It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rate of fire vs. Caliber of projectile.

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 26 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I suppose someone sooner or later would invent a DU round for something as small as a 5.56 mm cartridge. The use of this round for this rifle escapes me with the advent of AP or tungston rounds being easier to handle..in the manufacturing process. Also DU rounds must be so much more expensive than tungston or AP merely by the handling process required.

I have dissassembled the 20MM CWIS barrel assembly on some ships for shipout to vendors for overhaul. You know the R2D2 looking multi barrel gadget. Located close to these guns are lockers with ammo ..reloads. The Radiation symbol is on these lockers. Do you guys think it is a bright idea to walk around with about 50 rounds of 5.56 DU in bandolers hanging off you???

DU is a very hardened penetration round...more suited for heavy caliber guns. Tungston or AP is better suited for this caliber. If DU is being used in 5,56mm it must be for special jobs or by special teams.

Thanks
Orangetom




posted on May, 14 2005 @ 07:21 PM
link   
Nice topic, me: Caliber. Rate of fire is not worth jack if you can't bring them down. Ex: Battle Rifle from "Halo 2"= I rather have the stopping power in the demo tape, even if I had to have it on semi, than the 3-Burst with weaker rounds.



posted on May, 14 2005 @ 08:02 PM
link   
The rate of fire comes in for suppressive fire. Accuracy is the best of both worlds but you do need suppressive fire in any significant situations. The enemy can't fully concentrate and work at 100% efficiency/capabilities if they are trying not to get shot from a barrage of bullets. That's what good about the upcoming 6.8 and 6.5 it's the best of both worlds, greater stopping power and range for 1-2 shot kills and enough ammo (28 rounds in standard 5.56 mags) and similar if not the same fire rate.

You pop off 3 to 7 or 8 rounds to get their attention and freak them out a bit then go in and out of precision shooting and suppressive fire or mix them when in a squad, your best marksmen pick ‘em off and the rest of the squads keeps them occupied and too busy to take any real shots at you.



posted on May, 15 2005 @ 02:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oblivions void
The rate of fire comes in for suppressive fire. Accuracy is the best of both worlds but you do need suppressive fire in any significant situations. The enemy can't fully concentrate and work at 100% efficiency/capabilities if they are trying not to get shot from a barrage of bullets. That's what good about the upcoming 6.8 and 6.5 it's the best of both worlds, greater stopping power and range for 1-2 shot kills and enough ammo (28 rounds in standard 5.56 mags) and similar if not the same fire rate.

You pop off 3 to 7 or 8 rounds to get their attention and freak them out a bit then go in and out of precision shooting and suppressive fire or mix them when in a squad, your best marksmen pick ‘em off and the rest of the squads keeps them occupied and too busy to take any real shots at you.


Very true. I would hate it if I was in a squad, in a firefight, that didn't have a guy with a high rate of fire. "I" just rather have a higher caliber cuse I prefere rifles. Sniper Rifles, Assault Rifles, or Battle Rifles[M29, G3, etc...], but if you have a submachine gun like the MP5, with it's 9mm rds, YEAH, the only way you stand it is with a high rate of fire. That's wy the only Submachine Guns I truely like is the MP7 or P90, good all around. But for me, give me a semi auto, good caliber, and I'm okay.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The reason why volume of fire counts and aimed fire doesn't is simple. Historically over 80% of all fire in real war time is unaimed. So most shots are wasted anyway. The best solution is to give your troops enough ammo for 'snapshot' type engagments with small exposures of burst fire in the general direction of the enemy.Add to this the steady stream of fire good GPMGs can supply , and your squad can pin an enemy in place while other squads can close assault the enemy position covered by the suppressive fire effects on the enemy.

This was clearly demonstrated in WW-II when badly out numbered germans were able to neutralise much better equiped USA/UK force in Normandy due to the 'fire superiority', provided by the experienced German MG-34/42 LMGs which could supply twice as much firepower as their adversary could.



posted on May, 16 2005 @ 10:46 PM
link   
psteel

what you said about is true but modern military especially US military is better trained than any other time and marksmanship is emphasize more now a days than it was before. I mean look at the Marine Corps marksmanship is heavily emphasize in their training. Suppressive fire is a reality of modern warfare which isn’t like to change, but marksmanship is also improving overall and it’s only going to get better. One of the lessons that we are learning from Iraq is that even non-front line troops are going to receive more weapons and marksmanship training regardless of position/assignment. Just like the Marine corps, even pilots have to have a certain amount of small arms training. Suppressive fires in the hands of a trained marksman is ten fold more effective than the spray and pray tactics of old. I mean there are stories of seals and other special forces using GPMG as virtual sniper riffles



posted on May, 17 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
agree with Psteels post also seal tridents. Accuracy is good ...always but sometimes rate of fire is necessary. Stay flexible ...both in supressing fire and accurate fire...Dicipline.

I would also like to remind some in here that the new sighting systems in use in Afganistan and Iraq are bearing out the theorys of accurate fire being effective ..verses the olde spray and pray. The contrast between the "insurgents" and our training is glaring. The Holo sights are working nicely. My understanding is that at first some battlefield inspectors thought executions were taking place because of the number of head shots taking place...until it was realized the new sighting systems were the cause. These systems seem be changing the way some things are done.

Thanks ,
Orangetom



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join