple thousand rounds through a Thomlson I still was glad I had an M16 and XM177 in SE Asia. The Thompson is heavy, awkward and the magazines were heavy and awkward as well. I had a buddy who lugged an M3 Greasegun in the field with 5 magazines but only as a backup to his M16. Its odd report was very intimidating on the two occassions he used it.

Kregg Jorgenson who you may have met?

[volkssturm]

If I recall, Rommel's 7th Panzer Division extemporized a "reconnaissance by fire" tactic during the advance across France in 1940, shooting on the move at suspected enemy positions.

[norseman]

Apr 3, 2019 20:07:45 GMT -5 volkssturm said:

There was an interesting point made in the article above. After WWII there were studies of what infantrymen did in battles and they found that a large percentage didn't fire their rifles. I've run across comments about this before, and the problem seems to be related to marksmanship training. They were taught to aim at the enemy and not waste ammo. But in actual combat it was hard to spot people to shoot at. When you're shooting one round at a time you want it to count. The idea of suppressive fire doesn't seem to have been grasped. The BAR men, on the other hand, always fired, because they were on full auto and felt they could have an impact saturating places where the enemy might be.

I can relate. The very first ROTC field exercise I was in (at Gonzaga University, in Spokane) we were schlepping our M1's through the pines outside town. I think I fired all of one time the whole day. We kept encountering the aggressors and I heard people firing, but I never saw a friggin' one of them and even though we were shooting blanks (of course) it just didn't seem right to shoot when I didn't know who I was theoretically shooting at.

I was under the assumption that the four F’s were taught in WW2. Maybe they were and men simply forgot their training?

I’ve been told the German tactics were basically for the riflemen with Kar 98’s to simply defend the MG 42? Sounds like a much more static strategy. But I guess they wouldn’t worry about a soldier not firing his bolt action as much as he should. The 42 was making up for any lack of lead in the air.

[norseman]

Apr 4, 2019 1:46:39 GMT -5 2nd Bat said:

Firing in the direction of the enemy does a lot of positive things even when you dont have clearly identified targets. As long as you have a general idea where they are and are sure there are no friendlys the biggest thing is it psychologically gets you in the fight which motivates you and your team members. It has a reverse impact on the enemy as incoming rounds are disorienting and demoralizing. They dont know you cant see them and odds are most of them are no longer actively seeking targets. The scene in BOB where Winters gets the trooper who croze to just start firing is quite telling and illustrates my point qhite well. As we know from airsoft if your side isnt moving eventually you get eliminated.

Violence of action is often more bluff than lethal. The rebel yell was a tide turner in many engagements. More rounds downrangs typically decides mors bAttles than fewer carefully aimed shotz. Having lugged an M14 and its ammo and while I thoroughly enjoyed firing a couple thousand rounds through a Thomlson I still was glad I had an M16 and XM177 in SE Asia. The Thompson is heavy, awkward and the magazines were heavy and awkward as well. I had a buddy who lugged an M3 Greasegun in the field with 5 magazines but only as a backup to his M16. Its odd report was very intimidating on the two occassions he used it.

Kregg Jorgenson who you may have met?

I met Cal Rollins when I went to Recondo. I do not remember Kregg.

And I could see how a AR platform would be light to carry as would be the ammo. Did you ever encounter a situation where it lacked the penetration needed to be effective? Did you ever feel outgunned by the AK round? Where their cover was working and yours wasn’t?

I picked up a Thompson at a pawn shop in Spokane. You could definitely beat a Yeti to death with it. I wonder what a billet aluminum receiver would feel like. 

[stuka]

In regards to the InRange test with m855a1, somebody made a post kind of debunking that video if you will. Basically that russian plate was meant to stop significantly larger bullets so year, a slightly beefed up 5.56 isn't really going to match a .30 caliber rounds penetrative capabilities

www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/a1c5xf/inrangetv_m855a1_i_have_no_penetration_and_i_must/

[norseman]

Apr 4, 2019 15:20:15 GMT -5 stuka said:

In regards to the InRange test with m855a1, somebody made a post kind of debunking that video if you will. Basically that russian plate was meant to stop significantly larger bullets so year, a slightly beefed up 5.56 isn't really going to match a .30 caliber rounds penetrative capabilities

www.reddit.com/r/NonCredibleDefense/comments/a1c5xf/inrangetv_m855a1_i_have_no_penetration_and_i_must/

Well.... I don’t think it was debunked. The rebuttal was that the test was rigged. But the 800 lbs gorilla in the room is WHAT IF we face off with the Russian military tommorow? Are we betting that they are gonna leave their body armor back at the base? There is only so much a 50-70 grain bullet can do. It’s just physics.

And Im bias. I openly admit I’m a disciple of Elmer Keith. His motto was weight, kick and flash be damned. Big bullets leave big holes behind. And he was the father of the .44 mag. Him and Jack O’ Connor went round and round on the .270 Winchester. Elmer considered it anemic. Elmer liked .338. All civilian hunting stuff not military. 

[stuka]

Debunked wasn't the right word but in the video they suggest the whole point of that roudn was to defeat that high level of body armor but it wasn't and it is better against soft tissue and is an "envirmentally friendly round" in that it doesn't contain any lead.

[volkssturm]

A curious thing I learned recently. The French 8mm Lebel Balle D of WWI used a solid bronze bullet. Why I have not found out. In the '30's they switched to Balle N which used a conventional lead core and metal jacket.

The "environmentally friendly" thing sounds weird until you realize how much lead gets deposited in military shooting ranges, some of which have been in use since before WWII. It can pollute groundwater and makes for an expensive cleanup. The Swiss recognized the problem back in the '80's. They have small shooting ranges scattered around the country. They designed their version of the 5.56mm (5.6mm GP90) with the lead core fully enclosed. Just some interesting trivia if you're into such things.

[norseman]

www.barnesbullets.com

Barnes builds copper solids. But Lead is hard to replace. It’s heavy. In shotguns they have used steel and copper and now bismuth as replacements. But in rifles the Nosler Partition design of a lead core and copper jacket still reigns supreme.

But I do find it kinda hypocritical that the military is worried about lead bullets when they use depleted uranium bullets in bigger calibers.

[norseman]

Oh! Just wanted to share....

The BAR has been reborn the HCAR. Still .30-06!

m.youtube.com/watch?v=1YqjBRiENdQ

[norseman]

m.youtube.com/watch?v=mxWXa9l0XMI

[2nd Bat]

While at Ft Polk at the .45 range we had a postponment to training as a mild Hurricane blew through. Once the wind and rains passed the large mud berms were reduce to reefs of stuck together lead slugs. Absolutely incredible how many rounds had been fired but when you consider the ranges had been in use since before WW2 i guess it shouldnt be.

There is no doubt the 7.62 punched through foliage better than the 5.56. Our primary advantage was the average Vc had 30 rounds of ammunition while a PaVN regular might have 90 rounds. I generally carried 400 to 600 rounds some grenades and 2 Claymores.

A random mad minute was fairly common and in a firefight there was a high likelihood that if we ran low on ammo a chopped would fly low and drops some. Volume out does power more often than not.prior

I think for your cycle at Recondo Kregg had an emergency appendectomy two days prior so swung by quite briefly and didnt teach any classes or go out on any patrols. In a pitched battle at Dogs Head he brought his M3 into the fight when low on ammo, took out a couple little people within 10 feet of his position and the NVA survivors broke contact shortly after. He always said the Grease gun was a last resort weapon and indeed that was what it was.

The 5.56 has a pop gun sound compared to the 7.62 so in distant firefights or at night the sounds often told the story about how things were going. The M3 in the heart of a fight no doubt sounded very distinctive and intimidating.

[2nd Bat]

Incidently the HCAR is awesome 11 pounds instead of 18, shorter with a 30 round mag. A modernized BAR that looks as badass as it is. I want one!

[volkssturm]

It's a shame that no one in authority back in the '30's considered the idea of something like the HCAR. It would have been an awesome weapon for the period, until assault rifles became common. I read once that one of the Marine raider leaders, Edson I think, before the war got permission to try cutting down the barrel on a BAR, but he cut it back to 15 or 16 inches which gave it a nasty report and muzzle flash, so they dropped the idea.

If the war had gone on longer, and the US faced a lot more STG-44's, it seems likely the immediate response would have been to increase the number of BAR's in a squad. That was already happening to some extent. MG Terry Allen commanded the 1st Inf. in North Africa and Sicily, where he crossed Patton one time too many and got relieved. Allen didn't care at all for spit and polish, and not much more for discipline as long as his men had an aggressive attitude. One of the complaints from Patton and Bradley was that the 1st acted like it was a war between the 1st Inf. and Germany. Allen was one of the few generals who were relieved and then given another combat command. He trained the 104th Inf. and led it in NW Europe in late '44-'45. One of the things he recognized was the need for more firepower and he sent his supply sergeants out to scrounge as many BAR's as they could find.
At the time Springfield was experimenting with M1's using a 20 round box magazine and altered for full auto (the T22) which was ordered into production in mid-45, and then canceled at the end of the war. Winchester was also working on the Winchester Automatic Rifle, as a replacement for the BAR, but based on an action similar to the M1 and lighter in weight. The end of the war canceled that one too. But if the war went into 1946 both of them would probably have been fielded.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RvpWYBDruE

[volkssturm]

Just an observation about Elmer Keith and his thing for big bullets. I was reading a bit about British East Africa (now Kenya). Col. Richard Meinertzhagen was there in the 19-aughts with the King's African Rifles and spent his off duty time shooting basically every thing he found. In the foreword to his diary, published when he was in his 60's, he said that looking back he was shocked at how many animals he killed. His main rifle was a .256 mannlicher (6.5x53mmR or 6.5x54mm. Not sure which version he used). Typical loads 150-160 grain bottlenose bullet at 2,400-2,500 fps. I'm sure Keith would not be impressed. But this cartridge was used widely up through the 1930's and took everything up to elephants. Meinertzhagen took quite a few rhinos with it. Meinertzhagen wouldn't hunt elephants because he thought they were too intelligent, but other hunters, like Denys Finch-Hatten ("Out of Africa"), used it for elephants. It all comes down to putting the bullet in the right place.

[norseman]

Apr 5, 2019 13:09:59 GMT -5 volkssturm said:

Just an observation about Elmer Keith and his thing for big bullets. I was reading a bit about British East Africa (now Kenya). Col. Richard Meinertzhagen was there in the 19-aughts with the King's African Rifles and spent his off duty time shooting basically every thing he found. In the foreword to his diary, published when he was in his 60's, he said that looking back he was shocked at how many animals he killed. His main rifle was a .256 mannlicher (6.5x53mmR or 6.5x54mm. Not sure which version he used). Typical loads 150-160 grain bottlenose bullet at 2,400-2,500 fps. I'm sure Keith would not be impressed. But this cartridge was used widely up through the 1930's and took everything up to elephants. Meinertzhagen took quite a few rhinos with it. Meinertzhagen wouldn't hunt elephants because he thought they were too intelligent, but other hunters, like Denys Finch-Hatten ("Out of Africa"), used it for elephants. It all comes down to putting the bullet in the right place.

It does. But it’s when the bullet doesn’t go in the right place, is when things become interesting and the PH pulls out a big bore!

In fact it would be illegal in most places today to go after African dangerous game with anything less than a .375 Holland and Holland. It’s considered irresponsible. Of course most hunters going on safari may only ever take one of each species in their lifetime. And Of course The old timers has surgical knowledge of anatomy and had shot thousands of animals.

[norseman]

Apr 5, 2019 11:21:08 GMT -5 volkssturm said:

It's a shame that no one in authority back in the '30's considered the idea of something like the HCAR. It would have been an awesome weapon for the period, until assault rifles became common. I read once that one of the Marine raider leaders, Edson I think, before the war got permission to try cutting down the barrel on a BAR, but he cut it back to 15 or 16 inches which gave it a nasty report and muzzle flash, so they dropped the idea.

If the war had gone on longer, and the US faced a lot more STG-44's, it seems likely the immediate response would have been to increase the number of BAR's in a squad. That was already happening to some extent. MG Terry Allen commanded the 1st Inf. in North Africa and Sicily, where he crossed Patton one time too many and got relieved. Allen didn't care at all for spit and polish, and not much more for discipline as long as his men had an aggressive attitude. One of the complaints from Patton and Bradley was that the 1st acted like it was a war between the 1st Inf. and Germany. Allen was one of the few generals who were relieved and then given another combat command. He trained the 104th Inf. and led it in NW Europe in late '44-'45. One of the things he recognized was the need for more firepower and he sent his supply sergeants out to scrounge as many BAR's as they could find.
At the time Springfield was experimenting with M1's using a 20 round box magazine and altered for full auto (the T22) which was ordered into production in mid-45, and then canceled at the end of the war. Winchester was also working on the Winchester Automatic Rifle, as a replacement for the BAR, but based on an action similar to the M1 and lighter in weight. The end of the war canceled that one too. But if the war went into 1946 both of them would probably have been fielded.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RvpWYBDruE

I was watching American riflemen TV. There was a story about a family farm that was first used as a POW camp for US troops caught in the BOB. The number 1 US weapon the Germans went for was the M1 carbine. They gobbled them up and took them to the front. When the tides of fortune reversed and the same farm was now holding German POWs? The US Troops only took German pistols as war prizes. They really were not interested in anything else. They liked the MP 40s and STG 44s, but thought finding ammo would be a pain.

I remember one German General at the BOB said he knew the war was lost when they went through a captured rucksack of a US GI and his K rations had fruit cake tins dated from NYC two weeks before the launch of the offensive. The General had two days worth of Panzer petrol and the Americans are flying fruit cake across the Atlantic.

[volkssturm]

I suspect the Americans were looking for souvenirs, especially Lugers. The Germans were always strapped for small arms, so they had a history of using "beutewaffen," including official Wehrmacht designations for enemy weapons. You can see how the M1 Carbine, light, well suited for rapid shooting at close quarters, fit in the developing German tactics for employing intermediate caliber "assault rifles." The .30 cal. carbine cartridge gets criticized as being weak, but it's actually not that much less powerful than the 7.92mm kurtz in the STG-44 (110 grain bullet at 1900 fps vs. 123 grain bullet at 2250). And the Germans may also have been thinking that their assault troops could replenish their .30 carbine ammo from captured American stocks. The American troops had no real need to use captured weapons, since by the last years of the war they had more adequate supplies of small arms and ammunition.

[norseman]

Apr 5, 2019 18:05:05 GMT -5 volkssturm said:

I suspect the Americans were looking for souvenirs, especially Lugers. The Germans were always strapped for small arms, so they had a history of using "beutewaffen," including official Wehrmacht designations for enemy weapons. You can see how the M1 Carbine, light, well suited for rapid shooting at close quarters, fit in the developing German tactics for employing intermediate caliber "assault rifles." The .30 cal. carbine cartridge gets criticized as being weak, but it's actually not that much less powerful than the 7.92mm kurtz in the STG-44 (110 grain bullet at 1900 fps vs. 123 grain bullet at 2250). And the Germans may also have been thinking that their assault troops could replenish their .30 carbine ammo from captured American stocks. The American troops had no real need to use captured weapons, since by the last years of the war they had more adequate supplies of small arms and ammunition.

Agreed.

And the little carbine beat Hitler’s “assault rifle” into service by two years!

[norseman]

Here is some praises for the Garand!

youtu.be/SFPqDYEFSNQ