Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Why did armies in real life switch to crappy 8 hex rifles when 10 hex rifles are so much better in-game? Ditto for the 10 hex LMG vs. the 12 hex.

Give me a circa 1930 A.D. Lewis & Enfield armed squad and I will beath any 21st century squad, with less points spent to boot! :)

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Switching to intermediate power cartridges was necessary in order to make automatic fire possible (or at least usable).
You could never build an AK or a STG44 around the same powerful cartridge used by the Mosin Nagant (as a matter of fact they had trouble enough making a reliable semiauto around it) or the Mauser. In essence some range has been traded for greater short range firepower.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

It is usually an issue of weight and ammo compatibility with rifles. Not everyone has gone down that route, PKM are pretty popular AFAIK.
Contest must be also kept in mind. When the Lee-Enfield was introduced MMGs were a newfangled toy,as late as 1914 a british infantry battalion would have IIRC two of them (and it was considered to be a generous allotment),and LMGs were only on the drawing board.
So a rifle with good range was necessary, because the only alternative was artillery. On the other hand a WW2 german squad could count on its MG42 to reach beyond individual weapons and options have only increased since then (grenade launchers, more responsive fire support...).

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

There are endless discussions about this on various sites, like ARRSE (try digging through this thread http://www.arrse.co.uk/weapons-equip...-calibres.html there forex) and so on.

Also worth a look are Tony Williams articles on weapons and ammo
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/miltech.htm
see this article for example: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm


Basically - blame the cold war, mechanised infantry and the Americans for First insisting on the 7.62 as standard, then for introducing the 5.56 in spite of thier previous insistence on the 7.62 NATO.

The .280 British that the USA stepped on, in retrospect would have been a perfect 'balanced' cartridge.
See: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/256brit.htm

The 5.56 was really introduced as a jungle carbine round, not for all-round use. It just kinda-sorta "Borged" into the all purpose calibre in the USA and then elsewhere.

But mechanised doctrine of the old cold war saw a short and handy carbine as being all troops would need - tanks and APC would do the long range stuff. 5.56 would do at close range and in the urban area that modern Germany usually was.

Now fighting has generally focussed on long range fires in open terrain in Afghanistan. 7.62 vs 5.56 is a hot topic - but is it just a temporary aberration?. 5.56 certainly does have a problem with knock-down lethality especially if used from short carbine barrels. (The USMC still uses as many "long" M16s, having deliberately not completely going the wholesale carbine way the US Army seems to have?).

SP maps are perhaps not as crowded in Europe as they need be, though fields these days are much more open than even in the 60s due to the digging out of hedges and so on. But a "Germany" map can have quite a lot of urban terrain.

In SP:
Assault rifles do have better hitting and accuracy if in range, but full bore rifles have that extra little bit of range. If you can catch enemy out in the open, and keep him at a distance, then the full bore rifle is a no-brainer.

If however it is a jungle, wooded or urban map or you are prepared to close with the enemy (using smoke, arty, MMG, tank or APC support fires as well as movement to facilitate this) - then your assault rifle trumps the bolt rifles. It is like a longer ranged bayonet - aggressive tactics may be needed to close and kill with the AR.

in SP the most powerful thing is the Section LMG(s) however. Quite frankly, I see no point in 5.56 or 7.62 AK SAW if you have access to a proper full bore LMG using 7.62 "long" (NATO or Soviet).

The rifles behind that are not too important then, provided your LMG is full-bore. Also provided that your rifle does have a useful range (8+ hexes). The SMG, or extra-shortie AR with 3 or 4 hex range is barely usable outside a city or close wood or jungle, even with a section LMG. A section (as opposed to a scout team or other sneaky-beaky type) with only these personal defence weapons is asking to die in open field combat.

Thus something like the later UK sections where the GPMG was returned to the section level is perfectly OK. Just avoid any sections with any 5.56 LSWs or Minimis (unless there as a booster to a proper "general" in 7.62).

The 1970s UK rifle section with a "general" as well as the 7.62 SLR would have a small margin of superiority for 2 hexes over this later organisation. (Ignoring the night sight ability). It is entirely nullified by closing those 2 hexes. Plus the modern UK platoon usually has several generals in the fire support section, unlike the 70s one.

Note that the Soviets kept the full bore LMG in the rifle platoon (PKM etc), with the AK versions being used more as a backup SAW. This appears to also have been more emphasised as a policy post Afghanistan. So if buying Russian sections - check that it is one with a longer range full-bore LMG (12 hex) if there is a choice.

If fighting a primarily infantry enemy then a section with 2 full-bore "generals" is golden.

But - once more - blame the US generals and their confused ammo standards that they imposed by fiat on the rest of the NATO alliance in the 50s and 60s. Everyone could have been using a 6.5mm intermediate cartridge in the 50/60s and no dichotomy would exist.

Cheers
Andy

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

:up: Thank-you for the in-depth and helpfull reply, you are like the archtypical friendly professor that everyone who has gone to college has met.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I have to say, that turned out to be a great question with some genuinely interesting answers.
Thanks to all!

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I am smarter now that I have read this thread. Thanks for asking the question.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I like all the answers above, but in addition - as far as the British Army is concerned - it may also be the result of a War Office study that found Enfields and Brens were rarely used at long range except by snipers.


Cross

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

The main reason for the decrease in weapon range and calibre size turns out to be statistics, which is why you have special operations bucking the trend for smaller and shorter ranged rounds and why it seems armies adapt in strange ways. For the average infantry solider 5.56 is the best round for the job. For special operations, whose requirements are different, a different round / weapon combination is sometimes needed, but many of these units still carry 5.56 when they could use anything they wanted.

Likely we will see a new general infantry cartridge developed or adopted in the next decade, although I tend to think the trend will be to smart ammunition in the next generation of infantry weapons.

Inaccuracies in game modeling are why some games give advantages to some weapons when real life trends tend to the other direction. In reality the firepower of an M16 is significantly greater than the Enfield unless they meet in very disparate tactical situations. The enfield is incapable of generation good enfilade fire, and has little or no tactical throw or chance of disrupting a trained squad. Unless the shooter has a fixed sniper nest and good side cover, the M16 user has it all their own way. 2 extra hexes range is a poor trade off for loosing the real life ability to force a squad to ground.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Real combat with the exceptions noted, takes place at 300 meters or closer. Also, consider that in such combat the typical footie is scared almost kakloos, that there isn't time to take good aim, IME firefights are very short, and the enemy is under cover. It's better to point and spray, and you might hit something. If you take a long time to aim, you certainly won't.

5.56mm ammo is lighter than 7.62, and soldiers can carry more of it. That's important to the PBI who has to lug it. An R-4 weighs less than an R-1 and that's important too.

troopie

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Given the less recoil,accy, range and still the excellent stopping power of the 5.56m,makes it more effective than AK IMO

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Back in the 80's there was alot of debate in the US about 7.62 vs. 5.56. Most of the old timers preferred the bigger round and the M14 over the M16. The debate in the US about the smaller caliber versus bigger caliber has gone on for decades.

You have to remember that at the time the M16 was adopted the Viet Nam war was starting to heat up. Our brave ARVN allies were much smaller in stature than American soldiers. The Vietnamese soldiers couldn't handle a fully automatic M14. The only other weapons we had to give them were the old M1 Garands and M1/M2 carbines. Both of which were great weapons in their day. But by the early 60's were obsolete. Especially when matched against an AK47.

At about that same time the US Air Force was looking for a new rifle to arm the airmen that guard US air bases. They needed something bigger than a sub machine gun, but smaller than an M14. General Curtis Lemay, the very influential Air Force chief of staff at the time, opted for the M16. IIRC, the story was he was at a party, someone presented him with one, he fired off a few clips, and fell in love with it. The US Army decided that the M16 would be the best option to arm the ARVN troops with. There was also political pressure placed upon the US military to adopt the M16. Thought was that it would be cheaper if everyone used the same weapon, same ammo, same spare parts.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

As noted the "battle" of 7.62 vs 5.56 has raged on since the AR15/M16 was first developed.
Now another very similar "battle" of the M16A4 vs the M4 carbine rages.

When it comes down to it there is no "best".
Everyone individual their personal favorite/"best" round/weapon.

7.62's generally have better range, individual round stopping power, and weapon durability - at the cost of a larger/heavier weapon, greater recoil thus difficult to control automatic fire (when available at all), and reduced individual ammo load.

The AK47 is/was a fairly good compromise weapon with the advantages of simplicity of operation and durability.

Almost any argument used in the rifle "battle" could also be applied to machine guns.

.50 cal = M14
.30 cal/7.62 = M16
M249 SAW = M4

So is Ma Duce better then the G3 or M240?

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I know my guys in Iraq were glad they were not humping a 50 around. I am biased on the M240B because I had two of them and loved them very much. I have only heard stories on the G3 but from what I heard it is a fine weapon.

The Germans of WW2 might have been mean bastards but they made some fine weapons. I wonder why there was never a 50 cal? Granted, they did use the 20mm to their advantage but there was nothing between the 7.92 and 20mm.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Actually they did.

The Maschinengewehr 131 was a German 13 mm machine gun developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig and produced from 1940 to 1945. The MG 131 was designed for use at fixed, flexible or turreted, single or twin mountings in Luftwaffe aircraft during World War II.

The Maschinengewehr 151/15 was a 15 mm autocannon produced by Waffenfabrik Mauser starting in 1940. It was in 1941 developed into the 20 mm MG 151/20 cannon which was widely used on many types of German Luftwaffe fighters, fighter bombers, night fighters, ground attack and even bombers as part of or as their main armament during World War II.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I stand corrected. I wonder why they were not commonly mounted on their tanks for air defense. I also wonder why my coax guns are 7.62 and not a 50 cal or larger. I read somewhere that the M1 tank was going to have a larger coax but it was nixed. Thanks for the info on the German machine guns.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

Amen, Daferg. My driver sunk our MRAP in an irrigation ditch in Baghdad in '08, got it stuck leaning at a 45 degree angle. Commander's truck got stuck trying to pull us out. I told my gunner to get out the 240B and a couple cans of ammo, and we set up a little fighting position. It took the CP till past dark to put together a convoy with a KBR wrecker to get us unstuck. We were smack in the middle of a farm, luckily not a single mortar or sniper. Some Marine Cobras saw us and realized what was going on, I guess, and buzzed around us every now and then for a while and flew off. I realized right then, since for whatever reason I hadn't snapped to it, why we 11Bs carry 240Bs instead of .50s and Mark 19s.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I never knew how much an MRAP weighed until I tried to pull one with my Stryker. I think they weigh nearly 70 tons. Needless to say the tow cables would have broke before I moved it an inch. I was in Taji 08-09 with the 28th ID. A 240B with API ammo is the gift that keeps on giving.

Re: Quick question for small arms buffs
 

I was in Baghdad 05-06 and 07-09, 4ID both times. Made a few trips to Taji in '08, matter of fact that's where we got our MRAPs from. We flew up there on Blackhawks and convoyed back to Liberty in them. Taji was a dump, from what I remember. It was cool seeing the boneyard, though. I wish I'd have taken some pictures. The chow hall was the best one in that whole area. One of my buddies was killed and his driver blinded by shrapnel by a EFP on Senators, coming back from Taji after dropping off the deputy 4ID commander to go eat lunch with an IA general. All because he didn't want to wait for a Blackhawk at the IZ.