View Full Version : "Bullets used by British soldiers 'too small to defeat Taliban'"
New article posted on www.telegraph.co.uk. British troops not exactly happy with the 5.56mm.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6451003/Bullets-used-by-British-soldiers-too-small-to-defeat-Taliban.html
A survey of more than 50 servicemen who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan concluded that the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by British soldiers 'tailed off' after 300 metres yet half of all Helmand firefights are fought between 300 and 900 metres.
It came as the wife of a British soldier who died in hospital weeks after being injured in a blast in Afghanistan paid tribute to her "best friend and wonderful husband".
The study, co-written by Nicholas Drummond, a strategy consultant and ex-Welsh Guards officer, described British soldiers' rifles as "not much more useful than a peashooter".
Taliban marksmen use powerful 7.62mm ammo for their AK47 machine guns, according to a report of the study in The Sun.
Mr Drummond told the newspaper that a British soldier couldn't attack the Taliban "with any certainty that if he hits the enemy he will kill or incapacitate him. The study claims the ammunition is easily stopped by car doors. It added that Javelin anti-tank missiles, costing £100,000 each, are often fired at lone gunmen. Only one in four British, US and German troops has been issued with guns using 7.62mm ammunition.
The report calls for guns that take larger ammunition to replace all standard-issue SA80 rifles, which many believe were exposed as inadequate in Iraq in 2003.
The Ministry of Defence told the newspaper the 5.56mm calibre rounds used by United States and other Nato allies are "proven to be both accurate and powerful."
geminidglocker
11-05-09, 12:14
This is a duplicate thread, it was just discussed four days ago.
This is a duplicate thread, it was just discussed four days ago.
Where?
I didn't see it.:confused: Not Here.
Here are links to the articles:
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btb.pdf
http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/btbjdw.pdf
-----------------
LF thread with one of the authors: http://lightfighter.net/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7206084761/m/182100274
Thank you Sir for the links to the article. Very good and honest info coming from the British.
I didn't know they don't use fragmenting bullets.:eek: Is not much left from the 5.56 capabilities without fragmenting bullets.
NATO swallowed the 5.56 pill in the name of cartridge commonality with the US and they still use different bullets.:rolleyes:
Now would be an excellent time to get something different. More powerful.
Many NATO countries, including US, are looking to replace their main rifles. Also some of the newer members from eastern Europe would have a good opportunity to switch straight from the soviet block ammo to a new, better cartridge. Many newer carbines and rifles that could be adopted are built with more calibers in mind and could be easily converted to whatever cartridge is selected.
Anyone who questions the lethality of the 5.56mm is just out of touch with reality. The answer is not a more powerful cartridge as suggested. An X.XXmm cartridge isn't any more effective when you miss the target. Do you think the projectile "whiff" is going to knock them down if you miss?
The Brit's problem is with their SA80 which is just a huge piece of shit. The rifle can't handle M855/SS109 cartridges so they have to use under powered ammunition so their bullpup rifle doesn't fall apart in combat.
The M4/M16 family of rifles with M855/SS109 is a killing machine. I love how the article implys that Taliban with a ragged AK-47 is a greater threat on the battlefield just because they use the more powerful 7.62 cartridge. Just hit the target and your problems are solved.
Anyone who questions the lethality of the 5.56mm is just out of touch with reality. The answer is not a more powerful cartridge as suggested. An X.XXmm cartridge isn't any more effective when you miss the target. Do you think the projectile "whiff" is going to knock them down if you miss?
The Brit's problem is with their SA80 which is just a huge piece of shit. The rifle can't handle M855/SS109 cartridges so they have to use under powered ammunition so their bullpup rifle doesn't fall apart in combat.
The M4/M16 family of rifles with M855/SS109 is a killing machine. I love how the article implys that Taliban with a ragged AK-47 is a greater threat on the battlefield just because they use the more powerful 7.62 cartridge. Just hit the target and your problems are solved.
Read the real article in the links DocGKR has posted because that's the real one. I posted a link to the interpretation of the media, not the document produced by the specialists. In the well documented piece Mr. Anthony G. Williams has produced nobody is talking about AK-47 and it's round but rather the 7.62x54R chambered weapons used extensively by the insurgents.
The M4/M16 family of rifles with M855/SS109 is a killing machine.
...under some conditions when all the stars align.
If the 5.56 is so effective why so many .308 weapons were reintroduced in the last few years? Nato troops can afford better and deserve better.
RogerinTPA
11-15-09, 09:35
Read the real article in the links DocGKR has posted because that's the real one. I posted a link to the interpretation of the media, not the document produced by the specialists. In the well documented piece Mr. Anthony G. Williams has produced nobody is talking about AK-47 and it's round but rather the 7.62x54R chambered weapons used extensively by the insurgents.
...under some conditions when all the stars align.
If the 5.56 is so effective why so many .308 weapons were reintroduced in the last few years? Nato troops can afford better and deserve better.
To provide for accurate, long range, lethal fire from Snipers and DMs, as well as SOF forces, for the most part, until more current weapon systems came on line. There was a critical shortage of them, as well as optics, for the first few years of the war at the Company and Platoon level. The M-14 answered the call, since there were so many of them in storage. 200M is the max engagement for the "average" Infantryman, even that is a stretch, as seen from resent engagements, without more precision training. It appears that while engaged, "panic fire" trumps "well aimed precision fire", as the default method when engaging the enemy. From personal experience, I know the M16/AR is more than capable of hits out to 500 to 600M, with just iron sights. Just sayin....
To provide for accurate, long range, lethal fire from Snipers and DMs, as well as SOF forces, for the most part, until more current weapon systems came on line. There was a critical shortage of them, as well as optics, for the first few years of the war at the Company and Platoon level. The M-14 answered the call, since there were so many of them in storage. 200M is the max engagement for the "average" Infantryman, even that is a stretch, as seen from resent engagements, without more precision training. It appears that while engaged, "panic fire" trumps "well aimed precision fire", as the default method when engaging the enemy. From personal experience, I know the M16/AR is more than capable of hits out to 500 to 600M, with just iron sights. Just sayin....
Just to add to What Roger has already posted, here's the reasons for .308 Rifles being fielded recently:
Reach (for those who are trained as DM's or Snipers)
Penetration against certain types of barriers
I personally would not want to be issued a M-14 as my weapon if cordon and searches were being conducted. Doing MOUT with a M-16 is a PITA, I could only imagine what a M-14 would be like. And then there's mounting and dismounting Humvee's in full battle rattle with said rifle !
No thanks, I will stick with my M4A1 any day.
All 7.62x54 weapons are either belt-fed (GPMG's) ,Bolt action(Moisin Nagant's aka out dated) or Sniper / DMR's ( Think SVD's or Romy PSL's). They are not Battle rifles like the Fal, G-3 , etc... If we are to compare oranges to oranges, then compare 7.62x39 to 5.56x45. Comparing Battle rifle cartridges to Assault weapon cartridges isn't a fair comparison.
Heavy Metal
11-15-09, 18:31
I remember the British were having a 'problem' with the L2A1 ball breaking apart at the cannelure after impact and 'fixed' it with the L2A2 ball.
Good job protecting The Taliban Blokes!
gruntinhusaybah
11-19-09, 15:29
hitting what youre trying to hit helps alot
it's like the scene in Band of Brothers where the guy from another unit is next to Garneare(sp?) in the trench and fires round after round and this nazi, missing every shot with an M1 Garand mind you, now thats a real knock down cartridge!:rolleyes:
Garneare presents his Thompson and lets a burst go into the nazis back and down he goes
is anyone going to argue that 30-06 is less powerful than .45 ACP? No
did .45ACP work in that situation? Yes, because he hit the bastard!
spend all this money people are proposing for a newer better whiz bang round on freakin training and everything will be good
WOW! So let me get this straight 5.56 doesn't scare bad guys as well as 7.62 when you miss, and .50 really scares them bad. I think we need to put whistles on the bullets to really scare them. This guy then spends the whole article complaining about the poor terminal performance of the 5.56 NATO, and then mentions at the end really briefly that the poor terminal performance is intentional. Nice to know where the British Government's priorities are.
When eight out of ten troops are out of range in 50% of the engagements than there's a problem with the universally addopted cartridge and no training in the world can fix that.
When eight out of ten troops are out of range in 50% of the engagements than there's a problem with the universally addopted cartridge and no training in the world can fix that.
I see it a bit differently. It appears the author is confusing things a bit. When British troops are being engages from 600+yds it is not 7.62X39 fired from an AK. It would be 7.62X54 fired from a belt fed machine gun or SVD variant both chambered in 7.62X54. These are specialized weapons not carried by every bad guy on the battfield. The British already have specialized weapons that can deal with long range engagements chambered in both 7.62 NATO (sniper rifles, and machineguns) and .338 Lapua neither of which will do any good if the enemy is in a "bunker". 6.8 SPC will not reach out 800yds anyway, and even if the 6.5 Grendel can there is no gaurantee that the average rifleman will be able to make good hits at that range in combat anyway.
The U.S. has DM rifles with specialy trained guys behind them set up for being able to deliver accurate fire at longer ranges, and with greater precision that the average rifleman is capable of. These rifles are not ony M14s, but also accurized 5.56 caliber rifles firing Mk262 which have proven effective out to 800yds. The British will not adopt MK262 because it fragments.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.