|
I believe the US equivalent myth is the .50 cal M2 being prohibited from being used against enemy personnel as it's an anti-aircraft weapon so you aim at the guys canteen since it's technically his equipment wink wink nudge nudge. Also a close miss will somehow rip the guys skin off because... uh... science.
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, a bit of googling tells me there's apparently some sort of high velocity munition the G36 was developed for which can reach the necessary speed to kill people with nerve shocks. And the use of this ammunition is forbidden by the Geneva convention. On the other hand, for every source saying yes, this is how it works, I got a source claiming this is just a Bundeswehr-myth. So decide for yourself. That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:10
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale. Uh, that doesn't really sound right. I thought 5.56x45mm was supposed to tumble/fragment on impact and make it even more lethal than a 7.62x51mm bullet just flying straight on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:12
|
|
|
on wife's phone no awful app but holy poo poo cold war gun myths . txt up in here will expand later when I have a proper keyboard if someone doesnt beat me to it
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
And the Geneva Convention doesn't cover bullets. The Hague Convention does. "The Contracting Parties agree to abstain from the use of bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body, such as bullets with a hard envelope which does not entirely cover the core, or is pierced with incisions." And it prohibits weapons which cause unnecessary suffering. Designing stuff to be wounding isn't okay. Designing stuff to be as effective at killing as possible is perfectly acceptable. So if that bullet could go fast enough that being hit with it causes your nervous system to shut down then it would be perfectly within the rules.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:21
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:I believe the US equivalent myth is the .50 cal M2 being prohibited from being used against enemy personnel as it's an anti-aircraft weapon so you aim at the guys canteen since it's technically his equipment wink wink nudge nudge. I've heard the same about rounds from an M242 Bushmaster; not that it would rip your skin off, but that a near miss would still gently caress you up pretty badly from the shock wave. It sounds possible, but a little implausible. e: the wikipedia entry on the Bushmaster led me to this photo. Surely firing a cannon who's barrel is so obviously corroded isn't a great idea? Love that dude's helmet though. 
PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:27
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Davin Valkri posted:Uh, that doesn't really sound right. I thought 5.56x45mm was supposed to tumble/fragment on impact and make it even more lethal than a 7.62x51mm bullet just flying straight on. Which struck me as an odd idea.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Well, a bit of googling tells me there's apparently some sort of high velocity munition the G36 was developed for which can reach the necessary speed to kill people with nerve shocks. I think you're referring to hydrostatic shock, which is something of a hyperbole/myth as far as lethality goes at least for small arms. Basically, there isn't a thing a human being is capable of holding and firing that can generate that much energy. ArchangeI posted:That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale. The ~.22 rounds were all designed to be as lethal as possible. The US achieved this through fragmentation, the Russians ensured a yawing effect with the 5.45x39 by putting a small hollow at the point of the bullet. As it happens, when the NATO was choosing a standardized 5.56mm round the original US round (I think it was 55gr) was actually deemed too brutal which in turn prompted NATO to go with a heavier bullet. This kind of wound up biting us in the rear end as we switched to carbines through OIF/OEF and the resultant dropoff in muzzle velocity made it difficult to get the fragmentation effect and seriously curtailed the round's effectiveness. bewbies fucked around with this message at 00:38 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The funny thing is, I was told the G36 uses standard-NATO ammunition, but has a higher muzzle velocity then all other NATO-rifles because it was developed just before some weird agreement forbidding the development of high velocity weapons of that kind. Apparently there's a medical phenomenon related to the shock to your nervous system if you get hit by a bullet. The higher the speed of the bullet when it hits, the worse the shock. If it gets over a certain treshold, it gets to the point where even light wounds can kill you because of the massive shock to your body. So the development of rifles with muzzle velocities above a certain point was forbidden. That's difficult to believe, since its muzzle velocity is 40 m/s less than the FN FAL and 50 m/s less than the M14. Hunterhr posted:
No it loving won't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale. Both are myths. Libluini is probably talking about hydrostatic shock, which is a phenomenon supposedly caused by high-velocity bullets. The human body is 70% water, which is resistant to compression, and 30% tissue, which is not nearly as resistant to compression. When a bullet strikes a person, the energy transfer creates a pressure wave that propagates through water-filled tissues and in theory causes wounding effects in areas of the body distant from the site of impact. e.g. a guy is shot in the chest and he winds up with hemorrhaging in his brain. There isn't hard evidence suggesting that hydrostatic shock is an important factor in lethality. If a bullet is transferring enough energy to your chest cavity to cause an effect like that you're in trouble anyway. With respect to the G36 specifically, it wasn't developed for any special experimental +P+ wildcat hypervelocity ammunition. It's a normal small caliber assault rifle that was developed to bring Germany in line with NATO requirements for a 5.56 rifle. The stuff Libluini is writing about sounds like goofy barracks lore, specifically old NCOs grousing because their chunky G3s were replaced by an actual modern weapon. The story that the 5.56 was developed to wound rather than kill is the same kind of nonsense. It's designed to kill people, just like 7.62 NATO, .45 ACP, and .577 Martini-Henry, and any other variety of military small arms ammunition you care to name. Cyrano4747 posted:on wife's phone no awful app but holy poo poo cold war gun myths . txt up in here I think I'll stop there and get out of your way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
bewbies posted:I think you're referring to hydrostatic shock, which is something of a hyperbole/myth as far as lethality goes at least for small arms. Basically, there isn't a thing a human being is capable of holding and firing that can generate that much energy. I'll see myself out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 00:44
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Apparently a bunch of medical studies disagree with you... according to wikipedia. Hydrostatic shock is the English term, I just badly translated the German term. But it's the same thing. Also now I'm 99% sure it's a modern myth. And to the guy asking if close combat is about clubbing someone over the head with your rifle, answer me this question: If your side arm runs out of ammo, or if a lot of dudes suddenly have a run-in with your dudes, what is your preferred course of action? Because I'm telling you now, wishing really hard they'll go away so you can shoot at them again generally doesn't work too well. Exactly. VVVVVVV Libluini fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
The Klappspaten never runs out of ammunition.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
HEY GAL posted:Not both hands, since you need a hand to hold the reins. Since you can't reload on horseback, the number of pistols you have is the number of shots you can take. Then you throw them at people (no, really. That was recommended). Were the horses trained to respond to knees alone in close combat like medieval warhorses? (I realize now I have a lot of questions about how cavalry of this era bred, obtained, and trained their horses.) Also, I thought the whole idea of the caracole was to fire, turn around, reload, then turn back for another go? I understand this was generally replaced tactically with "fire, ditch pistols, charge with sword" in the 17th century, but reloading while mounted was at least possible, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:50
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Were the horses trained to respond to knees alone in close combat like medieval warhorses? (I realize now I have a lot of questions about how cavalry of this era bred, obtained, and trained their horses.) quote:Also, I thought the whole idea of the caracole was to fire, turn around, reload, then turn back for another go? I understand this was generally replaced tactically with "fire, ditch pistols, charge with sword" in the 17th century, but reloading while mounted was at least possible, no?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 01:53
|
|
|
Azipod posted:
Of course it loving won't. Myth. Myyyyyyth. Hunterhr fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
So I was kind of farting around looking at airworthy WWI aircraft and stumbled across this thing and noticed the second member of the group that has achieved interesting things in other disciplines. I dunno, kinda jealous I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So I was kind of farting around looking at airworthy WWI aircraft and stumbled across this thing and noticed the second member of the group that has achieved interesting things in other disciplines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Meh, none of us will ever be Pappenheim so we may as well just coast. Edit: If any of you are Pappenheim, PM me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:And the Geneva Convention doesn't cover bullets. The Hague Convention does. The whole point of that myth is to make it easier to justify war crimes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Libluini posted:Another nice peace of German engineering is the G11-rifle. It's really great: Caseless bullets, extreme high precision, extreme high firing rate, a variant comes with a 300 shot magazine, everyone loves it! There's just a small problem the German Bundeswehr noted while testing it: If it comes into contact with anything from the real world (dust, mud, dirt), it tends to stop working immediately. It is somehow even more prone to failure then the G36-rifle, which became the new standard weapon instead. So perfect for deep space marine boarding actions?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
bewbies posted:So I was kind of farting around looking at airworthy WWI aircraft and stumbled across this thing and noticed the second member of the group that has achieved interesting things in other disciplines. 7000 hours in 757s and a 737 instructor? That's pretty badass. Frostwerks posted:So perfect for deep space marine boarding actions? The idea of guns in space is such a hilarious thing. Barring magboots, artificial gravity, or other sci-fi excuses, you'd need to have the barrel perfectly aligned with your center of gravity, or go flying off in all sorts of directions the minute you started firing. Based on the way the first spacewalks went, it would be absolutely comical. Of course, that didn't stop the Soviets from mounting a 23mm cannon on Salyut 3, and apparently even test firing the thing for some drat reason. PittTheElder fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Of course it loving won't. Oops, my bad. Gun myths are my trigger. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:7000 hours in 757s and a 737 instructor? That's pretty badass. Wouldn't a recoilless rifle solve this issue?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:41
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wouldn't a recoilless rifle solve this issue? Just be careful with the backblast, or your fireteam mate might be shot to the Moon...
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:55
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:The idea of guns in space is such a hilarious thing. You don't even loving know: * http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2013/10/08/soviet-laser-pistol/ *actually you might have read about this in the espionage thread like I did
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:7000 hours in 757s and a 737 instructor? That's pretty badass. Oh great you realposted to a joke question now we're going to get into hypotheticals of fictional warfare like we did with game of thrones that one time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:00
|
|
|
Frostwerks posted:Oh great you realposted to a joke question now we're going to get into hypotheticals of fictional warfare like we did with game of thrones that one time. Back in the mists of memory we also had an in-depth tactical analysis of the Battle of Yavin IV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:13
|
|
|
Well that link LordSaturn posted links to this so...
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:15
|
|
|
In terms of caseless ammo, the US Army is currently experimenting around with the LSAT (Lightweight Small Arms Technology) program - which is part continuing the old caseless ammo and part trying out ammo that uses lightweight polymer instead of brass casings. IIRC the latest caseless ammo examples get equal projectile mass and velocity as standard 5.56 with something like half the weight weight and 30-40% less volume.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:Wouldn't a recoilless rifle solve this issue? They aren't actually recoilless, so no. Also lmao at all the gun myths. Also on a phone though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 08:09
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I've heard the same about rounds from an M242 Bushmaster; not that it would rip your skin off, but that a near miss would still gently caress you up pretty badly from the shock wave. It sounds possible, but a little implausible. I've never heard anything like that and I was on a vehicle with a bushmaster. The petals from sabot rounds might gently caress you up.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:Were the horses trained to respond to knees alone in close combat like medieval warhorses? (I realize now I have a lot of questions about how cavalry of this era bred, obtained, and trained their horses.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:Back in the mists of memory we also had an in-depth tactical analysis of the Battle of Yavin IV.  Is... is it bad that I want to read that?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 08:40
|
|
|
Libluini posted:The funny thing is, I was told the G36 uses standard-NATO ammunition, but has a higher muzzle velocity then all other NATO-rifles because it was developed just before some weird agreement forbidding the development of high velocity weapons of that kind. Apparently there's a medical phenomenon related to the shock to your nervous system if you get hit by a bullet. The higher the speed of the bullet when it hits, the worse the shock. If it gets over a certain treshold, it gets to the point where even light wounds can kill you because of the massive shock to your body. So the development of rifles with muzzle velocities above a certain point was forbidden. They tell exactly the same story about our AUG, which is a myth ofc. I don't know the english vocabulary for this, but the increased lethality had to do with the rifling in the barrel, which had less "Züge" in the early version. Now there are 7 1/2 as far as I recall, before it was less, which caused the bullet to be unstable and tumble after a few 100 meters. So there's your increased lethality. e: It's 6 twists, not 7 1/2 Power Khan fucked around with this message at 09:27 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
JaucheCharly posted:They tell exactly the same story about our AUG, which is a myth ofc. I don't know the english vocabulary for this, but the increased lethality had to do with the rifling in the barrel, which had less "Züge" in the early version. Now there are 7 1/2 as far as I recall, before it was less, which caused the bullet to be unstable and tumble after a few 100 meters. So there's your increased lethality. Twists. A tumbling bullet is going to be much less accurate as it flies through the air, so there'd be a very narrow range between where the bullet starts to tumble and where the loss of accuracy makes it less likely to hit the target.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I've heard something about how the 5.56 will tumble at X distance as it loses momentum and that changes the fluid dynamics of the air it travels through, and the 7.62 at Y distance for the same reasons, thus <round> is better for <current war> because <engagement range we claim to be ideal> is conveniently <engagement range at which every fight happens>. Libluini posted:It's what my instructors in the Bundeswehr told me. For one thing, it has the weird habit of breaking apart into pieces if you use it in close combat. The G3 was a lot hardier then that. The G36 tends to jam more often, too. JaucheCharly posted:They tell exactly the same story about our AUG, which is a myth ofc. I don't know the english vocabulary for this, but the increased lethality had to do with the rifling in the barrel, which had less "Züge" in the early version. Now there are 7 1/2 as far as I recall, before it was less, which caused the bullet to be unstable and tumble after a few 100 meters. So there's your increased lethality. These sound like a mishmash of myths based upon actual issues. 5.56x45mm NATO ammo tends to yaw and fragment upon impact at high enough velocities, dumping more energy into the target, this is a pretty well established fact. Additionally the difference in barrel length between the M16 and M4 rifles used by the US is supposedly enough to change the range at which this happens regularly. This became a point of contention as the US army started issuing shorter-barreled M4s as standard, while at the same time being more and more involved in Afghanistan, where there were lots of engagements at ranges outside of the <300m that have been fairly standard expected combat ranges for infantry since WW2. Of course whether or not this fragmentation actually makes a difference in first-hit stops is still debated. It does increase the size of the wound cavity, but this may or may not actually make a practical difference in combat. It's still about shot placement. Really just read the Wikipedia article and associated citations, because it actually hits the main points, though it's poorly edited. For the German and Austrian ammo myths, it I'm guessing it's a bastardization of the actual fact that German 7.62x51mm NATO ammo has a thinner jacket, which makes it much more likely to fragment upon impact, like the 5.56x45mm is supposed to. Don't have data for the German ammo on hand, but here's an experiment (hit "look inside" to see the table in the preview) with the Danish M/75 ammo, which has a similar design to the German 7.62x51mm, showing consistent fragmentation at much greater ranges than other 7.62x51mm NATO rounds, including US ammo. Edit: Chamale posted:Twists. A tumbling bullet is going to be much less accurate as it flies through the air, so there'd be a very narrow range between where the bullet starts to tumble and where the loss of accuracy makes it less likely to hit the target. Basically every time someone starts talking about "tumbling" what they're probably referring to is some mention of tumbling as part of terminal ballistics, though a lot of people make the mistake of thinking that there are bullets that are meant to tumble in flight. There has never been issued ammunition meant to tumble in flight, because that would make it both incredibly inaccurate, and would mean the round would dump velocity at such a rate that it would lose power very quickly. LimburgLimbo fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Nov 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:That's curious, I've always heard that the 5,56 mm ammo was specifically developed to injure instead of kill (and also be lighter so more rounds could be carried etc.). Something about the old ammo being so slow that it would bleed most of its energy into the body and cause giant wounds that were almost certainly fatal, while the smaller and faster 5,56 would punch straight through the body and do less damage so long as it didn't hit anything absolutely vital. The result being that the enemy's medical services would be overwhelmed by casualties, which reduces morale. The wound instead of kill gets thrown around a lot especially in regards to 7.62 vs 5.56. The idea that if you wound an enemy soldier instead of killing him, you take five men out of the fight, be cause you need four to carry him back to medical attention. Here is why it doesnt really work like that. 1. Nobody in a firefight is going to treat you while the firefight is ongoing anyway. All modern doctrine dictates that you first begin treating casualties after the firefight is won. There are 4 kinds of casualties in combat, the dead right now, the dead in 10 minutes anyway, the dead in one hour, and the never gonna be dead. The two first are not gonna be saved no matter what you do, the third and fourth category can wait. 2. All military has dedicated personnel two treat the wounded, that are exempt from combat. Medic are not allowed two contribute in the firefight, so if they have to treat a dude, they would not be taking any firepower away from the main fight. 3. People who are wounded get better. If you how many soldier that are wounded get back to the line, that is a not insignificant amount in a long war. At some point during ww2 it was estimated that 1/4 of all german troops had been wounded one or more times. If they had been dead instead that is a direct reduction in available manpower. TLDR: Killing is always better. The main point for the 5.56 is weight. You can have a lot more ammunition. And in a combat dead or wounded doesnt really matter, a wounded soldier is probably not effective for long anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
From an earlier post I ended up reading http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/06/german-intelligence-on-operation.html and came across this:quote:However the Germans were able to take more photos by using a captured P-47 Thunderbolt. Anyone who has more on this ? It's so crazy and yet plausible and the details of not getting discovered over England or shot down by flak when coming back must be fascinating.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:33 |
|
|
CeeJee posted:From an earlier post I ended up reading http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.gr/2012/06/german-intelligence-on-operation.html and came across this: The germans had a bunch of captured aircraft that they used for all sorts of things. I think they even tried to use a captured b17 to infiltrate bomber formations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kampfgeschwader_200
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2014 13:50
|
|
