For the weapons experts; would the 5.56/.223 round have been an effective round in WWII ? I remember how Army dragged their feet,accepting the round in the '60s.
Yes, a good round, and usually accurate. The main problem with this, as you may have heard, is it's small size. A bullet like this makes a small hole, and often times many shots were needed to stop an enemy with, say an m-16, as shown in combat. While muzzle velocity may be high, the actual energy of the round is less than say an AK-47's 7.62. This means that the Kalashnikov can shoot better through thin walls than something that uses the 5.56. Nevertheless, the 5.56 is a good round, and would have been superior to many rounds in use in WWII, especially the .45 in the thompson, which lacked serious penetrating power.
Not wishing to sidetrack the thread so soon, but the Thompson wasn't designed for penetration, but for stopping power at close range, which by all accounts it had plenty of. As for 5.56mm, whether it would be effective then depends, I think, on whether you think it is effective now. I'm not going to get into the ballistics of the cartridge, that's an ugly argument without end. However, I might suggest that a low-recoiling round like 5.56 would enable troops, especially poorly trained conscript infantry, to obtain a higher standard of marksmanship than a higher-recoiling round like .303, .30-06, 7.92 or 7.62.
Yes indeed - for a graphic description of the .45s close-range effect, see Donald Burgett's 'Currahee'. As a contrast, consider the criticism levelled at the .30 cal M1 carbine round. Lethally accurate in highly-trained hands - but there weren't many of those ! The low-recoil, increased accuracy factor was one of the reasons behind the development of the 7.92 kurz round. ( Where's Tony Williams when we need him ? )
No worries, Greenjacket...did'nt want a ballistics argument either. I had read something when the 5.56 was introduced,that even if the round did'nt kill,it'll still take 2 guys to take the wounded guy to the rear. Which meant 3 less guys on the front. Was'nt the Thompson just .45 ACP? aka Colt .45 pistol round. Excellent pistol round,IMO, but looses alot of energy beyond 75-100yds.
Here! Any of the postwar assault rifles firing intermediate power cartridges would have been effective in WW2 as they would have given the troops a weapon which could reach out to normal rifle range (300m) while at the same time being capable of automatic fire for close-range work. If I had to choose one service rifle to equip an army with in WW2 it would be the AK-47 as this is more rugged and soldier-proof than the M16. The 7.62x39 also seems to be a more reliable stopper than the 5.56x45, although we could have a very long and inconclusive debate about this.... Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Whom do you expect to hit at 75-100 yds with a pistol? I can think of Michael Moore or Luciano Pavarotti, no?
The real arguement is in the realm of military logistics on this subject. To a military organization as a whole the relative efficency of the round is really secondary to the logistics involved in supplying it. For instance, the British Ordnance Board used an empirical formula to determine equivalent stopping power and then applied this to the weight of ammunition to determine the rounds a soldier could carry. The formula was fd^2mv^1.2. Where f is a design factor for the bullet, d the bullet diameter in inches, m the weigh in pounds and v the striking velocity in feet per second. For example: The 9mm Sten required 225 rounds in 7 magazines weighing 10.4 pounds to give equivalent stopping power to 150 rounds of .45 in 5 magazines weighing 11.4 pounds in a Thompson. Or, 2 magazines with 14 rounds weighing 1.4 pounds for a .45 had roughly the equivalent of 2 magazines with 30 rounds weighing 1.1 pounds in a 9mm pistol. The question is which is more valuable? More rounds with potentially less stopping power or bigger more effective rounds in smaller quantity? Militaries have almost always sided with more rounds over more stopping power.
Probably because they also realise that scoring a hit is such a random event that the more shots you fire, the better the chance you get. Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion forum
Whom do you expect to hit at 75-100 yds with a pistol? I can think of Michael Moore or Luciano Pavarotti, no? </font>[/QUOTE]I don't know, Za. Stand down range 100yds or so, and holler back to me if you felt that .357mag round go threw. Don't worry,it's just a pistol round.
Re the 5.56 stopping power. I was once in a helicopter transporting a VC prisoner who had been shot in the lower leg by a trooper with a M-16. His lower leg was pretty much jelly. The 5.56 had a nasty habit of key-holing when it hit heavy muscle or bone. As to penetrating power, one of our ambush positions shot a guy on a motor bike as he was fleeing the position. He was leaning forward on his bike. The bullet went in one buttock and exited through the top of his shoulder. In between, it jellized several organs. He was definitely stopped.
