Can someone explain in regards to Germany and WW II . . . .
- Thread starter bedbugbilly
- Start date
Mike Irwin
Staff
In most cases american sea power proved to be of extremely limited use in neutralizing Japanese island defenses.
Weeks of bombardment at Iwo Jima had almost no effect on Japanese military capabilities.
Weeks of bombardment at Iwo Jima had almost no effect on Japanese military capabilities.
The 276 Pederson was a good round with a weird but not serious design flaw, the tapered case. To use in a magazine it would have had to be curved instead of straight like the one we use for the M14. Even with that the efficiency of the 7MM bullet would have been an advantage in the field.
The 270 British later renamed the 280 for the FAL was supposed to be adopted by us but again we pulled big bully and made them adopt our cartridge instead. My time line was wrong but still we pushed our 7.62X51 which I love, made NATO adopt it then thrice cursed Lemay and MacNamara foisted the gopher round on our troops after Britain and our allies switched to our 30 caliber. Our rationale was because there was no way our vaunted heroic General Staff was ever going to adopt a sub 30 caliber. So we keep ditching the idea of a European round because it had a funny metric designation instead of a good American number which of course made it superior.
Common sense seems to get seriously lost when military men get above the rank and file and move into the rarefied air of politics. Honor pffft, that doesn't pay as well.
We don't do any better then the Nazi's did because politics determines all of our military strategy. If it didn't how come we have been in one fight after another since WWII except for maybe 12 years since WWII ended. We don't declare war and we do not win wars anymore. Gutless, nutless politicians and General Staff. If a general tries to speak truth and common sense it seems to get him retired. We learned nothing from the Nazis defeat.
The 270 British later renamed the 280 for the FAL was supposed to be adopted by us but again we pulled big bully and made them adopt our cartridge instead. My time line was wrong but still we pushed our 7.62X51 which I love, made NATO adopt it then thrice cursed Lemay and MacNamara foisted the gopher round on our troops after Britain and our allies switched to our 30 caliber. Our rationale was because there was no way our vaunted heroic General Staff was ever going to adopt a sub 30 caliber. So we keep ditching the idea of a European round because it had a funny metric designation instead of a good American number which of course made it superior.
Common sense seems to get seriously lost when military men get above the rank and file and move into the rarefied air of politics. Honor pffft, that doesn't pay as well.
We don't do any better then the Nazi's did because politics determines all of our military strategy. If it didn't how come we have been in one fight after another since WWII except for maybe 12 years since WWII ended. We don't declare war and we do not win wars anymore. Gutless, nutless politicians and General Staff. If a general tries to speak truth and common sense it seems to get him retired. We learned nothing from the Nazis defeat.
Last edited:
Rainbow Demon
New member
The FAL prototypes were chambered for a FN propriatary 7mm short cased cartridge similar to but not identical to the British .280 short cased intermediate cartridge which an experimental bull pup Enfield assault rifle and LMG was chambered for.
The US 6mm cartridge that the Lee Straight pull rifle had been chambered for was the basis of experimental LMGs and it became obvious early on that a .30 or larger was better suited to the purpose.
The 7.62X51 ( a good ol metric designation if there ever was one) has never come up short in its intended role, so long as fed the proper ammo for whatever purpose it is put to. You can't say the same for the 6.5 cartridges used by the Japanese, Italians, and some others.
The 7mm Mauser is pretty much in the same class as the 7.62X51.
Every combatant of WW2 that started out with a 6.5 cartridge adopted a 7.7 or 7.35 to replace it, or fielded MGs in .30 or 8mm rather than use their own standard infantry cartridge for that purpose.
The only real objection to the 7.62X51 has been controlability in full auto fire from a lightweight rifle.
The Japanese got around this by issuing cartridges with a lighter load for use in selective fire rifles. The Spanish did much the same when they first fielded the CETME rifle, though the purpose was more to ease extraction till the fluted chamber was developed.
The US 6mm cartridge that the Lee Straight pull rifle had been chambered for was the basis of experimental LMGs and it became obvious early on that a .30 or larger was better suited to the purpose.
The 7.62X51 ( a good ol metric designation if there ever was one) has never come up short in its intended role, so long as fed the proper ammo for whatever purpose it is put to. You can't say the same for the 6.5 cartridges used by the Japanese, Italians, and some others.
The 7mm Mauser is pretty much in the same class as the 7.62X51.
Every combatant of WW2 that started out with a 6.5 cartridge adopted a 7.7 or 7.35 to replace it, or fielded MGs in .30 or 8mm rather than use their own standard infantry cartridge for that purpose.
The only real objection to the 7.62X51 has been controlability in full auto fire from a lightweight rifle.
The Japanese got around this by issuing cartridges with a lighter load for use in selective fire rifles. The Spanish did much the same when they first fielded the CETME rifle, though the purpose was more to ease extraction till the fluted chamber was developed.
Do want to add a little bit here...
To think Germany needed to completely rebuild after WWI is a little bit of a stretch. Yea, 100,000 men in the armed forces is small, but there were ways to get around it... such as para-military organizations (prime example, the SA). Those 100,000 men were mostly comprised of officers, so that the leadership could quickly fill into a larger body (what occurred when the SA was dissolved and those members joined the Army). Aircraft were acquired in secret, but using them for non-military purposes got them in the know. When the Nazis came to power, it wasn't as hushed as it was prior, and then Hitler reached a point where he didn't care what the winners of WWI knew (all did not want to go to war and kill another generation).
As was mentioned, most European armies used the Mauser design. If a conquered country had a large arms plant (or multiple ones), convert the rifles over to what you use, and crank them out. If it were the Soviets doing the land grabbing, they probably would have designed a combo so they could get more rifles into their soldiers hands... like a longer 7.62x39 (main thing, not rimmed).
It was a good thing that there wasn't a smaller conflict that the US used the Garand in prior to WWII (like a Spanish Civil War). If people found out the background of that rifle before the war, and seen its strengths/weaknesses, there would have been A LOT more deaths.
tahunua001
New member
this is completely false. Sweden stuck with 6.5x55, and that 7.35 was scrapped and Italy reverted back to 6.5x52.
The Germans knew full well what the US was developing in the matter of small arms. There were a vast number of both spies and neo-Nazi's( such as US ambassador to Britain Joseph Kennedy ) Before the outbreak of the war there were a vast number of German sympathisers around to pass information back to the Rhineland
Rainbow Demon
New member
My words
Sweden used the 8X62 Browning MG cartridge for its belt fed MG.
This was basically the same as the later 8mm-06 sporting cartridge though more heavily loaded . The larger case was used to push heaviest 8mm long range bullets.
They also equiped MG gunners with Mauser rifles chambered for this odd ball cartridge.
http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/rifles_se/gev39_40.htm
There were 8X58 caliber MGs in use as well.
Sweden was officially a Neutral party not a combatant.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHPqTBIldEXD8qOEvNPWhTcH41g9w
Italy used 8X59RB medium and heavy Machineguns, the Reveli model 37 was the standard Italian heavy machinegun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_M37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_38
The conversion to 7.35 was forestalled by economic concerns not because they did not want to complete the switchover.
Carcano rifles used by Italian troops on the Eastern front were converted to 7.92X57.
Notice how those who used the 6.5 got their rear end handed to them when the real fighting took off.
Note I said "OR".
Sweden used the 8X62 Browning MG cartridge for its belt fed MG.
This was basically the same as the later 8mm-06 sporting cartridge though more heavily loaded . The larger case was used to push heaviest 8mm long range bullets.
They also equiped MG gunners with Mauser rifles chambered for this odd ball cartridge.
http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/rifles_se/gev39_40.htm
There were 8X58 caliber MGs in use as well.
Sweden was officially a Neutral party not a combatant.
https://www.google.com/url?q=http:/...ds-cse&usg=AFQjCNHPqTBIldEXD8qOEvNPWhTcH41g9w
Italy used 8X59RB medium and heavy Machineguns, the Reveli model 37 was the standard Italian heavy machinegun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_M37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breda_38
The conversion to 7.35 was forestalled by economic concerns not because they did not want to complete the switchover.
Carcano rifles used by Italian troops on the Eastern front were converted to 7.92X57.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7.35×51mm_Carcano
Notice how those who used the 6.5 got their rear end handed to them when the real fighting took off.
Last edited:
zincwarrior
New member
True that. Of course the Japanese used a tunnel system that would have made Giap envious.
Now the interestig side question should be - how come they didn't go with the select fire model of the M1 carbine when it was being developed (it was an option first considered). I'd rather a full auto capable M1 carbine (even if kep at 15 rounds), then a big heavy Garand anywhere but out in the French countryside.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Every combatant of WW2 that started out with a 6.5 cartridge adopted a 7.7 or 7.35 to replace it, or fielded MGs in .30 or 8mm rather than use their own standard infantry cartridge for that purpose."
Except that neither Japan nor Italy were able to complete their change overs and, in Italy's case, actually had to backtrack and withdraw the 7.35 and replace them with 6.5s due to logistical issues.
And both the Italians and Japanese fielded machineguns in 6.5mm as well as guns in heavier calibers... same as the United States and the British.
Except that neither Japan nor Italy were able to complete their change overs and, in Italy's case, actually had to backtrack and withdraw the 7.35 and replace them with 6.5s due to logistical issues.
And both the Italians and Japanese fielded machineguns in 6.5mm as well as guns in heavier calibers... same as the United States and the British.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"To think Germany needed to completely rebuild after WWI is a little bit of a stretch."
The Germans had to go from a 100,000 man army, with equipment for such, to an army of 3.5 million in less than 4 years.
Providing that much equipment while increasing your standing military by 35-fold - which is, I content, a virtually complete rebuild of Germany's military - would put a TREMENDOUS strain on just about any nation's indistrial infrastructure.
The only nation that could TRULY absorb that kind of demand and still have more than enough left over to provide huge amounts of equipment and weapons to the other allies was the United States.
Remember, too, the state of Germany's airforce, navy, and tank corps in 1935... Largely non-existent.
So it wasn't just the Army that had to be rebuilt, and product being manufactured for those forces means less available indistrial space to devote to the manufacture of weapons to replace the K98k.
"As was mentioned, most European armies used the Mauser design."
Uhm... The French didn't, the Dutch didn't, Norwegians didn't, the Danes didn't, the Soviets didn't, the Greeks didn't...
Granted, the Poles, Czechs, and Belgians did use Mauser rifles that were very similar to the K98k, but in order to take advantage of that production you have to A) be at war, and B) have the standing army necessary to prosecute that war and conquor that nation (or in the case of Czechosolvakia, the standing army to annex the nation).
Then you have to convert those production facilities to manufacture the rifles you want, OR you're in the somewhat untenable position of arming occupation troops with locally produced rifles (as they did in France and a number of other nations) to free up standard service weapons for troops in front line areas.
It's really a catch 22 of sorts, and not a particularly satisfying situation as the Germans found out when they were forced out of France.
Large numbers of their occupation troops were armed with French weapons in French calibers, and once the facilities to produce the ammo for those weapons were lost, those troops quickly became ineffectual until they could be rearmed.
The Germans had to go from a 100,000 man army, with equipment for such, to an army of 3.5 million in less than 4 years.
Providing that much equipment while increasing your standing military by 35-fold - which is, I content, a virtually complete rebuild of Germany's military - would put a TREMENDOUS strain on just about any nation's indistrial infrastructure.
The only nation that could TRULY absorb that kind of demand and still have more than enough left over to provide huge amounts of equipment and weapons to the other allies was the United States.
Remember, too, the state of Germany's airforce, navy, and tank corps in 1935... Largely non-existent.
So it wasn't just the Army that had to be rebuilt, and product being manufactured for those forces means less available indistrial space to devote to the manufacture of weapons to replace the K98k.
"As was mentioned, most European armies used the Mauser design."
Uhm... The French didn't, the Dutch didn't, Norwegians didn't, the Danes didn't, the Soviets didn't, the Greeks didn't...
Granted, the Poles, Czechs, and Belgians did use Mauser rifles that were very similar to the K98k, but in order to take advantage of that production you have to A) be at war, and B) have the standing army necessary to prosecute that war and conquor that nation (or in the case of Czechosolvakia, the standing army to annex the nation).
Then you have to convert those production facilities to manufacture the rifles you want, OR you're in the somewhat untenable position of arming occupation troops with locally produced rifles (as they did in France and a number of other nations) to free up standard service weapons for troops in front line areas.
It's really a catch 22 of sorts, and not a particularly satisfying situation as the Germans found out when they were forced out of France.
Large numbers of their occupation troops were armed with French weapons in French calibers, and once the facilities to produce the ammo for those weapons were lost, those troops quickly became ineffectual until they could be rearmed.
Last edited:
Bob Wright
New member
To clear up a few points: The 1st Marine Division went ashore at Guadalcanal with most units armed with the M1903 Springfield rifle. My brother-in-law was with the 3rd Marine Division on Bouganville, approximately in the same time frame, and had the M1 Rifle.
As to the M2 Carbine vs the M1 Rifle, no contest. I could drop an man at 600 yards with an M1, or kill him by firing through 1" of steel at closer ranges. In the jungles of the South Pacific, the penetration of the M1 was of far greater value than the pipsqueak M1 carbine round.
A friend of mine told me of his platoon leader putting three rounds from his carbine into an overcoat clad Italian soldier before the Italian soldier killed him. My friend put out the Italian's lights with one shot from his M1.
As to the M1's en bloc clip, it was much faster to reload an emptied M1 than it was to reload a magazine fed M1 or M2 carbine.
During WW II in Europe, the "fire and maneuver" principle was used in the attack. One squad laid down covering fire at about 300 yards as the other squad moved forward. The crack of rifle bullets overhead does tend to make one keep his head down.
Bob Wright
As to the M2 Carbine vs the M1 Rifle, no contest. I could drop an man at 600 yards with an M1, or kill him by firing through 1" of steel at closer ranges. In the jungles of the South Pacific, the penetration of the M1 was of far greater value than the pipsqueak M1 carbine round.
A friend of mine told me of his platoon leader putting three rounds from his carbine into an overcoat clad Italian soldier before the Italian soldier killed him. My friend put out the Italian's lights with one shot from his M1.
As to the M1's en bloc clip, it was much faster to reload an emptied M1 than it was to reload a magazine fed M1 or M2 carbine.
During WW II in Europe, the "fire and maneuver" principle was used in the attack. One squad laid down covering fire at about 300 yards as the other squad moved forward. The crack of rifle bullets overhead does tend to make one keep his head down.
Bob Wright
Speaking of spies
My parents reported a German short wave radio operator in Milwaukee about 1942.
And my future grandmother in law had a farm se of Grafton Wisconsin on the south side of the Milw. River. They leased riverbank land to a German group who built cabins.
Before the War they became a Bund and were marching in their settlement. So the feds came and relocated some of them. But I saw them there in 1965 enjoying retirement years.
My parents reported a German short wave radio operator in Milwaukee about 1942.
And my future grandmother in law had a farm se of Grafton Wisconsin on the south side of the Milw. River. They leased riverbank land to a German group who built cabins.
Before the War they became a Bund and were marching in their settlement. So the feds came and relocated some of them. But I saw them there in 1965 enjoying retirement years.
zincwarrior
New member
er what?
tahunua001
New member
alright Mike makes a couple more very solid points. however you did forget a couple though one wasn't exactly a major player, italy and finland also did not use a Mauser rifle either.
and it wasn't just the french rifles that Germany repurposed that they got caught holding, Austrian M95s, Russian 91/30s and SVT40s(they captured so many of those that they even gave them a german designation), and Italian Carcanos which out of desperation they tried converting too 8mm to try and give their troops anything that could shoot a bullet they could manufacture.
to claims of the M1/M2, the M1c was never meant to be a hard hitting, armor piercing machine of death. it was supposed to be a light weight alternative to the M1 garand for soldiers that already have a bunch of weight to pack around like radio operators and artillery spotters. the 30 carbine may have had limiting stopping power but it was a hell of a lot better than swinging a pair of binoculars to defend yourself. a full auto version offered little advantage over the thompson sub machine guns except for lighter weight and the people normally issued a M1c were not very likely to have to use it in combat unless things were going badly, giving them a spray and pray weapon was just not a very popular idea.
EDIT: also wikipedia is not the best place to quote information from, anyone can edit the information therein so if I really wanted to I could say that the K98K was developed in Narnia and fired rainbows... the information was written by guys just like you and me and unless they were actually part of those councils that decided to convert to a different caliber then they have no idea what the true motivations were.
Japan started the war by trying to take out the US' entire pacific fleet because they knew that they didn't have the resources to compete with the US in a long term war, they started WWII with about a year and a half's oil reserves... lucky for them their fleets were pretty much sunk by the end of 1942 so they had less demand for oil.
Italy was a tiny military force compared to just about any of the other major players in WWII, they had very few tanks, planes, and a very small almost nonexistent navy. these nations were not defeated because they used a 6.5 caliber bullet, they were defeated because they were outnumbered, outmaneuvered and lacked any sustainable natural resources.
the US has been using the 5.56 for about half a century now and just about all of those people we were fighting favored various 30 calibers and I can't think of a war that we have had our, and I quote, 'rear ends handed to us'
and I also missed who was talking about spys?
and it wasn't just the french rifles that Germany repurposed that they got caught holding, Austrian M95s, Russian 91/30s and SVT40s(they captured so many of those that they even gave them a german designation), and Italian Carcanos which out of desperation they tried converting too 8mm to try and give their troops anything that could shoot a bullet they could manufacture.
to claims of the M1/M2, the M1c was never meant to be a hard hitting, armor piercing machine of death. it was supposed to be a light weight alternative to the M1 garand for soldiers that already have a bunch of weight to pack around like radio operators and artillery spotters. the 30 carbine may have had limiting stopping power but it was a hell of a lot better than swinging a pair of binoculars to defend yourself. a full auto version offered little advantage over the thompson sub machine guns except for lighter weight and the people normally issued a M1c were not very likely to have to use it in combat unless things were going badly, giving them a spray and pray weapon was just not a very popular idea.
EDIT: also wikipedia is not the best place to quote information from, anyone can edit the information therein so if I really wanted to I could say that the K98K was developed in Narnia and fired rainbows... the information was written by guys just like you and me and unless they were actually part of those councils that decided to convert to a different caliber then they have no idea what the true motivations were.
Japan started the war by trying to take out the US' entire pacific fleet because they knew that they didn't have the resources to compete with the US in a long term war, they started WWII with about a year and a half's oil reserves... lucky for them their fleets were pretty much sunk by the end of 1942 so they had less demand for oil.
Italy was a tiny military force compared to just about any of the other major players in WWII, they had very few tanks, planes, and a very small almost nonexistent navy. these nations were not defeated because they used a 6.5 caliber bullet, they were defeated because they were outnumbered, outmaneuvered and lacked any sustainable natural resources.
the US has been using the 5.56 for about half a century now and just about all of those people we were fighting favored various 30 calibers and I can't think of a war that we have had our, and I quote, 'rear ends handed to us'
and I also missed who was talking about spys?
Last edited:
Mike Irwin
Staff
"however you did forget a couple though one wasn't exactly a major player, italy and finland also did not use a Mauser rifle either."
I went with nations that were tacitly enemies of Nazi Germany. I didn't include Hungary or Roumania in my list, either.
As for the M1 carbine, it was NEVER intended to be a front line combat weapon.
Its original purpose was for it to be issued to troops whose duties put them in proximity to the combat area, but who normally would not be engaged in the normal duties of the infantry soldier -- cooks, truck drivers, artillery, etc.
Regarding the M2, I personally am not entirely sure as to why it was ever adopted. It never proved to be particularly more useful than the single-shot version.
"the US has been using the 5.56 for about half a century now"
Well don't you know that the VC handily threw us out of Vietnam because of that teeny tiny little bullet?
And you know why that is?
Because they had .30 caliber weapons!!! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!
Sigh.
I went with nations that were tacitly enemies of Nazi Germany. I didn't include Hungary or Roumania in my list, either.
As for the M1 carbine, it was NEVER intended to be a front line combat weapon.
Its original purpose was for it to be issued to troops whose duties put them in proximity to the combat area, but who normally would not be engaged in the normal duties of the infantry soldier -- cooks, truck drivers, artillery, etc.
Regarding the M2, I personally am not entirely sure as to why it was ever adopted. It never proved to be particularly more useful than the single-shot version.
"the US has been using the 5.56 for about half a century now"
Well don't you know that the VC handily threw us out of Vietnam because of that teeny tiny little bullet?
And you know why that is?
Because they had .30 caliber weapons!!! OMG! OMG! OMG! OMG!
Sigh.
Rainbow Demon
New member
Both Japan and Italy discovered the short comings of the 6.5 cartridges they were using before WW2 even got started. The Italians found the 6.5 did not have enough long range punch when fighting far less sophisticated foes in Africa during its colonial incursions. The Japanese found their Type 30 with round nose bullet was not up to snuff when fighting Russia before WW1, then improved the bullet and cartridge for the Type 38 and again found it lacking in penetration of obstacles when fighting the Chinese.
In both situations the Italians and Japanese defeated their enemies, but in spite of relatively weak small bore cartridges rather than due to them.
Lack of range and/or penetration cost lives that need not have been lost and made their job a bit more difficult.
Both militaries attempted to completely replace the 6.5 with a circa .30. Economic concerns rather than satisfaction with performance led to retaining obsolete weapons, just as the U S retained the M1917 for non combat use and the British continued using the SMLE till supplies of No.4 rifles were available.
In Afghanistan the U S and UK troops have on occasion found themselves out ranged when Taleban opened up from 600+ yards with 7.62X54r rifles and MGs.
Otherwise why the rush to produce 7.62X51 Designated Marksman rifles and reissuing of 7.62 LMGs to suppliment the 5.56 squad autos?
A 6.5-6.8 weapon with the best modern projectiles and propelents may be barely adequate for the conditions that are becoming more and more common, but the .30/7.62 MBR cartridges are already enough gun for the purpose.
The 5.56 has its zone, which is not much more than spitting distance against unarmored foes with a clear shot or very light cover. One could do near as well with an M1 Carbine or PPSH in those conditions.
Effective body armor has all but killed the SMG as a battlefield weapon, and improvements in body armor is on its way to doing the same for the intermediate cartridge assault rifles.
As for vehicles, even some civilian auto and truck bodies can be a tough target for the 5.56, and it doesn't take much to hillbilly armor a vehicle to withstand fire from assault rifles. Even WW1 era light armored cars would be proof against almost all modern intermediate cartridges.
The U S military's Urban fighting technical manuals reveal the shortcomings of the 5.56 very nicely.
PS
To better understand why bullets of less than .30 are a dead end for infantry use, take the .30-06 AP bullet as an example. Weights for these were given as 165-168 gr with full steel core.
The longest and heaviest 6.5 military FMJ bullets of the time were around 156 gr with a lead core. How long would a 168 gr steel core 6.5 bullet have to be, and how far would it have to extend into the powder space to maintain the standard OAL of that cartridge?
The longer an AP core is the more likely it is to break apart if it hits at an angle.
The 7mm ran into its own problems when it was found that you couldn't pack a sufficiently large tracer or incendiary charge in the small diameter bullet for anti aircraft or aerial guns.
Once a bullet diameter reaches a certain lower limit bullet construction has to become more and more exotic to maintain the necessary level of performance.
If depleted uranium bullets were available in 5.56-6.8 they might match the penetration power of the cheaper electronic furnance steel core of .30 AP.
In both situations the Italians and Japanese defeated their enemies, but in spite of relatively weak small bore cartridges rather than due to them.
Lack of range and/or penetration cost lives that need not have been lost and made their job a bit more difficult.
Both militaries attempted to completely replace the 6.5 with a circa .30. Economic concerns rather than satisfaction with performance led to retaining obsolete weapons, just as the U S retained the M1917 for non combat use and the British continued using the SMLE till supplies of No.4 rifles were available.
In Afghanistan the U S and UK troops have on occasion found themselves out ranged when Taleban opened up from 600+ yards with 7.62X54r rifles and MGs.
Otherwise why the rush to produce 7.62X51 Designated Marksman rifles and reissuing of 7.62 LMGs to suppliment the 5.56 squad autos?
A 6.5-6.8 weapon with the best modern projectiles and propelents may be barely adequate for the conditions that are becoming more and more common, but the .30/7.62 MBR cartridges are already enough gun for the purpose.
The 5.56 has its zone, which is not much more than spitting distance against unarmored foes with a clear shot or very light cover. One could do near as well with an M1 Carbine or PPSH in those conditions.
Effective body armor has all but killed the SMG as a battlefield weapon, and improvements in body armor is on its way to doing the same for the intermediate cartridge assault rifles.
As for vehicles, even some civilian auto and truck bodies can be a tough target for the 5.56, and it doesn't take much to hillbilly armor a vehicle to withstand fire from assault rifles. Even WW1 era light armored cars would be proof against almost all modern intermediate cartridges.
The U S military's Urban fighting technical manuals reveal the shortcomings of the 5.56 very nicely.
PS
To better understand why bullets of less than .30 are a dead end for infantry use, take the .30-06 AP bullet as an example. Weights for these were given as 165-168 gr with full steel core.
The longest and heaviest 6.5 military FMJ bullets of the time were around 156 gr with a lead core. How long would a 168 gr steel core 6.5 bullet have to be, and how far would it have to extend into the powder space to maintain the standard OAL of that cartridge?
The longer an AP core is the more likely it is to break apart if it hits at an angle.
The 7mm ran into its own problems when it was found that you couldn't pack a sufficiently large tracer or incendiary charge in the small diameter bullet for anti aircraft or aerial guns.
Once a bullet diameter reaches a certain lower limit bullet construction has to become more and more exotic to maintain the necessary level of performance.
If depleted uranium bullets were available in 5.56-6.8 they might match the penetration power of the cheaper electronic furnance steel core of .30 AP.
Last edited:
tahunua001
New member
am I the only one that thinks this train has derailed
tahunua001
New member
good point... still getting way off topic...