NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

by **Manokan Republic** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:19 pm

Reissuing of M14's: "Few M14s were in use in the Army until the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars. Since the start of these conflicts, many M14s have been employed as designated marksman and sniper rifles. These are not M21 rifles, but original production M14s. Common modifications include scopes, fiberglass stocks, and other accessories.[28] A 2009 study conducted by the U.S. Army claimed that half of the engagements in Afghanistan occurred from beyond 300 meters (330 yd).[29] America's 5.56×45mm NATO service rifles are ineffective at these ranges; this has prompted the reissue of thousands of M14s."

Mainly, Americans came under fire from PKM machine guns, mortars, and heavier anti-aircraft guns like 14.5mm and 23mm weapons, which outgunned their 300 meter M4 carbines. As a result adding a marksmen to every squad was seen as a good idea, and the marines had already incorporated marksmen in to their squads some time ago back in the 90's. The issue is not that the taliban were outshooting us with sniper rifles or ak-47's per se (although some were using dragnuv's and such), but mainly the really large machine guns could provide saturation fire on american positions at far longer ranges than assault rifles could. A lot of times it was like, 800 meters away with an AA gun which is not that far, but is still outside of the range of a 5.56mm. So, they figured a marksmen could really help a lot, and they did. Technicals are very common, and they can be taken out with regular rifle fire. In fact, a .338 Norma machine gun, at just 24 pounds, lighter than an M240 at 27.5 pounds, has become a thing for similiar reasons. [1][2][3] The range advantage is real. Same range as a .50 cal but man transportable is pretty great. And there's not much of a need for armor penetration, so you don't need it for anti-material purposes, just anti-personnel. The particular .338 gun has a recoil counterbalancing system and is usually mounted on a tripod, so the recoil is pretty light. Long range precision shooting for automatic weapons is becoming increasingly more of a thing, and in my opinion is a great idea.

by **Manokan Republic** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:42 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:Well 2 inches thick, but yeah 3-5 inches is possible. That isn't a whole lot of sand, as most sand bags are like 12 or more inches wide, that is military sand bags, vs. civilian sand bags which are often smaller. To be fair passing through different mediums is hard for a bullet, which will deform and fragment on the metal, then be broken up in the sand, then have the fragments caught by the other side of the metal. Car doors are known to stop 5.56mm rounds and even greater, simply because the rounds will tumble and fragment, breaking up in to smaller pieces, and this keyholing/sort of shotgun effect leads to it being stopped by the second car door when spaced that far apart. But the point is it's not all that much sand, since the round is lightweight and high velocity is disintegrates quickly. Another example is how rapidly it fragments in water, vs. the Ak which travels a longer distance. The main problem with a 5.56mm is the high velocity and low weight; some newer rounds are also better at penetrating barriers like sand, so it doesn't hold true with all rounds, just M855 ball ammunition. But the point is it kind of is deficient in penetration. Wood, concrete, and even minor threats like glass are very well known to stop it. Heavier calibers are better in cluttered areas, with lots of trees or buildings or what have you, urban or jungle environments. Sand is good for stopping all manner of bullets, but especially high velocity one's.

Most things that are going to reliably stop 5.56 are going to be pretty good at stopping heavier rounds as well. Yes occasionally 5.56 rounds will be stopped by lighter barriers, but if you look at how the 5.56 preforms on average it is more than adequate for shooting people and through most things. Barrier penetration is nice, but if you make your round heavier to better penetrate then you are carrying less ammunition for the same weight. Since most rounds don't hit people, much less most rounds trying to punch through barriers, most armies have agreed it is better to have more ammo than to have marginal improvements in barrier penetration. If you want to have a heavier round feel free, but it comes at a cost of less ammo.

I'll happily say I use a 7mm projectile in NS for my GPMG, though I cheat and use ceaseless ammo.

This is true, but only a difference of about 30% if going with something like the 6.5mm Grendel or 6mm SAW. With an aluminum cased round, it's the same weight or less, and with caseless it's half the weight. The Ak-47 has really heavy magazines, and so fully loaded steel ak mags are the same weight as fully loaded 30 round 7.62mm NATO mags, but modern polymer magazines reduce the weight down to 1.5 pounds. A fully loaded 30 round 6.5mm grendel magazine, or 6.8mm remington, is like 1.2 to 1.3 pounds, which is lighter still. Of course using a caseless round is better or aluminum cased, but 20-30% is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

If you factor in the weight of the magazine, the weight efficiency does improve marginally. A typical 30 round magazine is .25 pounds, while 30 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition is around 375 grams, or .825 pounds. This tends to result in about 1.075 pound per magazine, which while relatively light, with a 4 gram heavier bullet (say a .300 black-out), results in a 30 x 16.5 gram, or 1.34 pound magazine, or only 24% heavier. So while the bullet is 30% heavier, when the weight of the magazine or belt is factored in, usually it's between 20-30% heavier. The range and accuracy difference, as well as barrier penetration is usually enough to offset this, the idea being more accuracy means less rounds needed, as does a longer range and better barrier penetration. Out in the open at close range it can be slightly worse in terms of raw volume of fire, but usually you will always be facing off against people with cover, which is why barrier penetration is so much more important than people take in to account. People hide when being shot at, even often terrorists, so if fighting people with a lick of common sense or just fear, you will want to penetrate barriers better with less rounds. If there is tons of open area without good cover, then range becomes your next defensive advantage, and it has both. A 7.62mm NATO gets too heavy, but the 6mm rounds have always seen as just about right, with the 6mm "optimum" being the ideal cartridge for the job according to many military studies. Granted a lot of this is subjective, but given that many countries do still us the 7.62mm x 39mm which is at least 1.5 times heavier than the 5.56mm, I think the 6mm series of rounds are better.

by **Spirit of Hope** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 7:59 pm

Manokan Republic wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:Most things that are going to reliably stop 5.56 are going to be pretty good at stopping heavier rounds as well. Yes occasionally 5.56 rounds will be stopped by lighter barriers, but if you look at how the 5.56 preforms on average it is more than adequate for shooting people and through most things. Barrier penetration is nice, but if you make your round heavier to better penetrate then you are carrying less ammunition for the same weight. Since most rounds don't hit people, much less most rounds trying to punch through barriers, most armies have agreed it is better to have more ammo than to have marginal improvements in barrier penetration. If you want to have a heavier round feel free, but it comes at a cost of less ammo.

I'll happily say I use a 7mm projectile in NS for my GPMG, though I cheat and use ceaseless ammo.

This is true, but only a difference of about 30% if going with something like the 6.5mm Grendel or 6mm SAW. With an aluminum cased round, it's the same weight or less, and with caseless it's half the weight. The Ak-47 has really heavy magazines, and so fully loaded steel ak mags are the same weight as fully loaded 30 round 7.62mm NATO mags, but modern polymer magazines reduce the weight down to 1.5 pounds. A fully loaded 30 round 6.5mm grendel magazine, or 6.8mm remington, is like 1.2 to 1.3 pounds, which is lighter still. Of course using a caseless round is better or aluminum cased, but 20-30% is not that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things.

If you factor in the weight of the magazine, the weight efficiency does improve marginally. A typical 30 round magazine is .25 pounds, while 30 rounds of 5.56mm ammunition is around 375 grams, or .825 pounds. This tends to result in about 1.075 pound per magazine, which while relatively light, with a 4 gram heavier bullet (say a .300 black-out), results in a 30 x 16.5 gram, or 1.34 pound magazine, or only 24% heavier. So while the bullet is 30% heavier, when the weight of the magazine or belt is factored in, usually it's between 20-30% heavier. The range and accuracy difference, as well as barrier penetration is usually enough to offset this, the idea being more accuracy means less rounds needed, as does a longer range and better barrier penetration. Out in the open at close range it can be slightly worse in terms of raw volume of fire, but usually you will always be facing off against people with cover, which is why barrier penetration is so much more important than people take in to account. People hide when being shot at, even often terrorists, so if fighting people with a lick of common sense or just fear, you will want to penetrate barriers better with less rounds. If there is tons of open area without good cover, then range becomes your next defensive advantage, and it has both. A 7.62mm NATO gets too heavy, but the 6mm rounds have always seen as just about right, with the 6mm "optimum" being the ideal cartridge for the job according to many military studies. Granted a lot of this is subjective, but given that many countries do still us the 7.62mm x 39mm which is at least 1.5 times heavier than the 5.56mm, I think the 6mm series of rounds are better.

Any weight savings you get from aluminum cases or ceaseless ammo, a 5.56 or similar round can will also get.

Better accuracy is pretty meaningless, 5.56 is plenty accurate at combat ranges. Plus infantry are pretty bad at hitting this under combat conditions.

Better range is pretty meaningless, most engagements are fought well within 5.56 effective engagement range and most infantry won't be able to use the range increase anyways. A heavier round makes more sense for weapons that will actually be able to effectively use that range, machine guns and marksmen's rifles, which is where you see heavier rounds used.

Better barrier penetration is nice, but not supremely useful. If you are shooting through something to try and hit someone, that means you probably can't see them, which in turn means your fire isn't going to be all that likely to hit. Again more ammo is better here.

Yes it is subjective. But given all of the advantages to larger rounds aren't that helpful for a rifleman, while more ammo (or less weight) is supremely useful, I stand firmly on the small caliber high velocity side of the fence. Heavier rounds make sense where they are used, marksmen and machine guns.

by **Gallan Systems** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:14 pm

bring back the ~~slr~~ m14

tonight: tanknet/arrse invades nsmrc

and you thought infinity war was the most ambitious crossover of the season

by **Austrasien** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 8:32 pm

Manokan Republic wrote:for their respective weights/recoil forces.

Which were chosen as a basically arbitrary point between the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm. If you cherry-pick the characteristics of 6-mm intermediate cartridges as the measurement of ideal then yes you prove they are the ideal cartridges. But then all you are saying is the degree to which something is ideal is the degree to which it resembles the 6.5-mm Grendel, therefore, the 6.5-mm Grendel is the optimal choice.

by **Triplebaconation** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 9:53 pm

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:Well 2 inches thick, but yeah 3-5 inches is possible.

One can't help but wonder about the utility of a 2" wide ammunition can.

by **Danternoust** » Wed Oct 09, 2019 10:56 pm

Austrasien wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:for their respective weights/recoil forces.

Which were chosen as a basically arbitrary point between the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm. If you cherry-pick the characteristics of 6-mm intermediate cartridges as the measurement of ideal then yes you prove they are the ideal cartridges. But then all you are saying is the degree to which something is ideal is the degree to which it resembles the 6.5-mm Grendel, therefore, the 6.5-mm Grendel is the optimal choice.

Optimally it is dependent on twist rate, desired range, desired tumbling characteristics, and velocity.

Use as long as possible 5.56mm bullets to maximize carrying capacity.

Or don't use rifles as artillery.

by **Theodosiya** » Sat Oct 12, 2019 8:57 am

When there's motorization, mechanization, armor, airborne and air assault (for infantry and establishment of armor as a branch )what could Cavalry do to be relevant? (I mean, Infantry BCT, Lynx BCT, Boxer BCT, Leopard BCT. Leopard are armor, rest are infantry. But what a Cavalry BCT would look like, then)

by **The Manticoran Empire** » Sat Oct 12, 2019 11:22 am

Theodosiya wrote:When there's motorization, mechanization, armor, airborne and air assault (for infantry and establishment of armor as a branch )what could Cavalry do to be relevant? (I mean, Infantry BCT, Lynx BCT, Boxer BCT, Leopard BCT. Leopard are armor, rest are infantry. But what a Cavalry BCT would look like, then)

Traditional cavalry roles are scouting, skirmishing, and raiding. So a Cavalry BCT would basically be a brigade sized reconnaissance unit.

by **Triplebaconation** » Sat Oct 12, 2019 5:48 pm

A cavalry BCT is just an armored or infantry unit descended from a cavalry regiment.

by **Bears Armed** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 3:33 am

Or you could use the term for those armoured units that are organised "independently", and re-assigned to supplement different formations of divisional size or larger "as needed", rather than permanently integrated into any specific combined-arms grouping.

by **Theodosiya** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:15 pm

Decided to redo TOE

Also, decided to work on Cavalry Squadron and Regiment (glorified RSTA)

Light Airborne/Light Air Assault/Light Infantry/ Light Motorized (Rides in trucks/MRAPs) Platoon & Squad TOE

A platoon have 3 of such squad and a weapon squad with...

Rounded with Platoon HQ

Motorized (Wheels), Mechanized (Tracks), Motorized/Mechanized Airborne & Air Assault Squad + Platoon TOE

A Motorized (Wheels), Mechanized (Tracks), Mechanized Airborne & Air Assault platoon have 3 of such squad, rounded by Platoon HQ and a mortar vehicle

Armored Platoon

Light Airborne/Light Air Assault/Light Infantry/ Light Motorized (Rides in trucks/MRAPs) Company

Motorized (Wheels), Mechanized (Tracks), Motorized/Mechanized Airborne & Air Assault Company

Armored Company

Light Airborne/Light Air Assault/Light Infantry/ Light Motorized (Rides in trucks/MRAPs) Battalion

Motorized (Wheels), Mechanized (Tracks), Mechanized Airborne & Air Assault Battalion

Armored Battalion & Breakthrough Armored Battalion

Light Brigade Combat Team

Medium/Main Brigade Combat Team (Mot & Mech Airborne and Air Assault exclusively use Medium, with Artillery and ADA Battalion using Light BCT format)

Heavy & Breakthrough Brigade Combat Team

WIP

by **Kazarogkai** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 2:21 pm

Bears Armed wrote:Or you could use the term for those armoured units that are organised "independently", and re-assigned to supplement different formations of divisional size or larger "as needed", rather than permanently integrated into any specific combined-arms grouping.

For a while anyways I had so that the Kaza, or Shaza as they refer to themselves, used the term for pretty much all Armoured and Motorized Divisional Units so as to distinguish them from the Infantry Divisional units who consisted of exclusively Leg Infantry. Said Cavalry Divisions are subdivided into Shock and Assault units the difference being the nature of their mission and the types of units used. In the case of Shock they consist of a mixture Leg Infantry supported by Infantry Tanks with atleast a few of the former being trained in tank desant tactics serving as sorta "Mechanized Infantry". Assault Units in contrast consisted of Cruiser Tanks supported by Motorized and Mounted Infantry.

The names sorta imply their overall role during an offensive. The Shock units served as the initial fighting force during the offensive their goal being to attack on as wide a front as possible to force the enemy to spread themselves as thin as possible creating weak points in the line. These would be followed up by the Assault units who served to exploit said weak points in the enemy line infiltrating deep behind the enemy force focusing on neutralizing rear line units(artillery namely) and gaining as much ground as possible and in general causing a full wide collapse in the enemy force who had the choice to either retreat or risk being surround. These would be followed up by regular Infantry Division units who would take up the rear relieving the now exhausted aforementioned units and holding their ground to prepare for the inevitable enemy counter attack and securing the ground mopping up what ever enemy resistance remained. In effect old German infiltration tactics from WW1 albeit with tanks. At least in theory that is how it is supposed to work.

An interesting note is the Shaza use of the Infantry/Cruiser Tank distinction. They more or less took that from the Anglos but a significant difference between them was how they applied the practice. In the case of the Anglos for all intents and purposes they went through the effort to create entirely different tanks to fit the categories. The Shaza in contrast came up with the Twin tank system where in effect they would use the same base tank but modify it only slightly for their role. The differences between the two lied in their gun and their armour/weight. Everything else was in effect the same including the 500 HP engine, Christie, suspension, radio, controls, steering, manufacturing, etc. This had the benefit of making manufacturing a lot easier, not having to use different tooling and factories, but on the field also gave a benefit allowing units from one to share parts with each other reducing logistical strain. The differences between the two tanks, known as Type A and B, are as follow:

Type A "Infantry"
- Armament, 2 Inch short barrel Howitzer, equipped mostly with HE shells
- Has a 4 man crew(Commander, Gunner, Driver, Bow Gunner)
- Weighs about 30 Short Tons with added armored skirts protecting the suspension and extra plates on the turret, engine and frontal area.
- Has handholds to allow for Tank Desant

Type B "Cruiser"
- Armament, 2 inch High Velocity Tank Gun, equipped mostly with AP Shells
- Has a 4 man crew(Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver)
- Weighs about 24 Short Tons
- No Bow Gun, No handholds

by **Manokan Republic** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:50 pm

Theodosiya wrote:When there's motorization, mechanization, armor, airborne and air assault (for infantry and establishment of armor as a branch )what could Cavalry do to be relevant? (I mean, Infantry BCT, Lynx BCT, Boxer BCT, Leopard BCT. Leopard are armor, rest are infantry. But what a Cavalry BCT would look like, then)

For the most part it does't matter since the term "cavalry" is arbitriary and most simply descend from preexisting cavalry units. It's sort of a fun flavor to add to a unit to give it a theme. However, theory behind cavalry is that they are fast and powerful, used for charges, essentially as shock troops. Usually they descend from cavalry units, which were considered "elite" units, but not special forces or anything like that, a lot like airborne units. Some units in the military of course are more prestigious than others and filled with what are considered to be the best men, leading the charge or seeing more frequent combat, often times being deployed a lot. There are very prestigious infantry units that are not special in any way, but their service has otherwise been distinguished.

So, they are units that are expected to be extra skilled or disciplined or something of the like. A cavalry unit is sort of a "shock" unit, so the idea might be that you specifically focus on speed or something. A lot of infantry units do dig in, build foxholes, set up military bases, do patrols and so on, sort of in a semi-stationary position, so having a unit designed to be on the move more frequently might better define the role of cavalry or something like it, like shock troops. They may simply fight on the front lines, a lot, rather than be a largely occupying force. You might also have some horse themed things for ceremonial uses or really use cavalry in select environments.

by **Manokan Republic** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:56 pm

Austrasien wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:for their respective weights/recoil forces.

Which were chosen as a basically arbitrary point between the 7.62x51mm and 5.56x45mm. If you cherry-pick the characteristics of 6-mm intermediate cartridges as the measurement of ideal then yes you prove they are the ideal cartridges. But then all you are saying is the degree to which something is ideal is the degree to which it resembles the 6.5-mm Grendel, therefore, the 6.5-mm Grendel is the optimal choice.

It is arbitrary only in so far that it is best for use by a human in an repeating firearm. Having similarity low recoil as a 5.56mm, with the range and barrier penetration of a 7.62mm NATO, gives you an option that replaces all the main criteria of the 7.62mm NATO in a smaller, lighter package for controllable recoil. If hunting bunnies, sure a .223 is fine, but for human size targets and fighting humans with other humans, this is ideal cartridge size for controllable power ranges that humans can control.

A 6.5mm creedmoor offers all the same features as a 7.62mm NATO while being lighter and having less recoil, and having much better accuracy and range. A 6mm SAW does penetrate barriers somewhat worse than a 7.62mm, but past 600 yards has more energy, and thus is actually better at long ranges, while only being marginally heavier and having marginally more recoil than a 5.56mm. So in effect, we arrive at a near ideal level of power and range, with good ballistics. It's only arbitrary in so far that humans prefer cartridges with those recoil levels in repeating firearms. A. 300 wing mag objectively might have better ballistics than a 6.5mm creedmoor, but it's not really controllable for the average person in a moderately sized automatic gun. And it's not even that it couldn't be done, the BAR was used a lot with a very large 18 pound gun, but it's just not practical for every soldier to do it.

by **Gallia-** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 6:58 pm

Recoil is a social construct.

by **Theodosiya** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:10 pm

Gib Pzh-2000 and M270 to Cav Squadron and 120mm automatic mortar to Cav Troop, yes or no?

by **Austrasien** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 7:30 pm

Manokan Republic wrote:If hunting bunnies, sure a .223 is fine, but for human size targets and fighting humans with other humans, this is ideal cartridge size for controllable power ranges that humans can control.

A big lie in the truest sense.

Manokan Republic wrote:A It's only arbitrary in so far that humans prefer cartridges with those recoil levels in repeating firearms.

I have a suspicion "humans" and "people whom'st've like 6-mm cartridges" have a great deal of overlap in this data set. Do you have quantified data to support this claim?

And you keep returning to critiques of the 7.62-mm NATO, which I know is standard talking points for people pushing intermediate cartridges, but its not important to anything I have said. The 7.62x51-mm NATO we know and love is an old cartridge specced for an old-style stubby bullet that has mediocre external ballistics. But I said that already if not in those precise words.

by **Gallia-** » Sun Oct 13, 2019 8:34 pm

a .223 would evaporate a bun-bun rly

.22 LR might keep it intact but even then a BB gun might be better not even joking

t. i once owned a rabbit that got bigly sick from some bad lettuce and shit all over a bathroom

he also ate the rubber buttons on my gameboy

also pretty sure a .223 is considered the "ideal" i.e. a respectable killer of whitetail deer, an animal that approximates the human size, form, and vulnerability to thoracic aneurysms

then again grandparent used .30-06 and father-parent used .308 so that might be a result of successive reductions in T over generational time periods

now i wouldnt take it again an elk or a meese but i dont think Bubba and Juan qualify as elk or meese despite wearing +100 lbs of body armor and machine gun ammo

better ask the mysterious TBN his papinion on DEER BLASTING BOOLITS tho since he has more experience in the HUNTAN' game than i do

he'd probably say "like a .30 but .223 is ok" and apparently Texans use it because not everything is bigger in Texas

by **Manokan Republic** » Mon Oct 14, 2019 2:33 pm

Austrasien wrote:
Manokan Republic wrote:If hunting bunnies, sure a .223 is fine, but for human size targets and fighting humans with other humans, this is ideal cartridge size for controllable power ranges that humans can control.

A big lie in the truest sense.

Manokan Republic wrote:A It's only arbitrary in so far that humans prefer cartridges with those recoil levels in repeating firearms.

I have a suspicion "humans" and "people whom'st've like 6-mm cartridges" have a great deal of overlap in this data set. Do you have quantified data to support this claim?

And you keep returning to critiques of the 7.62-mm NATO, which I know is standard talking points for people pushing intermediate cartridges, but its not important to anything I have said. The 7.62x51-mm NATO we know and love is an old cartridge specced for an old-style stubby bullet that has mediocre external ballistics. But I said that already if not in those precise words.

The irony is you call it a big lie without any corroborating evidence. I have done this topic to death, but yes military studies on the 6mm optimum among others have generally come up with an ideal cartridge size, recoil etc. and so on for automatic firing weapons. This is the fastest way to explain it without going in to a 6 page long essay, which I'm prone to doing, but seems unnecessary.

In Afghanistan for example, roughly half, or 50% combat engagements occurred at a range of 300-900 meters, and in many environments it's often well beyond 200 meters. [1] Under 760 m/s, a 5.56mm will fail to fragment, which is it's velocity at 150-300 meters, depending on the barrel, which is even more of a factor. Without this most of it's stopping power is gone, and it loses quite a bit of energy out to 300 meters, almost half. [[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO]2[/url]] This is according to martin fackler and anecdotal evidence by soldiers and command which was so apparent, the U.S. army added a marksmen to every squad with an M14. As a compounding factor, the 5.56mm tends to over penetrate at close range, so while there is a butterzone of ideal velocity, this is actually quite small. Accuracy in many ways can compensate for raw volume of fire, which is why the M27 IAR is being adopted over the M249 as it tends to be more accurate. [3] Too much volume of fire results in diminishing returns, which is why a super high rate of fire doesn't really matter, and so once you reach an ideal level, it's overkill to have more ammunition than that. It's always good to have more ammunition, but it's not necessarily better past a certain point. That exact point is not well defined, but again, many have put it around the 6mm "optimum". Range and accuracy are both important for suppression, as close hits scare more than random fire in every direction, and range allows you to protect your buddies from a much longer distance, or keep the enemy suppressed at a much longer range. The further they are, generally the safer you are, as it's harder to aim under stress at long range. The effect is as much psychological as it is physical, knowing it can get near you is more of a factor in suppression than a constant buzz that always seems to miss. This is why one well placed sniper can terrify an entire platoon, but the same group of people might brave machine gun. More rounds can mean a higher likelihood to hit, but so can better accuracy. The issue is more so that it's more intuitive to hit the target with a flatter trajectory and shorter time to target, especially if the target is moving, so it's easier to estimate in your own mind, rather than the mechanical accuracy of the gun. Recoil is also important in this issue; tests by the U.S. military found that soldiers with the M16 were more accurate than the M14, as they were more likely to hit the targets as there was less recoil in between each shot. So, it effects accuracy a lot, especially in lighter guns. If you could create a recoilless gun, a lot of this would be eliminated, but seeing as how that's not normally the case, the 6mm rounds are generally considered good. In my roleplay stuff, my country uses a full sized 6.5mm rifle caliber with 3500 joules, because there is a recoil compensating system. Or at least assumed to be by 2026. Yes, this assumes arbitrary human tolerance levels, largely based on military desires. Humans are the individuals that are going to use the weapons, so it ought to be designed for them, obviously.

by **Triplebaconation** » Mon Oct 14, 2019 3:57 pm

Gallia- wrote:a .223 would evaporate a bun-bun rly

.22 LR might keep it intact but even then a BB gun might be better not even joking

10 ft-lbs is sufficient for bunnies but a shotgun is best.

If deer have ever noticed a meaningful difference between rifle calibers they haven't told anyone about it.

Of course 6.5mm whatever is better than 5.56mm or 7.62mm. The popular cartridge of the month is developed by competition shooters for whom putting in a great deal of effort and money for marginal improvements is worthwhile. Some of these are then aggressively marketed to inject money into a saturated and declining industry, so Bubba in Texas will buy a 6.5mm Creedmoor that offers him no practical advantage over his old .30-06 since he'll never take a shot over 200 yards in his life.

Relatively small special forces units can afford these kind of marginal improvements, but switching wholesale from 5.56mm to 6.5mm Super Bullet is silly, since the 6.5mm is the exact same technology and is only slightly better.

Historically, military caliber changes tend to occur when there's a major technological advance, or better yet several at once. Yes, there are exceptions.

by **Theodosiya** » Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:07 pm

So...

Is it useful for RSTA unit to have their own MLRS and mortar?

by **Austrasien** » Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:26 pm

Theodosiya wrote:So...

Is it useful for RSTA unit to have their own MLRS and mortar?

No.

Theodosiya wrote:So...

Is it useful for MLRS and mortar to have their own RSTA unit?

Yes.

by **Gallia-** » Mon Oct 14, 2019 4:54 pm

the a in abct means artillery

by **Theodosiya** » Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:05 pm

I'd work on the rest. Including the RSTA. Will have MLRS and SPH.

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread Vol. 11.0

Who is online