Ask Hammer Redux

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:30 pm

Now this is off-topic but I didn't feel like making a new thread.

Today is December 7th, 2003. Remember Pearl Harbor!

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:35 pm

MurPHy wrote:Today is December 7th, 2003. Remember Pearl Harbor!

I've never forgotten! [Goes outside and kills the first three Japanese people he sees]

To steer back on topic somewhat, I just read that the "green" ammo will have copper casings, so I guess abrassivenes will have nothing to do with it anymore.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:35 pm

Pearl Harbor? WTF is Pearl Harbor?

It's going to be funny in 50 years when nobody cares about 9/11, and it's just a fading memory preserved in text books.

Hammer · Post by **Hammer** » Sun Dec 07, 2003 11:59 pm

Hey Hammer, do you think the United States should pull out of NATO (not formally though) and ditch the NATO-standard 5.56mm round?

Seeing as how we're soloing it more and more I do not see the need for NATO standardization, back when fighting the Soviets in Europe while using German Armories it made sense, but now it doesnt. I am a strong believer in training every infantryman to be a rifleman, aimed fire, big bullet, kills not injuries.

The 5.56mm has its pluses, its uh.... errr uhhhh...... light? yeah thats it.

Also, what do you think about the decision that was made a few years ago (1999 I believe) to replace all of the Army's small arms ammunition with a Tungsten-tin composite instead of what was originally Lead cores to make the bullets more "environmentally-friendly" by 2005? I heard (though I'm no firearms expert) that the Tungsten is much more abrasive shortening the 'barrel life' of the rifle, besides being almost 15X more expensive than Lead ammo and we have to import most of our Tungsten from China (Clinton-sellout). I was hoping this experiment was going to be canned but I haven't heard much about it since. I heard that this ammunition was probably going to be used for training ranges, but activists pushed for it to replace the former ammunition entirely.

Since when has the military gave a shit about barrels? If they did they'd use copper jackets like most civvies use. Anyway Tungsten will have replaced all lead ammo by 2008 I believe, as for environmental issues I couldn't give two shits.

Franz Schubert · Post by **Franz Schubert** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:19 am

Hammer: Do you care about the environment at all?

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 12:22 am

Hammer is not Smokey the Bear or anything, Franz. Or a tree-hugger.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:41 am

Dear Hammer

Is it true that the "weaker" 5.56 mm NATO round was introduced following the strategic thinking that it is better to wound enemies turning them into a burden requiring medical care and survival pensions, then to kill them with more "efficient" ammunition turning them into cheap to mantain heroes and martyrs?

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 3:47 am

Is it true that the "weaker" 5.56 mm NATO round was introduced following the strategic thinking that it is better to wound enemies turning them into a burden requiring medical care and survival pensions, then to kill them with more "efficient" ammunition turning them into cheap to mantain heroes and martyrs?

That is just a communist battle tactic. The .223 round was adopted along with the AR-15/M16 series of battle rifles due to the inadequacy of the M14 (which, I might add, was in service with the U.S. Army as a frontline weapon for only six years).

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:18 am

MurPHy wrote:That is just a communist battle tactic. The .223 round was adopted along with the AR-15/M16 series of battle rifles due to the inadequacy of the M14 (which, I might add, was in service with the U.S. Army as a frontline weapon for only six years).

I belive in most States the .223 Remington cartridge (the commercial version of the 5.56mm NATO round) is illegal for use against deer-sized or larger game because it was incapable of consistently stopping [instantly killing] medium/large size animals. Instead the ammo was more ideal for turkeys and such. Unless we go to war against dwarves, I don't see the usefulness of the 5.56mm NATO round anymore. I heard from someone that if you were to modify the 7.62mm round it could easily surpass the armor-piercing qualities of the 5.56 NATO round, while retaining it's stoppage power. The only difference from what I understand would be the weight and recoil, but both "advantages" are negligible given the tradeoff. And you can always redesign ammunition to make it lighter. For the new M8 the Army's developing, they're working on having have composite cases, with brass bases and polymer walls, which will reduce weight of the complete ammunition by around 25%.

Unfortunately the M8 will also use 5.56mm ammunition.

About the M14, I think it's amusing that the "new" M4 is being phased out, to be replaced by the M8, within only 3-4 years. The rifle was just made standard issue within the past year!

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 4:36 am

5.56 only has superior penetration in mild steel, anyway. In most other media, it is a worse penetrator than 7.62 NATO. That's why FN designed the SS109 bullet used in the current M855 round; it has a steel penetrator cap that's designed to increase the round's effectiveness at longer ranges. The limited range of the 5.56 round was a big issue when the M249 was being discussed.

Is it true that the "weaker" 5.56 mm NATO round was introduced following the strategic thinking that it is better to wound enemies turning them into a burden requiring medical care and survival pensions, then to kill them with more "efficient" ammunition turning them into cheap to mantain heroes and martyrs?

I'll never understand this theory. The military spends billions every year on weapons, equipment and upgrades that are designed to kill or make it easier to kill, but one of the most basic elements of modern warfare -- the lead coming out of the soldiers firearm -- is designed to wound? That doesn't make sense to me. I wonder why this theory persists.

Grey Fil · Post by **Grey Fil** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:05 am

Actually it had a lot of logic in the times of the cold war. Extended periods of war are an economic burden. If you can increase this burden even more the enemy will have to shift resources from war productivity into health care and such, making it a less efficient war machine. IÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´m not implying that this theory is true or false but it has logic.

As for the commie war strategy theory, whe see that in other wars the "good" guys, from the Allies in WW2, passing Korea, Vietnam until now, did have as much "dirty" tricks as the "bad" guys.

Doyle · Post by **Doyle** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:19 am

Grey Fil wrote:Actually it had a lot of logic in the times of the cold war. Extended periods of war are an economic burden. If you can increase this burden even more the enemy will have to shift resources from war productivity into health care and such, making it a less efficient war machine. IÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´m not implying that this theory is true or false but it has logic.

Maybe if you examine it from only this perspective is sounds plausible and even clever. However, view it from the perspective I mentioned earlier -- one aspect of the whole of the military -- and it seems ludicrous. The arms race placed a greater, more reliable economic burden on the Soviets than this half-baked scheme ever would have since it didn't depend on actual fighting, and didn't place our own soldiers in direct risk of getting wounded!

Menno · Post by **Menno** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:20 am

Grey Fil wrote:Actually it had a lot of logic in the times of the cold war. Extended periods of war are an economic burden. If you can increase this burden even more the enemy will have to shift resources from war productivity into health care and such, making it a less efficient war machine. IÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â´m not implying that this theory is true or false but it has logic.

As for the commie war strategy theory, whe see that in other wars the "good" guys, from the Allies in WW2, passing Korea, Vietnam until now, did have as much "dirty" tricks as the "bad" guys.

Well, I mean if we were discussing a fictional war between the USA and the EU, perhaps you may (or may not) have a point. But remember we're talking about the USSR here, they could care less if half of their divisions were annhilated. A great amount of the USSR infantrymen rarely, if ever, fired a rifle and received no training to learn so. Their purpose, for the most part, was to serve as sort of an army that looks great on paper, but atrocious on the field. The USSR had several divisions made up entirely of officers (!) to do the real warfighting; the bulk of the military's purpose was, to put it nicely, to be used as cannon fodder. Haha, a regular Soviet infantryman would most likely have been left on the battlefield to rot if he were wounded.

But I personally think killing the opposing army has a better effect than wounding them, because wounded soldiers can end up fighting again; or if too wounded to fight again he could be sent off to work on production for the war effort if we're talking about total warfare (which was done during WWII with wounded/second-rate/third-rate German divisions, where they worked on the dubbed "West Wall"). I think what happened with the NATO round was a case of misguided testing and later politics.

But hey, the NATO ammo blunder finally allows something (probably the only thing) that Commies can brag about!

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 8:48 am

Menno wrote:Well, I mean if we were discussing a fictional war between the USA and the EU, perhaps you may (or may not) have a point. But remember we're talking about the USSR here, they could care less if half of their divisions were annhilated. A great amount of the USSR infantrymen rarely, if ever, fired a rifle and received no training to learn so. Their purpose, for the most part, was to serve as sort of an army that looks great on paper, but atrocious on the field. The USSR had several divisions made up entirely of officers (!) to do the real warfighting; the bulk of the military's purpose was, to put it nicely, to be used as cannon fodder. Haha, a regular Soviet infantryman would most likely have been left on the battlefield to rot if he were wounded.

At some point, propaby right after the second World War, there was 1 officer per 2 soldiers in the Soviet Army. That means lieutenants have pretty small squads.

I guess when you've run out of money (+ trying to keep up the communist ideology, not to make anyone too wealthy), the only thing to honor those men of valor is to promote them. But the you run out of ranks when you have 2000 generals and 100 military marshalls

Kizmiaz · Post by **Kizmiaz** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:19 am

Kashluk wrote:...but I thought getting some experience before doing the army would be nice.

Good to see the gay rumours weren't exaggeratd but the whole army???

Grey Fil wrote:

Is it true that the "weaker" 5.56 mm NATO round was introduced following the strategic thinking that it is better to wound enemies turning them into a burden requiring medical care and survival pensions, then to kill them with more "efficient" ammunition turning them into cheap to mantain heroes and martyrs?

I remember reading something like this, plus you get the benefit of removing mostly 2 persons from the battlefield,(The wounded needs help.)
I recall the Swedish Army considered the 5.56 inhuman, due to excessive wounding power, but adapted it with higher "spin". But all this is 20 years old or so, I haven't really kept myself updated.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Mon Dec 08, 2003 9:22 am

Just the females, KizurAzz, just the females...

Ooe · Post by **Ooe** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 10:47 am

Hey hammer! What do you think about AK-47 / Ak-74's?

trythebill · Post by **trythebill** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:20 pm

Ooe wrote: What do you think about AK-47 / Ak-74's?

STRONG LIKE BULL.

SMART LIKE ROCK.

Stainless · Post by **Stainless** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 1:41 pm

MurPHy wrote:Now this is off-topic but I didn't feel like making a new thread.

Today is December 7th, 2003. Remember Pearl Harbor!

That explains why I was watching Taro Taro Taro for some strange reason. Not a bad film that.

MurPHy · Post by **MurPHy** » Thu Dec 11, 2003 4:46 pm

MurPHy wrote:
Now this is off-topic but I didn't feel like making a new thread.

Today is December 7th, 2003. Remember Pearl Harbor!

That explains why I was watching Taro Taro Taro for some strange reason. Not a bad film that.

Yeah. It's a better flick than the new "Pearl Harbor" one. I think Ben Affleck is in Pearl Harbor, and from a historical point of view, it sucks ass.