The theory is: The M16 was designed to wound and maim.
That is not true. 5.56 simply means you can carry more ammunition. The M16 has greater lethality than a 7.62 rifle, because the heavier fully capped projectile tends to - sometimes - punch right through, leaving a more easily treatable wound. While the 5.56 tends to fragment, tumble and so on, creating an inner sish-kebab situation that's really difficult to say anything positive about.
Overall, lethality isn't the decider either way, if you get hit in combat, you are essentially out of the fight. Good enogh. The lighter cartridge has slightly shorter range, comparable penetration against most things (but not ceramic or composite plate), but allows you to carry substantially more ammo. The latter really was the deciding factor: Logistics over all other concerns.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught. This is what was taught in Army Basic, this is what the vietnam vets were taught when they were issued the original M16s. This is what is passed down from the experienced to the new guys. Yes the logistics were a bonus to carrying more ammunition but at a cost due to the lack of penetration. The M16 was developed to find a lighter weapon while the US was in Vietnam, so removing 3 people was more desirable then the one dead person. But being lighter did hamper reliability & durability. I am not a big guy, but I even snapped a few M16 rifle butts going to the ground. The AK47 was much more durable and reliable. You can set the AK47 in the mud, stand on it, then pull it out and still shoot. So you could repack and reuse AK47 ammo brass.
On the other hand, if you’re not accounting for the expandable on the FR side why are you only accounting for them on the soldier’s side?
Because expendable ammo is worth more than it's weight in gold. Without that ammo, then the weapon is useless, as the bullets are what causes damage. Arrows and sing rocks are "semi" easily obtained. Refilling your magazines with bullets is not.
^^ this. A bow without arrows and a rifle without rounds of ammunition are both fairly useless, with a slight edge to the rifle because it makes a better club than a bow makes a staff. That said, you can run down to the local fletcher and get the bow back in action as intended, and the rifle, without a supply of ammunition will never be more than a club.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught.
It's a popular myth. It's not why the cartridge was adopted. Look it up, if you like. Not that I can 100% swear you won't find a source to support that claim, because ... it's a popular myth.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
Given the Forgotten Realms setting I would assume the more learned individuals and organizations would think this unit of soldiers would be from the realm of Lantan (wiki here: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Lantan) and may constitute some sort of mercenary force from there, or if they are feeling particularly paranoid, maybe an invasion force. Ultimately though I think the soldiers fare rather badly as their minds may not be able to cope with the plane shifting to a realm where laws of nature and indeed moral codes are not what they are used to, adding to the general shock of the situation is the language barrier they all face unless you hand wave their real world language to be the same as Common, then when they get into town they also have the myriad of people to get used to whether they be halfings, dwarves, elves or orcs etc. The soldiers will likely find themselves the target of a lot of manipulation as the soldiers have no basis for deciding what group or individual is good or evil or what is best for the society in which they now find themselves.
On a slightly different note though....you could do a variation of Evil Dead: Armies of Darkness and have the soldiers leading a "peasant" army against a horde of undead.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
* Need a character idea? Search for "Rob76's Unused" in the Story and Lore section.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught.
It's a popular myth. It's not why the cartridge was adopted. Look it up, if you like. Not that I can 100% swear you won't find a source to support that claim, because ... it's a popular myth.
I am telling you what was taught in basic training and by vets who are there turning in the M14s. That is the reality. What is written is not necessarily true either. To be honest, I am not sure they can write that the bullets are meant to maim, the myth would be that maiming is not a factor.
As an example of the books clearly being wrong is: The books say a FIST-V was deployed a few years (after I got out) after a local unit brought it to us for show and tell (familiarization training). They were a mech unit, we had no vehicles.
I am telling you what was taught in basic training and by vets who are there turning in the M14s. That is the reality. What is written is not necessarily true either. To be honest, I am not sure they can write that the bullets are meant to maim, the myth would be that maiming is not a factor.
As an example of the books clearly being wrong is: The books say a FIST-V was deployed a few years (after I got out) after a local unit brought it to us for show and tell (familiarization training). They were a mech unit, we had no vehicles.
Oh don't get me wrong, I heard the same thing while serving in 1991. It's still a myth. The 5.56 is a more lethal round due to fragmentation and tumbling acting - not less. It was adopted not for any ballistic qualities or lethality concerns, but because it allows soldiers to carry more ammo. As another, lesser concern, the rifle is also easier to control due to less recoil.
The other stuff simply isn't true.
You simply cannot assign any value to whatever your ... is gunnery sargeant the term? Rifle instructor? That guy. He doesn't matter, at all.
The people who made the decision to switch did it primarily because soldiers could carry more. I've checked. I'm not remembering this wrong. This is definitely why.
I'd like to drop a source - specifically a video from Forgotten Weapons where Ian McCollum (aka Gun Jesus, for some reason) explains this ... annoyingly, I cannot find it. But if you simply google it, you will be provided with a smorgasboard of sources that confirm it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
1) What is potentially true about the M-16 is that both stories are actually true - it was adopted because it was lighter and you could carry more ammo, then in use they discovered that because of the tumbling action (created by the bullet expansion and rapid deceleration) it was more likely to stay n the target causing internal damage that forced the individual to stop fighting and need medical support rapidly to live. The 5.56 N round travels at 2700 -3100 ft/sec and has a kinetic energy of 1600 - 1800 joules. The 7.62 N round travels at about the same speeds but has kinetic energy of 3400 - 3500 J, nearly double the KE. This has two effects - a) the 5.56 loses/transfers energy faster and better so more is transferred to the target typically: b) because of the copper jacketing the 7.62 can (and frequently does) fully penetrate the target depositing roughly the same energy as the 5.56 but leaving a cleaner wound before potentially hitting a second target. One thing the extra energy does is make the 7.62 N round more likely to hold true at extended ranges or in light brush. Further, most of the early problems with the M16 were the result of bad decisions in the upper echelons. Things like not providing cleaning kits, not caroming the reciever internals (chrome is highly corrosion resistant so it slows fouling) once these administrative stupidities were dealt with it proved to be a successful combat weapon in trained hands. Which leads into the last point - the M-16 was not to be used by poorly trained draftees ( even if it was in its early days in Vietnamese), the AK was intended for just such use and so it’s tolerances were more substantial. Making it ideal for use by poorly trained ( or untrained) individuals- which is a major reason why it is so prevalent around the globe. 2) expend ability of ammo ( bullets or arrows) - if you run out of either in a firefight your out, it doesn’t matter how easy it is to make the ammo back in town. Next, it actually takes considerable time to make a decent arrow we just ignore that in game but that is the reason castles etc stocked up on them - it was too late to make them once you were in combat or siege. Would it be easier to make arrows than bullets? In a generally mideveal culture - certainly. My post above pointed out 2 things: how it could potentially be done, and just how difficult the process could potentially be. However, my point still stands that if you’re going to ignore counting ammo for one side you should ( in all fairness) be ignoring counting ammo for the other side. Assuming you are limiting the soldiers to 2 aimed shots a round like L5+ archers their ammo is going to last a lot longer than the archers ( 7 mags of 30 rounds = 210 bullets = 105 rounds or 37 3round fights compared to the typical archer’s 20-40 arrows (1/2 quivers) which gives you 3-7 fights for the archer. At that rate the soldiers have enough time ( and probably wealth) to hire some alchemists and artificers to solve the problems of reloading (and eventually recreating their bullets). Could they take on the entire FRs? Of course not, but could they survive with their ammo long enough to get basic training in mideveal weaponry? Almost certainly. It would still be an interesting story line to lay out but I think that having it be a Special forces team would make it a special melee but still interesting campaign.
they discovered that because of the tumbling action (created by the bullet expansion and rapid deceleration) it was more likely to stay n the target causing internal damage that forced the individual to stop fighting and need medical support rapidly to live.
Only that's not it.
The myth is that 5.56 is less lethal. More likely to wound, not kill. That it was adopted in part to strain enemy logistics, in part for psychological effect - screamning wounded soldiers being a drain on morale as your force tries to advance into a hail of 5.56.
And the exact opposite is true. So .. you're not really adressing the myth. Just stating the same fact that I am. With more detail. The high kinetic energy of the 7.62 means it has a good chance to penetrate older body armor with relative ease, and newer stuff with a bit of luck. Level IV plates should shrug it off with a laugh, but .. well, most armies don't have those.
Point being, to my mind, we should switch back. Not that anyone is likely to come around and ask me =D
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
That was the anti 5.56 argument - it’s a smaller round it can’t be as lethal, it must be because they want it to wound and force recovery efforts that soldiers away from combat to medivac. Sadly that no real basis in fact beyond the 5.56 N being a .223 caliber round vs a .30 caliber for the 7.62 N - but with a lot more powder behind it than even a .22 magnum round.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Sorry if what you say is true, then that is revisionist history. Just wound and maim and not kill is what was basically taught. This is what was taught in Army Basic, this is what the vietnam vets were taught when they were issued the original M16s. This is what is passed down from the experienced to the new guys. Yes the logistics were a bonus to carrying more ammunition but at a cost due to the lack of penetration. The M16 was developed to find a lighter weapon while the US was in Vietnam, so removing 3 people was more desirable then the one dead person. But being lighter did hamper reliability & durability. I am not a big guy, but I even snapped a few M16 rifle butts going to the ground. The AK47 was much more durable and reliable. You can set the AK47 in the mud, stand on it, then pull it out and still shoot. So you could repack and reuse AK47 ammo brass.
Because expendable ammo is worth more than it's weight in gold. Without that ammo, then the weapon is useless, as the bullets are what causes damage. Arrows and sing rocks are "semi" easily obtained. Refilling your magazines with bullets is not.
^^ this. A bow without arrows and a rifle without rounds of ammunition are both fairly useless, with a slight edge to the rifle because it makes a better club than a bow makes a staff. That said, you can run down to the local fletcher and get the bow back in action as intended, and the rifle, without a supply of ammunition will never be more than a club.
Any time an unfathomably powerful entity sweeps in and offers godlike rewards in return for just a few teensy favors, it’s a scam. Unless it’s me. I’d never lie to you, reader dearest.
Tasha
It's a popular myth. It's not why the cartridge was adopted. Look it up, if you like. Not that I can 100% swear you won't find a source to support that claim, because ... it's a popular myth.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
My 2cp worth:
Given the Forgotten Realms setting I would assume the more learned individuals and organizations would think this unit of soldiers would be from the realm of Lantan (wiki here: https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Lantan) and may constitute some sort of mercenary force from there, or if they are feeling particularly paranoid, maybe an invasion force. Ultimately though I think the soldiers fare rather badly as their minds may not be able to cope with the plane shifting to a realm where laws of nature and indeed moral codes are not what they are used to, adding to the general shock of the situation is the language barrier they all face unless you hand wave their real world language to be the same as Common, then when they get into town they also have the myriad of people to get used to whether they be halfings, dwarves, elves or orcs etc. The soldiers will likely find themselves the target of a lot of manipulation as the soldiers have no basis for deciding what group or individual is good or evil or what is best for the society in which they now find themselves.
On a slightly different note though....you could do a variation of Evil Dead: Armies of Darkness and have the soldiers leading a "peasant" army against a horde of undead.
I am telling you what was taught in basic training and by vets who are there turning in the M14s. That is the reality. What is written is not necessarily true either. To be honest, I am not sure they can write that the bullets are meant to maim, the myth would be that maiming is not a factor.
As an example of the books clearly being wrong is: The books say a FIST-V was deployed a few years (after I got out) after a local unit brought it to us for show and tell (familiarization training). They were a mech unit, we had no vehicles.
Oh don't get me wrong, I heard the same thing while serving in 1991. It's still a myth. The 5.56 is a more lethal round due to fragmentation and tumbling acting - not less. It was adopted not for any ballistic qualities or lethality concerns, but because it allows soldiers to carry more ammo. As another, lesser concern, the rifle is also easier to control due to less recoil.
The other stuff simply isn't true.
You simply cannot assign any value to whatever your ... is gunnery sargeant the term? Rifle instructor? That guy. He doesn't matter, at all.
The people who made the decision to switch did it primarily because soldiers could carry more. I've checked. I'm not remembering this wrong. This is definitely why.
I'd like to drop a source - specifically a video from Forgotten Weapons where Ian McCollum (aka Gun Jesus, for some reason) explains this ... annoyingly, I cannot find it. But if you simply google it, you will be provided with a smorgasboard of sources that confirm it.
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
1) What is potentially true about the M-16 is that both stories are actually true - it was adopted because it was lighter and you could carry more ammo, then in use they discovered that because of the tumbling action (created by the bullet expansion and rapid deceleration) it was more likely to stay n the target causing internal damage that forced the individual to stop fighting and need medical support rapidly to live. The 5.56 N round travels at 2700 -3100 ft/sec and has a kinetic energy of 1600 - 1800 joules. The 7.62 N round travels at about the same speeds but has kinetic energy of 3400 - 3500 J, nearly double the KE. This has two effects - a) the 5.56 loses/transfers energy faster and better so more is transferred to the target typically: b) because of the copper jacketing the 7.62 can (and frequently does) fully penetrate the target depositing roughly the same energy as the 5.56 but leaving a cleaner wound before potentially hitting a second target. One thing the extra energy does is make the 7.62 N round more likely to hold true at extended ranges or in light brush. Further, most of the early problems with the M16 were the result of bad decisions in the upper echelons. Things like not providing cleaning kits, not caroming the reciever internals (chrome is highly corrosion resistant so it slows fouling) once these administrative stupidities were dealt with it proved to be a successful combat weapon in trained hands. Which leads into the last point - the M-16 was not to be used by poorly trained draftees ( even if it was in its early days in Vietnamese), the AK was intended for just such use and so it’s tolerances were more substantial. Making it ideal for use by poorly trained ( or untrained) individuals- which is a major reason why it is so prevalent around the globe.
2) expend ability of ammo ( bullets or arrows) - if you run out of either in a firefight your out, it doesn’t matter how easy it is to make the ammo back in town. Next, it actually takes considerable time to make a decent arrow we just ignore that in game but that is the reason castles etc stocked up on them - it was too late to make them once you were in combat or siege. Would it be easier to make arrows than bullets? In a generally mideveal culture - certainly. My post above pointed out 2 things: how it could potentially be done, and just how difficult the process could potentially be. However, my point still stands that if you’re going to ignore counting ammo for one side you should ( in all fairness) be ignoring counting ammo for the other side. Assuming you are limiting the soldiers to 2 aimed shots a round like L5+ archers their ammo is going to last a lot longer than the archers ( 7 mags of 30 rounds = 210 bullets = 105 rounds or 37 3round fights compared to the typical archer’s 20-40 arrows (1/2 quivers) which gives you 3-7 fights for the archer. At that rate the soldiers have enough time ( and probably wealth) to hire some alchemists and artificers to solve the problems of reloading (and eventually recreating their bullets). Could they take on the entire FRs? Of course not, but could they survive with their ammo long enough to get basic training in mideveal weaponry? Almost certainly. It would still be an interesting story line to lay out but I think that having it be a Special forces team would make it a special melee but still interesting campaign.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.
Only that's not it.
The myth is that 5.56 is less lethal. More likely to wound, not kill. That it was adopted in part to strain enemy logistics, in part for psychological effect - screamning wounded soldiers being a drain on morale as your force tries to advance into a hail of 5.56.
And the exact opposite is true. So .. you're not really adressing the myth. Just stating the same fact that I am. With more detail. The high kinetic energy of the 7.62 means it has a good chance to penetrate older body armor with relative ease, and newer stuff with a bit of luck. Level IV plates should shrug it off with a laugh, but .. well, most armies don't have those.
Point being, to my mind, we should switch back. Not that anyone is likely to come around and ask me =D
Blanket disclaimer: I only ever state opinion. But I can sound terribly dogmatic - so if you feel I'm trying to tell you what to think, I'm really not, I swear. I'm telling you what I think, that's all.
That was the anti 5.56 argument - it’s a smaller round it can’t be as lethal, it must be because they want it to wound and force recovery efforts that soldiers away from combat to medivac. Sadly that no real basis in fact beyond the 5.56 N being a .223 caliber round vs a .30 caliber for the 7.62 N - but with a lot more powder behind it than even a .22 magnum round.
Wisea$$ DM and Player since 1979.