 |
05-02-2006, 13:12
|
 |
|
|
חבר מתאריך: 19.09.05
הודעות: 1,280
|
|
|
reply to amitaikl
Hi Amitaikl,
Sorry for my very long and overdue reply but I gave what you wrote a lot of thought. First of all, I’d like to say that your analysis is well written and very comprehensive, and that I also agree with much of you wrote. Thanks for sharing it.
If you don’t mind, I would like to make some comments:
amitaikl
המלחמה הקודמת/המלחמה הנוכחית/המלחמה הבאה
בד"כ נהוג כי הצבא נערך למלחמה הבאה כאילו היא המלחמהשהיתה.
יש לציין כי לעימות הנוכחי צה"ל נכנס במוכנות יחסית גבוההוטובה.
השאלה שלמעשה נשאלת בדיון הנוכחי האם ההערכות הקיימת שלצה"ל פוגעת ברמת מוכנותו לעימות הבא.
כשהייתי בסידר תמיד התלוננו כי איננו מוכנים וערוכים כראוי.כל האימונים שעברנו היו למלחמה סטייל כיפור/ששת הימים/של"ג ואילו הבט"ש שלנו היהשונה לחלוטין (שטחים לפני ההתחמשות, לבנון).
עד כמה שיוצא לי להפגש ולדבר עם הסדירים כיום, האימוניםשלהם מוכוונים בעיקר לעימות הנוכחי. ניתן לראות זאת בצורה מאוד מוחשית במילואים.החבר'ה שרק השתחררו ומגיעים יודעים בצורה סופר-מקצועית לעלות על בית, או לסגורפינות, אבל אין להם מושג בשטח פתוח, נגמשים, חבלה ומיקוש.
I have had the same experience as you with “younger” soldiers who served in the sadir during the height of Intifada1 1988-90 and came to the reserves knowing very little about trench or conventional warfare
הטענות שהעלה ז'רגון נוגעות לגבי הציוד הניתן היוםלחיילים. האם הפלאטופ עם הכוונת האופטית הניתן היום לקלעי הסער מתאים לקרב העתידי במתארים של שטח פתוח/שטח סבוך, כאשר עיקר הטענה שלו נוגעת לטווח המדויק של נשק זה.
תיזכור היסטורי קצר:
· · למלחמת העולם הראשונה נכנסו כל הצבאות עם כלי נשק שנועדו לטווחים ארוכים ולא התאימו למלחמת החפירות שהתפתחה באירופה.
· · במלחמת העולם השניה היו רוב החיילים מצוידים עדיין ברובים המיועדים לטווח ארוך (אנפילד, M1 והמאוזר אם לציין רק כמה מהם) ולצידם כלי נשק אוטמטיים וחצי אוטומטיים לטווחים הארוכים יותר (קרבין)1 והארוכים פחות (גריז גאן, שמייסר, טומי, סטן). התפתחות זו נובעת מכך2 שבמשרד ההגנה האמריקאי בדקו את הקרבות של מלחמת העולם ה I והגיעו למסקנה כי רובם התנהלו בטווחים הקצרים והבינוניים
1.The carbine was a unique weapon that was designed as a personal defense weapon for commanders or crews instead of a pistol, a role similar to that of the modern FN PS90, and not designed as an infantry arm for medium distances.
2.I would have to say that the US and others either rejected or ignored this experience.They continued issuing soldiers long-range/800m rifles, supplemented by SMGs for short range, despite the WW1 combat experience that you mentioned, where most rifle firing was found to be at much shorter ranges. The German army, despite Hitler’s initial objections, was the first to accept this and begin to change to the medium-range assault rifle, but only towards the end of the war.
· · למלחמת קוריאה נכנסה ארה"ב עם ארסנל נק"ל שרובו במקור ממלחמת העולם ה II, כאשר לא נעשתה עדיין התפתחות משמעותית או נקיטת תפיסה ברורה לגבי כיוון הנק"ל
· · למלחמת ויאטנם נכנסה ארה"ב עם שאריות נק"ל ממלחמת קוריאה ובשלבים הראשונים של המלחמה הכניסו לשימוש את ה M14, שננטש אחרי מספר שנים לטובת ה M16. התפיסה שהתגבשה עם כניסת ה M16 לשימוש היתה כי יש לתת לכל לוחם כוח אש גדול יחסית, נשק קל משקל וקל לתפעול שנועד לטווחים הבינוניים (400-600 מ').
A study of WW1, WW2 and Korean War combat by the civilian Operations Research Office (ORO) in 1950-51 found that almost all infantry rifle fire was done at less than 300 yards and most below 100 yards. This leads to the conclusion that a rifle shooting long-range ammunition is a waste and that a Small Caliber, High Velocity SCHV bullet would be good enough for the infantry rifle, allowing a lighter rifle plus a larger ammo load for the same weight.
In a series of projects called SALVO that followed, it was claimed that it would be more effective to use a rifle that shot many bursts or salvos of SCHV bullets than a rifle that shot larger but fewer bullets like the 7.62. The 5.56 M16 was ultimately developed from the Stoner’s original 7.62 AR10 due to and as a part of these projects.
The infantry school eventually accepted these ideas but increased the original effective maximum range requirements from 300 yards to 400 yards and finally to 500 yards (460m) in 1957 in an attempt to convince the conservative senior Army officials to replace the full-power 7.62 as the caliber for rifles.
That the 7.62 M14 was adopted in 1957 represents a rejection of these conclusions by other groups in the Army, especially the Ordinance branch and senior Army officials. There were several tests and reports done with contradicting results by the rival groups. However, in Jan 1963 (more than 2 years before US ground troops are first deployed in Vietnam) the Secretary of Defense orders to stop production of the M14 and begin to issue the M16 as a temporary solution until the future SPIW weapon (which was never finished, quite similar in concept and success as the contemporary XM29 OICW program) is ready. Once Vietnam begins and the existing M14s are found to be unsuitable for jungle warfare, there is a rush to produce more M16s for the growing number of troops being sent there.
From the 5.56 X 45mm "Timeline" A Chronology of Development by Daniel Watters http://www.thegunzone.com/556dw.html :
1950 Summer-Fall: The ORO's research mandate quickly spreads out to conventional weapons, especially when the US enters the Korean 'police action' in 1950. One of the first projects for the "Infantry" division of the ORO is Project ALCLAD: the development of improved body armor. The head of the division, Norman A. Hitchman, reasons that in order to improve body armor, one has to know how wounds are created and where they are received. A mathematical analysis of three million casualty reports from both World Wars are entered into the ORO's computers, along with on-the-spot analysis from ORO staffers in Korea.
1952 June: The ORO publishes Hitchman's report: "Operational Requirements for an Infantry Hand Weapon." Hitchman finds that the majority of combat rifle use does not exceed 300 yards, and that marksmanship is severely degraded by terrain and visibility at ranges beyond 100 yards. In fact, the chance of being struck by a rifle bullet is seen as being nearly as random as being struck by a fragment from a high explosive shell. The time and amount of target exposure had more bearing on whether a target was hit versus marksmanship skills. Given such, an infantry weapon designed to provide controllable "pattern-dispersion" within a 300 yd range might be preferable to a weapon that provides precise single shots at longer distances. Furthermore, at the shorter ranges, a smaller caliber weapon might give acceptable "wounding effects" and allow for controllable "salvo or volley automatic" fire.
1963 January: In a report to the OSD, Secretary Vance recommends the following: 1) Procure enough rifles converted to the M14(USAIB) standard for issue as automatic rifles to all infantry squads; 2) Procure 50,000-100,00 AR-15 for issue to Air Assault, Airborne, and Special Forces units; 3) Production of standard M14 rifles is to be reduced; and 4) The SPIW program will be scheduled to provide a "follow-on" replacement for the M14 by the end of Fiscal Year 1965. In response, McNamara announces the cancellation of M14 production, with existing contracts to end by the Fall of 1963. A "one-time" purchase of 85,000 AR-15 rifles for the Army is proposed. It is intended as a stopgap measure until the SPIW is ready for fielding.
מה קרה אצלנו?
· · מלחמת השחרור – ערב רב של כלי נשק, מכל הבא ליד. אין דוקטרינה אחרת מלבד "רק שיהיה וכמה שיותר"
· · מבצע קדש – עוזי יחד עם רובים צ'כים ושאריות משאריות שונות
· · ששת הימים – עוזי, FN, צ'כים. ניסיון ליצור תערובת בין טווח (FN, צ'כי) לכוח אש (עוזי). בין יכולת שטח פתוח (FN) ליכולת לש"ב (עוזי)
· · יום כיפור – עוזי, FN, ועוד תערובת של כלים מהמחסנים.
· · של"ג – גליל (בעיקר) וכן M16. התמקדות בעיקר בטווחים הבינוניים – ארוכים כחלק מלקחי ששת הימים ויום כיפור.
What do you mean by medium-long range? 300-500m? I think that the range that were considered effective for using either weapons were 0-300m, although they could still provide suppressive fire up to 500m (yes, I remember one company or battalion exercise were we actually did open the bipods and succeed in popping the green balloons at that range-although it did take more than one bullet)
· · אינתיפדה ראשונה – גלילים וM16.הגליל מתגלה ככבד מדי וארוך מדי למרדפים אחרי ילדים יחפים בסמטאות עזה וחברון
I think that the issue was more about looking for a more accurate platform -although I personally do not consider the Galil to be inaccurate- because I remember that even before Intifada1 broke out there was an attempt to add M16s with an Eyal or miniscope to the platoon as designated marksmen. Long M16s were longer than the Galil that they replaced in the early 90s and the Glilon was shorter than the short M16, especially with the stock folded.
I think that the switch from the M16 to the Galil represented a shift on emphasis from reliability and high quantity of fire (67, 73, 82 wars) to accuracy, and later on a desire for the M16s easier interface for optics and accessories for low-intensity conflicts like the Intifada/Lebanon security zone
And let’s not forget that a Galil costs $1500 to the IDF while the M16 costs the US Army about $600 and the IDF nothing!
· · שנות השחיקה בלבנון – מעבר הדרגתי של מערך השדה (חי"ר + הנדסה) למשפחת ה M16 ונטישת הגליל. כל נושא קלעי הסער הולך ומשתדרג. החל מהאייל עבור דרך הטריג'יקון והאמצעים לראיית לילה. נושא קלעות היחיד שקיבל דגש רב במהלך כל שנותיו של צה"ל (מי אמר שבוע קליעה א'/ב'/ג'?) המתבסס על הכשרת כל לוחם כקלע לטווחים הארוכים ועל גרף עליה איטי אך קבוע ויציב לכל משך שירותו כלוחם (אם מקפידים כמובן על מטווחים סדירים) הולך וננטש לטובת כוונות ההשלכה לסוגיהן (החל מהאלביטים הראשונים. ומי שלא ירה בגליל עם אלביט הפסיד...פרק יד שמאל כואב ודואב) אשר מאפשרות גרף עליה ושיפור מהיר מאוד עד הגעה לנקודה מסוימת ואז הוא מתיישר (הכוונה כמובן לגרף המצוינות בקליעה). ההקצאות הניתנות ליחידות החי"ר מבחינת האמצעים המדויקים הולכת וגדלה עד למצב שבו בין 30% ל 50% מהכוח היוצא לפעילות מצויד בכוונות אופטיות ליום וללילה. כל נושא קליעת הלילה הולך ומשתדרג תוך מספר שנים קצר (בטירונות היה לנו SLS ו – וארו, אח"כ שפנפן, מיניסקופ ולקראת הסוף היו שמועות על משהו שנקרא אקילה, וכל זה תוך 3 שנים בלבד)
· · אינתיפדת אל אקצה - מרבית כלי הנשק ביחידות החי"ר הינן כלי נשק קצרים, מתוך רצון להקל על הלוחם ולהפוך אותו לנייד יותר ומסורבל פחות. הפתרון לקיצור אורך הנשק היתה בהכנסת כלים עם קנה מעובה ותחמושת ירוקה לטווחים ארוכים יותר יחד עם כוונות אופטיות מסוגים שונים.
The green-tip M855 ammo has superior metal penetrating capabilities than the original M193 at longer ranges, and less drop past 400m but is not more accurate (bullet group dispersion is still just as wide). As I’m sure you already knew, it was developed so that the 5.56 Minimi machine gun could still penetrate steel helmets at long range. The barrel only requires a 1/9” twist (1/7” is because of the longer M856 tracer bullet) to shoot it –it does not need to be thicker. The barrel end was made thicker in the M16A2 and later M4 in a misguided attempt to make it less prone to bending when abused.
I think that the older M193 is actually better ammunition for the short barrel weapons since it is faster and thus has a longer range for dependable fragmentation that makes it more lethal.
מה יהיה במלחמה הבאה?
כל ה"מומחים" (בעיני כולם ו/או בעיני עצמם) מדברים על כך שהעימות הבא יהיה גם הוא במתאר עירוני בו החשיבות הינה בעיקר לכוח אש מדויק לטווח הקצר, כאשר כוח אש מדויק לטווח הארוך ניתן ע"י כלים מקובעים הנמצאים רחוק יותר ממקום האירוע ומטרתם בידוד הזירה מהתערבות חיצונית ומתן אש מסייעת מדויקת לטובת הכוח הנלחם במקרה הצורך.
You are probably right... but those still sound like some Famous Last Words
המתאר עליו מדבר ז'רגון הינו מתאר של לחימה ברמת הגולן/דרום לבנון/סיני. האם יש צורך בקלע סער (אני מדגיש זאת, כיון שעל נקודה זו מדבר ז'רגון. לא על צלפים) לטווחים ארוכים במתאר לחימה מעין זה?
לדעתי לא. הטווחים הקצרים מכוסים ע"י כל לוחמי הכוח. הטווחים שעד 500 מ' מכוסים ע"י קלעי הסער עם הנשקים הקצרים והכוונות האופטיות. לטווחים שמעל 500 מ' קיים נשק הצלפים (M24 או בארט). לדעתי הנשקים הקיימים מספקים.
My main disagreement with you here (and probably my only useful argument in this entire thread) is that in batash, and even in a full war, you don’t always have the M24 or other specialty weapons available, in position, or in time. The DM however is in almost every small unit. Reaching your 500m maximum range for the DM is easier with a long-barreled weapon, and if you already have the weapon, why not easily extend it to 600? A short-barreled DM with a maximum effective range of only 300m is a waste.
I recently read in OfferD’s book on Yom Kippur how after abandoning their destroyed APC, they encountered group of soldiers from a long distance and he wished then that he had the long FAL to engage them instead of the compact Uzi. Luckily it turned out that the soldiers were not enemy.
הערת שוליים חשובה: כל שנכתב כאן מתבסס על ניתוח שלי. ייתכן כי טעיתי בפירוש המגמות בהתפתחות כלי הנשק וייתכן כי לקחתי עובדות ו"הלבשתי" עליהן את התיאוריות שלי.
ותוספת נוספת: למעשה מאז פיתוח כלי הנשק האוטומטיים והתחמושת האחודה לא נעשתה התפתחות משמעותית בכלי הנשק הכלים של לוחם החי"ר. נכון, הם נעשו קלים יותר, מהירי ירי יותר, מדויקים יותר. אך טרם נעשתה "הקפיצה הגדולה" בתחום זה כפי שקרה בתחומי הארטילריה, השריון והתעופה
I agree with you here. Actually I am sure that in 300m combat (not range practice), a unit of equally trained soldiers armed with Galils, long M16s, M4s, AKs, Tavors or XM8s will do equally.
In summary I will admit have that your opinions seem to be the consensus of most people today about the requirements of an infantry soldier’s rifle.
I however will remain stuck in my conservative outlook that I’d rather have the extra range capability and not use it than need it and not have it.
I feel the same about hand grenades also
Here is a link to an interesting (but long) discussion which mostly supports your position
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=3&f=118&t=266349&page=1
I wrote this when I had a little time on my hands. For those of you that don't know me, I am a civilianshooter who has a little time around these guns. I added the Copyright notice primarily because I don't want to see some butchered form of this floating around with someone else’s name on it. IM me if you have any corrections, additions, etc.
Why Short Barrels Make Sense
Advances in weapons technology are bringing about a paradigm shift in the employment of long arms for Close Quarters Battle. In the last 5 years, the popularity of subcarbines has grown exponentially. The MP5 has been all but replaced by M4 Commandos and Naval Special Warfare’s CQB-R. These small rifles offer greater power at short distance than a 9x19 submachine gun, as well as parts commonality and a familiar manual of arms with the larger M4 and M16A4. They are only slightly longer than a submachine gun, but offer up to six times the effective range. There are, of course, a few disadvantages, such as functioning problems, muzzle blast and terminal effectiveness. These problem have all been addressed, and today carbines are often quieter, more reliable, and just as terminally effective as their longer cousins. As time goes by, technological advancements will continue to increase the popularity of the subcarbine, a term that is used to denote rifles of intermediate caliber that use very short barrels.
The advantages of the subcarbine are numerous. Indoors, they are easier to maneuver with. They do not “flag,” or give away an operators presence at a doorway or corner. Also, they offer quicker handling. They can be held at low ready where longer rifles must be brought to indoor ready. When firing from the window of a passenger automobile, HMMVW or armored vehicle, they can be brought to bear more quickly, and stored more easily. They also offer increased lethality and a greater effective range than a 9MM submachine gun.
The short barreled M16 is not a new development. The first was the XM177, first used during the Vietnam War. This peculiar carbine, one of the first of its type, featured a very short barrel, only 10 inches long. It had A1 or “field” sights, and a two position collapsible stock, which was in later years developed into the multi position collapsible stocks that we use today. To counter the obnoxious muzzle blast of this short barrel a small suppressor, called a moderator, was added to the end. This brought the effective length of the barrel out to about 15 inches. Many years after the original XM177 was introduced, we now have the M4 Commando from Colt the Heckler and Koch 416, the Noveske CQB, and a new 10.3 inch rifle made in house for the US Military. All of these carbines feature A4 uppers with MIL-STD 1913 rails and 5 position stocks. The 10.3 is built for Naval Special Warfare by the technicians at Crane, and called the CQB-R, or Mk 18. It is built by modifying existing M4 carbines.
The 10 inch barrel has developed a reputation for unreliability among civilian shooters, one which is undeserved. While Colt manufactured uppers have a reputation for reliability, some Tier 4 manufacturers use the wrong gas port diameter, causing severe unreliability. This has been solved in the past by opening the gas port, or in some cases adding a suppressor of Krinkov flash hider, addressed below. The new generation of subcarbines, such as those manufactured by Colt or Lewis Machine and Tool, as well as those M4’s modified by Crane, are generally quite reliable. They do sometimes require an O-ring to increase extractor tension, and a heavier buffer, such as the H or H2 buffer.
Furthermore, Leitner Wise and Heckler and Koch have both introduced M4’s that use a short stroke piston instead of direct gas impingement, reducing fouling and smoothing the cycling of SBR’s. Furthermore, both systems have been linked to an increase in velocity. In the case of the HK 416, there are reports of 10.5 barrels equaling the velocity of the M4.
One of the two primary issues that have forestalled the general acceptance of the short barreled M16 is the excessive muzzle blast caused by the use of a submachine gun length barrel with a rifle pressure round. The introduction of electronic hearing protection from Wolf, Peltor and Sordin has allowed the use of these weapons in the environment which most suits them, indoors and in vehicles. Furthermore, suppressors such as Gemtech’s M4-02 and Surefire’s innovative new suppressor create a package only slightly longer than an M4 Carbine, and much quieter, while adding 40-50 feet per second due to a phenomenon called freebore boost.
The most innovative solution to the p[roblem of excessive muzzle blast is known as the Krink brake, or KX3, available from John Noveske of JN Rifleworks. This device was designed to mitigate the concussion of the 5.45x39 Krinkov, but works well on short M4’s as well. The Krink redirects gas forward, making cycling more reliable and redirecting muzzle blast away from the shooter. It does not reduce noise; it simply forces it away from the shooters ears, something that operators on teams can truly appreciate. The tradeoff is an overall length that is roughly 1.25 inches longer than a similar barrel equipped with an A2 flash suppressor, and about 6 ounces more weight.
The second issue which has traditionally made the Commando unpopular is the 5.56 rounds dependence on velocity for lethality. Tests on calibrated ballistic gelatin by Doctors Gary Roberts and Martin Fackler have indicated that general military issue 5.56 caliber bullets do not properly fragment below an impact velocity of 2700 feet per second, although they do exhibit partial fragmentation at velocities as low as 2500 feet per second. The tissue damage caused by bullet fragments in the body is what causes exsanguination, or blood loss, the primary wounding mechanism of the 5.56. While other tests have come to conclusions that are more favorable for short barreled 5.56 rifles, they have not been published and are not available for review.
The solution to this dilemma rests in ammunition that has only become available in the last few years. MK 262 Mod 1 ammunition and the Hornady 75 grain TAP offer reliable fragmentation to a full 40 yards from a 10.5 inch barrel. In comparison, the M4 Carbine with M855 fragments to approximately 65 yards. Both of these numbers use conservative fragmentation threshold velocities. Also in the works is a 62 grain rounds that functions in a similar fashion as the Russian 5.45x39. Upon striking flesh, base of the bullet passes the hollow tip (not to be confused with Open Tip Match, or OTM). This causes the bullet to yaw and tumble, increasing the amount of tissue that the bullet comes into direct contact with, greatly increasing damage at extended ranges and from short barreled rifles.
Overall, the advantages offered by sub-carbines outweigh the disadvantages, when they are used within certain parameters. They serve a very valid purpose for shooters operating in close quarters or around vehicles, as well as civilian shooters whose effective range is limited by the legal necessity to show the need to use force. As technology continues to improve, expect to see more sub-carbines in the hands of more shooters.
© 2006 Seth Borman
To finish off this long post, I’ll reward those who had the patience to read down to the end with some of what the Americans like to call “gun-porn” or “eye-candy” : some nice DMrifle models to consider
GDMR rifle using 6.5x39 Grendel ammunition
LW rifle using 6.8x43 SPC ammo. This has a piston drive instead of the regular M16 direct
gas impingement for better reliability
A 7.62x51 AR-10T rifle that was used in Iraq
The 7.62x51 M110, the latest version of the SR25/Mk11
But I guess that I will most likely be sticking to this local subaru model
Note, those are not Shayetet-13 sandals
נערך לאחרונה ע"י zragon13 בתאריך 05-02-2006 בשעה 13:20.
|
|
ראשי
צ'אט
ארץ ישראל לעם ישראל - הציונות תנצח! 
מצב כלאיים
