Would the Army fight it's own people?

jimgoose · 29-11-2014 05:52PM

Dean0088 wrote: »

I know the British switched because bullets kept going through brick walls and killing people in their houses in NI.

The 5.56mm flares out and tears up flesh pretty well - but it has less power and is less likely thump through a wall.

NATO found that most engagements occurred at 200 meters maximum, so the need for distance the larger rounds provided wasn't there any more (for infantry).

It backfired in Vietnam when they switched to the M16 - US troops found that their bullets had a hard time going through trees, bricks and other such cover. Where as the NVA and VK had AK47s; a bullet from which zips right through most walls, trees and just about anything. This led to US troops picking up AK47s to fight with. The US suppressed press reports of this because it didn't look too great for a US soldier during the cold war to fight communists with a Russian, communist assault rifle.

I'll buy that, up to a point. During WWII the Germans figured out that most actual combat happens at sub-300m range and so introduced the machine-pistol a.k.a. submachine-gun. Hence the ubiquity of 9mm Parabellum-derived rounds fired by most Uzis, for example. In Vietnam, early M16 models often jammed - the reasons for this are to do with manufacturing issues as well as the G.I. habit of chucking many weapon parts into a helmet full of Bourbon to clean them, and hence part-swappage at reassembly - so picking up Charlie's AK did happen, but not always due to the parlour-trick of shooting through trees.

jimgoose · 29-11-2014 05:59PM

Aliyah Substantial Headphone wrote: »

No need to imagine (there's been a lot of it in this thread already).

In short if the army is called upon to go to the aid of the civil powers, or civil authorities then generally (always) soldiers will do what they're told to do.

If a member of the public tries to violate any installation our defence forces are protecting you can expect to be shot at. Its that simple.

Someone mentioned storming Leinster House, its protected by a military police garrison who are armed 24/7. Try it if you don't believe me.

Someone else mentioned the DF not having bullets in their weapons on UN peace keeping duties ~ one of the stupidest things posted in this thread.

And someone said on the ranges (firing range) there's an armed sentry behind the firing point ready to shot if someone goes mad ~ THE stupidest thing posted here.. Stop listening to the voices.

Oh yes, we're all "trained killers" ~ no, that's the preserve of the cooks & some of our medics :P

I'll fight ya, ya sh1te-in-a-bucket junkie's bastard ya. Be no State bate me, bass!

cerastes · 07-12-2014 06:00AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The reason they moved to the 5.56mm was that it was a good balance between performance and weight. A soldier with a battle load of 210 5.56mm rounds was going to hit more enemies than with 140 7.62mm rounds. In addition to more rounds per pound of weight he had to carry, the lighter recoil helped him to aim. 5.56mm was still large enough to be effective on the battlefield though, no point in going to .22 or anything!

I think the poster you replied to was accurate too, one injured guy takes a few to aid/carry him away and supposedly may help demoralises other uninjured soldiers nearby, so it uses up more enemy resources and allows you to carry more ammunition, which is more manageable to use/shoot under most circumstances for most soldiers.

jimgoose wrote: »

I'll buy that, up to a point. During WWII the Germans figured out that most actual combat happens at sub-300m range and so introduced the machine-pistol a.k.a. submachine-gun. Hence the ubiquity of 9mm Parabellum-derived rounds fired by most Uzis, for example. In Vietnam, early M16 models often jammed - the reasons for this are to do with manufacturing issues as well as the G.I. habit of chucking many weapon parts into a helmet full of Bourbon to clean them, and hence part-swappage at reassembly - so picking up Charlie's AK did happen, but not always due to the parlour-trick of shooting through trees.

wrong, the 9mm or other machine pistol rounds were introduced well before that (prior to WW1 I believe) and would be useless at the ranges you are comparing to. The era if it can be called it of the sub machine gun (machine pistol) utilising pistol ammunition was the end of WW1 to the end of the Korean war or thereabouts, although militaries (and police forces) have used sub machine guns after this time, really battle rifles and assault rifles were the preferred weapons for general issue in military use.
The Germans did determine that combat at the time didnt take place at long ranges generally and that their 7.92 was over powered certainly for rapid fire engagements in what was introduced the 7.92 kurz in the MP43 and used in the Stg44, which in essence led to assault rifles not sub machine guns, weapons that can fire out to 300 metres.

Manic Moran · 07-12-2014 10:13AM

cerastes wrote: »

I think the poster you replied to was accurate too, one injured guy takes a few to aid/carry him away and supposedly may help demoralises other uninjured soldiers nearby, so it uses up more enemy resources and allows you to carry more ammunition, which is more manageable to use/shoot under most circumstances for most soldiers.

The effect is considered beneficial, but the rationale behind the decision is as I specified.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 07-12-2014 11:01AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The effect is considered beneficial, but the rationale behind the decision is as I specified.

I think I'd rather kill someone tbh.

Didn't the SAS criticize the M16's lack of stopping power during the '82 Falklands war, preferring the heavier 7.62 round from the FN FAL?.

cerastes · 07-12-2014 11:09AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

The effect is considered beneficial, but the rationale behind the decision is as I specified.

If you have something clear cut that shows this Id be interested to read it, Im not saying you're wrong, just that Ive read both effectively as opinions as I cant locate the sources this many years later. I thought the rationale was always a mix of all, due to what I read initially about the reasons and effects for having a lighter round doing tissue damage, from what I read, potentially horrifically but not necessarily initially lethal and the ability to carry more ammunition, strange now that the intermediate design isnt intermediate and really it may eventually evolve close to the .280 the British came up with at the start of the 50's, ie the 7.62 and 8mm's were too big and the 5.56 were too light/small.

Jawgap · 07-12-2014 11:10AM

Aliyah Substantial Headphone wrote: »

I think I'd rather kill someone tbh.

Didn't the SAS criticize the M16's lack of stopping power during the '82 Falklands war, preferring the heavier 7.62 round from the FN FAL?.

The distance is a factor (obviously enough) - over about 350m the 5.56mm loses a lot of energy and hence a lot of stopping power.

And it's illegal for armies to use weapons specifically designed to maim or wound, or cause 'inhumane' deaths!!! Police, however, can pretty much do what they want.

Red Nissan · 07-12-2014 11:24AM

FionnK86 wrote: »

In the situation this occurred, do you believe that Irish troops would fire on its own citizens? .

The armed forces of Ireland have been preparing to suppress rebellion for over twenty years already.

However, if one hundred people turned up the army would have no hesitation at all in obeying orders, whatever those orders would be or would have been.

If 100,000 people turned up for a demonstration, the forces would have joined them and gone or go with the wishes of the people.

IN a nutshell, you show up with a few buddies and you're nicked or shot as orders dictate, you show up with a million and they throw those orders away.

Would the Army fight it's own people?

Comments