Some down under stuff

[browningautorifle]

If clerks and cooks have to grab a rifle

Not quite seen like that, all posted to an infantry unit must be well versed in weapons. All travelling overseas have to go through the same pre-deployment. All must be able to fight as infantry, even though that may not be expected. We can't have a small(by comparison) number fighting to protect a large number against undisclosed numbers. Gulf war one taught us that one...that's a long side story.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[martins8589]

There was a report done some time ago about the effectiveness of the 5.56 against certain hard & soft targets in Afghanistan and in the words of the soldiers that used the weapon including the 9mm they felt the round wanting as there were cases of multiple hits on enemy combatants and not putting them down. It also lacked penetration on the mud huts according to this report what the soldiers felt was the 7.62 Nato round was adequate for the job the 45ACP was a better choice than the 9mm the 50 BMG was still the Ma Deuce of the battle field in their opinion.

If clerks and cooks have to grab a rifle then the front is in dire straights sort of like the Ardennes in WWII

I didn't say it was the best Infantry weapon. And sure 7.62 had the penetration/kill shock factor as well. I am sure you have used both.

[CINDERS]

and in the words of the soldiers

#12 These are the people who made the comments not me on that report I was only paraphrasing what was said by them in that report which is from the people at the sharp end it will carry more weight if the brass is listening than some back room boffin playing with their slide rule that the 5.56 blows arms off and puts them down with hydraulic shock (ala Vietnam conflict). Besides I personally did not say anything belittling the 5.56!!!!!

As a clarification to #10 it was U.S troops that the survey/report was compiled by not Australian troops, sorry I omitted that which may have caused a tad of confusion.

[Flying10uk]

Someone once told me that one of the factors, but not the only one, in making the decision to switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm calibre for the standard infantry rifle for the British army was that it was much more inconvenient to seriously wound your enemy than to kill him. This is because the downed enemy soldier has to be given first aid and then a helicopter may have to be brought in with the associated risk to the helicopter. If the enemy soldier is killed outright then, obviously, they don't have the problem of dealing with a seriously wounded man.

[browningautorifle]

it was much more inconvenient to seriously wound your enemy than to kill him.

This is another myth that started after the fact. The role of the infantry is to "Kill the enemy"... I never shot with intent to wound. I don't want him coming back.

[Flying10uk]

This is another myth that started after the fact.

This is what was told and explained to me and that is what I have repeated here for the first time since being told this over ten years ago. The person who told me this was ex military, I believe, and at the time in charge of a military museum; I didn't believe at the time he was talking rubbish or trying to start a myth.

[browningautorifle]

This is what was told and explained to me

I understand.

[mrclark303]

Someone once told me that one of the factors, but not the only one, in making the decision to switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm calibre for the standard infantry rifle for the British army was that it was much more inconvenient to seriously wound your enemy than to kill him. This is because the downed enemy soldier has to be given first aid and then a helicopter may have to be brought in with the associated risk to the helicopter. If the enemy soldier is killed outright then, obviously, they don't have the problem of dealing with a seriously wounded man.

I think the NATO change was more or less dictated by the US and the world wide trend for shorter range, urban combat, higher capacity lighter Infantry weapons.

I recall back in the early 1980's, rifles like the L1A1 were regarded as obsolete colonial war throw backs, too heavy, too long with a range and stopping power that was simply no longer required.

No one could possibly have foreseen the 10 years of combat in Afghanistan that were unfortunately to come.

5.56mm has shown it's limitations in that theatre.

[nzl1a1collector]

Someone once told me that one of the factors, but not the only one, in making the decision to switch from 7.62mm to 5.56mm calibre for the standard infantry rifle for the British army was that it was much more inconvenient to seriously wound your enemy than to kill him. This is because the downed enemy soldier has to be given first aid and then a helicopter may have to be brought in with the associated risk to the helicopter. If the enemy soldier is killed outright then, obviously, they don't have the problem of dealing with a seriously wounded man.

I was basically told a similar thing when I did my basic. It takes more troops to remove wounded than a killed solider, thus removing more troops from the fight. I NEVER accepted the theory. No good going up against someone that doesn't care about their troops till they have overrun you. I would of rather of had 7.62x51 that knocked the enemy down and if possible the man behind them.

[mrclark303]

Although I have had foreign "gentleman" point loaded AK's at me in the past, that happily had more to do with separating me from my money than using me a target practice.

As a personal perspective, I am very pleased to be able to say I have never been shot at. My firearms experience is limited purely as a collector, student of and shooter of Milsurps, however if I found myself in a situation (god forbid) like the great sandbox and under fire, I would personally much rather trust my life to 7.62x51mm than 5.56mm. For that matter, I would probably be just as happy with .303 or .30-06!