|
|
|
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subject:
RE:5.56 NATO penetration, ambush
TRiple_C
8/13/2004 11:03:32 AM
|
| I am not very sure about equiping different units with different weapons in the scale you proposed is the solution, primarily for budgetary and versatility problems. The plethora of calibers employed hinders logistics. Furthermore, units thus equipped will suffer in versatility. As it is, a platoon could be fighting long range engagement in the deserts this week, and clearing caves/complexes the next. Using specific weapons for either is clearly not the solution. The assault rifle is not perfect, but performs in either situation reasonably well. Even in Afganistan engagement in ranges exceeding M-4's maxium effective range (350m) is the exception, not the norm. No after-action report from Iraq, so far, has anything to say against the round. A marine unofficial after action report says it "answered the mail" and another review conducted by soldier weapons assessment team says that "It is apparent that the close range lethality deficiency of the 5.56mm (M855) is more a matter of perception rather than fact . . . The majority of the soldiers interviewed that voiced or desired 'better knock-down power' or a larger caliber bullet did not have actual close engagements." In Afghanistan the defficiency of the 5.56 NATO is more pronounced, but ask yourselves this question: how likely is it to hit anything with an AK-47, or any rifle, at ranges exceeding 500 meters (where most failure to stopp occured)? I don't think that's very likely. It is my opinion that trading off long range power for close combat maneuverability and accuracy is a good bargain. That being said, there is a real need for battle rifles and shotguns among units currently deployed. They don't want to use these as their primary weapons, but assessets that they can utilize if the time arises. |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
