Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisLX200 said:
Whilst a very lethal round it is a bit unpredictable at times which leads to tales of it occaisionally passing through without immediately dropping the enemy. I think the main reason for adopting it was the light weight of the ammo - a soldier can carry many more rounds into action. AIUI there has been a recent move to a slightly larger caliber (6.5mm? can't recall for certain).

edit: just looked it up, 6.8mm×51 ("the US Army’s new rifle will be SIG’s candidate, an upscaled version of their existing gas-piston MCX Rifle, now designated the “XM5,” chambered for SIG’s version of the new military 6.8mm cartridge, called the 6.8×51.")
Click to expand...
IIRC and I may be completely wrong, but I think a large part of the reason they adopted it as the standard NATO round was that most of the countries involved had weapons that could be chambered for it, including both handguns and SMG's etc, so it made sense to go for a round that could potentially be used in most of the common weapons across the entire group, with the result that logistics became much simpler (a unit from one army could use the ammo from most of the others rather than having to supply multiple standards)..
 
HungryHippos said:
Should always have remained neutral, no one should be occupying a nuclear power plant, or fighting anywhere near one for that matter.
Click to expand...

Geographically it is in one country. I agree that fighting should be nowhere near it's reactors but it is Ukrainian and it needs to supply power.
Whether it works or not, it is an equal hazard.
 
ChrisLX200 said:
Whilst a very lethal round it is a bit unpredictable at times which leads to tales of it occaisionally passing through without immediately dropping the enemy. I think the main reason for adopting it was the light weight of the ammo - a soldier can carry many more rounds into action. AIUI there has been a recent move to a slightly larger caliber (6.5mm? can't recall for certain).

edit: just looked it up, 6.8mm×51 ("the US Army’s new rifle will be SIG’s candidate, an upscaled version of their existing gas-piston MCX Rifle, now designated the “XM5,” chambered for SIG’s version of the new military 6.8mm cartridge, called the 6.8×51.")
Click to expand...
5.56 was adopted entirely due to the lower felt recoil impulse when compared to 7.62x51 and earlier 30-06. It means that you are much more likely to make hits with follow-up shots when firing a burst. Lower felt impulse means that marksmanship can be more easily taught as the cadet isn't fighting the rifle all the time. The M14 which was adopted before the M16 was chambered in 7.62x51 and is famously uncontrollable on full auto. Even us Brits when we had the FAL as our standard infantry rifle had the version that is semi-auto only for this reason.
We went from full-power rifle cartridges in WW2 (303 British and 30-06) to 7.62x51 NATO intermediate cartridges and then to 5.56x45 NATO. The USSR also did the same. They went from 7.62x54R in WW2, to 7.62x39 in the AK47 and AKM, then to 5.45x39 in the AK74. A cartridge that they still use in the AK-12 and AK74M.

However, as ChrisLX200 says, the stopping power and range of 5.56 are insufficient for the modern battlefield. Hence the new cartridge.
I'm wondering whether we will adopt the same cartridge across NATO. It would make sense from a logistics perspective.
 
What Ukraine needs is equal opportunities i.e. the ability to hit Russian energy and water infrastructure to make it a fair war. Let them know how it feels.
 
Rilot said:
5.56 was adopted entirely due to the lower felt recoil impulse when compared to 7.62x51 and earlier 30-06. It means that you are much more likely to make hits with follow-up shots when firing a burst. Lower felt impulse means that marksmanship can be more easily taught as the cadet isn't fighting the rifle all the time. The M14 which was adopted before the M16 was chambered in 7.62x51 and is famously uncontrollable on full auto. Even us Brits when we had the FAL as our standard infantry rifle had the version that is semi-auto only for this reason.
We went from full-power rifle cartridges in WW2 (303 British and 30-06) to 7.62x51 NATO intermediate cartridges and then to 5.56x45 NATO. The USSR also did the same. They went from 7.62x54R in WW2, to 7.62x39 in the AK47 and AKM, then to 5.45x39 in the AK74. A cartridge that they still use in the AK-12 and AK74M.

However, as ChrisLX200 says, the stopping power and range of 5.56 are insufficient for the modern battlefield. Hence the new cartridge.
I'm wondering whether we will adopt the same cartridge across NATO. It would make sense from a logistics perspective.
Click to expand...

With modern armor, definitely a problem, not to mention engagement distances these days in the East. That's why they have a 7.62 marksmen on the squads now right? (I guess we aren't really fighting anyone with modern body armour though LOL).
 
Last edited:
This is interesting, this is the nature reserve right at the mouth of the river, I guess not too many Russian troops deployed there, quite bold of them if they're deploying light infantry there to dig in and hold some ground there, I guess they'll still need to get some artillery across, wonder if the larger boats the US provided have been used here:

 
Rilot said:
We went from full-power rifle cartridges in WW2 (303 British and 30-06) to 7.62x51 NATO intermediate cartridges and then to 5.56x45 NATO. The USSR also did the same. They went from 7.62x54R in WW2, to 7.62x39 in the AK47 and AKM, then to 5.45x39 in the AK74. A cartridge that they still use in the AK-12 and AK74M.

However, as ChrisLX200 says, the stopping power and range of 5.56 are insufficient for the modern battlefield. Hence the new cartridge.
I'm wondering whether we will adopt the same cartridge across NATO. It would make sense from a logistics perspective.
Click to expand...

Ironically we almost adopted an intermediate round post-WW2... but then the Americans decided it wasn't powerful enough... then went in completely the opposite direction resulting in the current situation...

We'd have had something like this post-WW2 otherwise with a .280 round

z2jQpfP.jpg


en.wikipedia.org

.280 British - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

And now the latest idea from the US is to have a .277 round
 
Grim5 said:
Russian state TV says Russia is trying very hard to negotiate a winter ceasefire, so that it can get time to rebuild its military but Ukraine continues to refuse, so Russia strikes civilian infrastructure to try and force Kyiv to agree to the ceasefire
Click to expand...
no such thing as civilian infrastructure in a war. unless your talking hospitals and schools
 
Last edited:
dowie said:
This is interesting, this is the nature reserve right at the mouth of the river, I guess not too many Russian troops deployed there, quite bold of them if they're deploying light infantry there to dig in and hold some ground there, I guess they'll still need to get some artillery across, wonder if the larger boats the US provided have been used here:

Click to expand...
Last year I watched this guy drive around in Kinburn in his Shogun that he fixed earlier. It seems to be a wild resort in Ukraine.
 
dowie said:
And now the latest idea from the US is to have a .277 round
Click to expand...

Kind of funny how derivatives of 6.5 and 6.8mm [Creedmoor] are now starting to be looked at for newer weapon systems. Some of them have pretty nice ballistics though - especially the terminal ballistics (energy) - combining the flat trajectory and high velocity of the 4.85mm British with twice the energy transfer to target.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom