15-11-2006, 20:53
|
|
|
|
חבר מתאריך: 08.11.06
הודעות: 219
|
|
|
משהו מעניין שמצאתי בלינק מהאתר הזה
7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO
Really Need Two Standard Rifle Calibers
CSC 1986
SUBJECT AREA General
TITLE: 7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO Really Need Two
Standard Rifle Calibers?
I. Purpose: To reestablish the 7.62mm NATO cartridge as the
optimum rifle caliber ammunition for the U. S. and NATO.
II. Problem: NATO recently adopted the 5.56mm as its second
standard rifle caliber cartridge. As a result, the existing NATO
standard, the 7.62mm, has been relegated to a secondary
supporting role within NATO's armed forces. Although the
selection of the 5.56mm was based on extensive testing, research,
and documented battle performance, this intermediate power round
is not the optimum ammunition and caliber for U. S. and NATO
forces in the contemplated battlefields of the future.
III. Discussion: Proponents of the intermediate power 5.56mm
have continuously compared their smaller cartridge to the large
full power 7.62mm. The results of these comparisons purportedly
show the superiority of the smaller ammunition in the areas of
penetration, lethality, weapon portability, and fire power.
Careful examinaton of these tests and the touted advantages of
the 5.56mm, however, shows that the 7.62mm is still potentially
superior to the smaller round. For example, in the NATO tests,
researchers have compared a modern, semi-armor piercing round of
ammunition (5.56mm) against a standard ball cartidge
(7.62mm) that has not been improved since its adoption in 1953.
An improved 7.62mm NATO, using the same technology as the
5.56mm, would definitely out-perform the smaller cartridge. With
respect to portability, second generation 7.62mm rifles are
smaller, more compact, and very comparable to certain 5.56mm
weapons. Concerning fire power, any full automatic fire with
light assault rifles, even with the low-recoil 5.56mm, is not
effective and only results in a waste of ammunition. In
addition, new tecnological developments in body armor may soon
defeat the penetration capability of the small 5.56mm. New
developments in optical sighting equipment will soon increase
battlefield engagement ranges and thereby exceed the long range
accuracy capability of the smaller 5.56mm. The large case and
projectile of the 7.62mm, however, are more than sufficient to
accept significant improvements in penetration, lethality, and
long range performance. This will allow the 7.62mm to remain
effective on futrure battlefields.
IV. Conclusion: The 5.56mm will, at best, only be an interim
NATO standard. Due to its small size, further improvements of
the 5.56mm will be insufficient to keep up with the changing
requirements of future battlefields. Overall, the older 7.62mm
NATO is a better standard cartridge since it has the capacity and
the flexibility to be significantly improved and thereby remain
effective.
V. Recommendations: The 7.62mm NATO cartridge should be
developed with current technology to improve its penetration,
lethality, and overall-performance. Modern weapons systems
should be further developed to utilize the 7.62mm. No, NATO does
not need two standard rifle calibers.
Major Vern T. Miyagi Conference Group 6
RESEARCH PAPER
Title
7.62mm Versus 5.56mm - Does NATO Really Need Two Standard Rifle
Calibers?
Thesis Statement
Although the selection of the 5.56 x 45mm cartridge was
based on extensive testing, research, and documented battle
performance, this intermediate power round is not the optimum
ammunition and caliber for U. S. and NATO forces in the
contemplated battlefields of the future.
I. Significance of the Controversy
A. Thesis statement
B. Method of analysis
II. Evolution of the Intermediate Power Cartridge Concept
A. Germany
B. Soviet Union
C. United States
III. Development of the Two Standard NATO Cartidges
A. 7.62 x 51mm NATO
B. 5.56 x 45mm NATO
C. NATO trials
D. Concepts of employment - NATO
IV. Comparison of the 7.62mm With the 5.56mm
A. Physical characteristics and ballistics
B. Penetration
C. Portability and weight
D. Firepower
V. Analysis
A. Problems with the NATO comparisons and tests
B. Factors not considered in the NATO tests
C. Effects of technological advances in optical sights and
body armor on the initial imtermediate power concepts
D. Potential for improvement and development - 5.56mm v.
7.62mm
E. Lethality of improved round is reduced
F. Potenial ineffectiveness on NATO scenario battlefields
7.62 mm Versus 5.56 mm - Does NATO Really Need Two Standard Rifle
Calibers?
וזה ממשיך וממשיך וממשיך |
ראשי
צ'אט
מצב כלאיים
