Close Combat Series :: View topic - Effectiveness of fire in combat?

through

[^/[Print]\]

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

#1: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 4:44 pm
—
Does anyone know any stats beyond the ones about thousands of rounds being used per kill?
I've seen only this:

Quote:

In August 1989 the Army and the Air Force began testing the first of four prototypes of rifles to assess whether improvements in rifle design and technology warranted replacing the M16A2 rifle. The Army wanted a rifle that would significantly improve the average soldier's ability to hit the target under battlefield conditions, or at least to double the number of hits per trigger pull. With the M16A2 the probability of a battlefield hit is 20 percent at 100 meters, 10 percent at 300 meters, and 5 percent at 600 meters.

#2: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: MajorFrank,

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:03 pm
—
Well the M-16 uses the 5,56 round which is supposed to be more accurate then, for example, the 7,62 (AK) round in longer distances. The 7,62 does more damage when it hits. I don't think I buy that "5% chance of hit from 600 meters". Well, if it's a really big target, maybe.

#3: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 5:28 pm
—

MajorFrank wrote (View Post):

Well the M-16 uses the 5,56 round which is supposed to be more accurate then, for example, the 7,62 (AK) round in longer distances. The 7,62 does more damage when it hits. I don't think I buy that "5% chance of hit from 600 meters". Well, if it's a really big target, maybe.

AFAIK it's possible to regularly hit on that range on shooting range. On battlefield occasions to fire 20 shots/bursts to get that one hit at a target 600 meters away are pretty rare.

#4: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: 0202243,

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 8:11 pm
—

MajorFrank wrote (View Post):

i thought the 5.56 did more damage because of the ricochet inside the body. It only has less penetration power than a 7.62, which went mostly straight through the target.

#5: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: MajorFrank,

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2011 10:00 pm
—

0202243 wrote (View Post):

MajorFrank wrote (View Post):

i thought the 5.56 did more damage because of the ricochet inside the body. It only has less penetration power than a 7.62, which went mostly straight through the target.

Yea well people are free to think what they want. Wanna convince me? Show me the impartial studies. The net is full of debates about this issue.

Actually I'm not 100% sure that 5,56 has a longer range then the 7,62, it might actually be the other way around.

#6: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 5:23 am
—
Both the M16 and AK47 are assault carbine SLR's. Carbine denotes length of barrel = short. For ease of handling/weight.
Both are accurate at 100 yards (Killing zone grouping).
M16 with battlescope, 5% at 600 yards in a static sandbagged position is feasible.
AK47 over iron sights at 600 yards....(i will have a beer on that one)
The preferred rifle option for sniper/target shooter for last 90 years has been around the .308 calibre.
Both weapons perform as they are intended, 0 to 300 yards very well.
Burst firing accurately, is best left to mg's with lock down device's and recoil potential to avoid barrel slap.
Accuracy for a rifle is best described like this, delivery system 10%, barrel length/rifling 40%, projectile/charge 40%, sighting 10%.
The argument over the most destructive calibre rages. A high speed light bullet at short range will cause more static shock. (think of droping a stone in to a pond, then thow it down as hard as you can, the bigger splash? well we are mostly water, thats static shock).
The larger round is more accurate over distance.
Thats why the army sniper is now using .50 calibre rifles.
You dont really need to group or hit the killzone with a .50

#7: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 8:06 am
—

Quote:

Does anyone know any stats beyond the ones about thousands of rounds being used per kill?

Therion, generally, in combat soldiers don't shoot at enemies, they shoot toward enemy - thus huge amount of ammunition spent to score a hit.

Quote:

i thought the 5.56 did more damage because of the ricochet inside the body.

7.62x33 (AK47 round) ricochets off bones inside the body same well.

Quote:

Yea well people are free to think what they want. Wanna convince me? Show me the impartial studies. The net is full of debates about this issue.

From the Soviet comparison of 5,56mm "Remington" and 7,62mm M43, it appeared that effect (width of wound channel) of 5,56mm bullet, hiting target at 885m/s speed, at first 5-7,5cm is lower than effect of 7,62mm M43 bullet by around 13%, due to stability of bullet. But after bullet starts shattering and turns around, 5,56mm round is 2,2-3,5 times more effective. During further tests they figured that same effect could be achieved with lower bullet speeds and the conclusion was made that 5,6mm bullets could be same effective as 7,62mm M43 bullets, so they switched to 5,45mm (which is really 5,6mm if measured by NATO standards).

Quote:

Actually I'm not 100% sure that 5,56 has a longer range then the 7,62, it might actually be the other way around.

AKM has a range of direct shot (height of target - 0,5m) - 350m.
AK74 has a range of direct shot (height of target - 0,5m) - 440m.
M16 has a range of direct shot (height of target - 0,5m) - 426m.

#8: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 1:38 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

Does anyone know any stats beyond the ones about thousands of rounds being used per kill?

Therion, generally, in combat soldiers don't shoot at enemies, they shoot toward enemy - thus huge amount of ammunition spent to score a hit.

I've read accounts of US soldiers regularly shooting at enemies in Black Hawk Down and in Ambush Alley. It was in a close range combat, though.

#9: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 2:12 pm
—

Quote:

I've read accounts of US soldiers regularly shooting at enemies in Black Hawk Down and in Ambush Alley. It was in a close range combat, though.

of cause they did, or at least they thought they did, but did they hit with each burst even at 100m?
but if we take, say, snipers, they do shoot at enemies and score hits.

#10: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 3:57 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

I've read accounts of US soldiers regularly shooting at enemies in Black Hawk Down and in Ambush Alley. It was in a close range combat, though.

of cause they did, or at least they thought they did, but did they hit with each burst even at 100m?
but if we take, say, snipers, they do shoot at enemies and score hits.

It was about 1-10 shots/bursts to hit. It would be pretty close to the stats that I posted in the first post, at least under 100m.

I made this topic because in Armored Brigade, there's conspicuously low accuracy on low range. I made these posts on AB forum and I'm looking for more data.

http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1157#p1157

http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1162#p1162

http://www.armoredbrigade.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1325#p1325

#11: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Dima,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 7:17 pm
—

Quote:

I made this topic because in Armored Brigade, there's conspicuously low accuracy on low range. I made these posts on AB forum and I'm looking for more data.

first of all, thanx for sharing the game - looks good.
yea, at both 50m and 19m without cover it looks kinda weird Smile

.

but don't believe that single 40mm round would destroy gun pit made in sand bags Wink

#12: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Aug 25, 2011 10:35 pm
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

yea, at both 50m and 19m without cover it looks kinda weird Smile

Yeah. Too bad I can't convince the dev to do something about it. He says that people were criticising earlier versions of the game for too high casualties.

Dima wrote (View Post):

but don't believe that single 40mm round would destroy gun pit made in sand bags Wink

IIRC it ignited ammo stored there or something like that. Also, that gun pit was in a building and they hit a bit under it.

#13: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:35 pm
—
To appreciate a burst fire with a shoulder mounted rifle. Get a friend with a basket ball to run 100 yards/metres (about the length of a football field) away and hold it above his head while you have a look at it over open sights. (that's your kill zone)
Then get him to run back 5 times that distance. Back 600 yards/metres and have a look, you will see that accurate burst fire from auto/semi would be difficult
Even at 100 yards second round would be difficult to hold on target. This can be done. In a prone position, but on the move.... basically your just spraying bullets in general direction

#14: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: kawasaky, Location: Zagreb, Hrvatska

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 2:49 pm
—
Is this purely academs/tecnical discussion, or reality talk?

Because in reality it is [generally] pointless to engage in the firefight at ranges above 250 meters.

1) If you are conducting an ambush you will want to spring your trap at the handgrenade range.
2) If you are defending your fire opening distance will depend on the type of attack being carried out, but long range fire will serve only as the suppressing tool, not the precision blow dealer.
3) If you are attacking any hits you might score above 100-150 m serve to no purpose because you will not be able to exploit them (make a breakthrough) before the opponent adjust his deployment.

a) A lot of things are possible on the firing range.
b) Things possible on the firing range tend to become impossible in the actual combat, when that target is shooting back at you.

#15: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Dima,

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 6:56 pm
—

Quote:

IIRC it ignited ammo stored there or something like that. Also, that gun pit was in a building and they hit a bit under it.

neither 40mm HEAT nor HE would penetrate either sandbags or concrete/brick wall Smile

#16: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Fri Aug 26, 2011 10:26 pm
—

kawasaky wrote (View Post):

Is this purely academs/tecnical discussion, or reality talk?

A reality talk.

kawasaky wrote (View Post):

Because in reality it is [generally] pointless to engage in the firefight at ranges above 250 meters.

1) If you are conducting an ambush you will want to spring your trap at the handgrenade range.
2) If you are defending your fire opening distance will depend on the type of attack being carried out, but long range fire will serve only as the suppressing tool, not the precision blow dealer.
3) If you are attacking any hits you might score above 100-150 m serve to no purpose because you will not be able to exploit them (make a breakthrough) before the opponent adjust his deployment.

Here's what the problem is:
In game a unsuppressed infantry unit needs to use up ~100 rounds to per single kill on a target without cover that doesn't shoot back on ranges from 20-100m.
At the same time attacking infantry can destroy entrenched enemies with small arms fire from 450-300m and actually has no targets left when 300m away (like in 2 companies attacking one entrenched company and defending company getting flattened before them approach at distance of 300m with no need of close assault.).

kawasaky wrote (View Post):

a) A lot of things are possible on the firing range.
b) Things possible on the firing range tend to become impossible in the actual combat, when that target is shooting back at you.

I was just saying that shooting range accuracy of let's say 50% at firing range translating to 5% on battlefield isn't impossible.
Especially if you'll take into account that you'll probably never have a chance for a second shot if the target will dive for cover, so it's no practical chance to hit.

Dima wrote (View Post):

Quote:

IIRC it ignited ammo stored there or something like that. Also, that gun pit was in a building and they hit a bit under it.

neither 40mm HEAT nor HE would penetrate either sandbags or concrete/brick wall Smile

Apparently individual 40mm HEDP can penetrate 6-8 inches of brick wall/20 inches of sandbags. Also, take in account that it was Iraq. They could have used thinner walls and only one layer of sandbags or something like that.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-06-11/ch7.htm

#17: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Dima,

Posted: Sat Aug 27, 2011 12:14 am
—

Quote:

yeah, theoretically, and at 90 deg angle Smile

.
now picture what angle would a 40mm rounds have hitting targets from a vehicle Wink

.

and, that's not old 280mm PzF, that had up to 140mm hole, but modern concentrated 40mm that will do like 5mm hole at max Smile

.
there is famous phootage where RPG-7 rocket penetrated Abrams from side to side w/o injuring the crew...

#18: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 8:51 am
—
What do you guys think about realism effectiveness of fire in Operation Flashpoint? Hitting is pretty difficult unless one knows how to shot but even with accuracy of ~10%-20% combat is extremely lethal on open spaces.

#19: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Nacrox,

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:27 pm
—
Operation Flashpoint 1 or OFP DR?

Because if you refer to the ARMA/OFP series, then the accuracy is a little too much good for a combat situation, the problem of the series is that the terrain is too much flat and there isn't really cover for it, so to make it balanced, the AI can engage from really long distances, and you can aim with ironsights that add a little of zoom to aim better as the AI does. (this is playing with mods that make the AI engage longer, like WGL)

And if you refer to the OFP DR series, i will not say anything about it Rolling Eyes

I prefer the combat efectiveness of Red Orchestra Osfront, there you can't really aim to a target a 300m because the fire of the enemy makes you to fire without fixing your ironsights in the target effectivelly.

@Dima, omfg, it was an PG-7 round or an PG-7VR round?

#20: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Dima,

Posted: Tue Aug 30, 2011 3:59 pm
—
Yes, they think it was PG-7VR.

Here is one of the articles about the incident:
http://www.rense.com/general44/what.htm

#21: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Blackstump, Location: Hunter Valley Australia

Posted: Wed Aug 31, 2011 7:10 am
—

Dima wrote (View Post):

Yes, they think it was PG-7VR.

Here is one of the articles about the incident:
http://www.rense.com/general44/what.htm

That 1.5 kilo octogen charge would create one hell of a hotspot.
Its EV Should be classified high high explosive.

#22: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Thu Sep 01, 2011 2:04 pm
—

Nacrox wrote (View Post):

Operation Flashpoint 1 or OFP DR?

Because if you refer to the ARMA/OFP series, then the accuracy is a little too much good for a combat situation, the problem of the series is that the terrain is too much flat and there isn't really cover for it, so to make it balanced, the AI can engage from really long distances, and you can aim with ironsights that add a little of zoom to aim better as the AI does. (this is playing with mods that make the AI engage longer, like WGL)

I don't think iron sights add zoom in comparison to real life - everything in game is smaller because the screen in much smaller than view in RL, so it kinda compensates for that.

I think that the terrain and lack of trenches is the main fault of the game. Still, when I played WWI mod and basically popped up from the cover of a breastwork, I still got about 10-20% accuracy against mobile, firing targets at range 200-40m, which is consistent with the stats that I have posted.

Personally, I find aiming in OFP rather difficult because it's difficult to precisely move the rifle.

Nacrox wrote (View Post):

How does it work?

From what I've seen in OFP, suppression should be much more effective there - for example I have learn that I can fire just a few shots before enemies will be able to deliver accurate fire. There are several missed shoots/or long aiming period, and then they kill my character.
So, in practice soon after anyone gets fired at, they need to find cover asap and it's quite possible that after the enemy has "fired-in" the range, when you'll stick out your head, you're dead.

#23: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Nacrox,

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2011 9:40 pm
—
Well, I just did a test with a 10man squad of k98's (i know, it isn't the real composition of it), vs a 10 man squad of mosin's.

The firefight started at 600m, and ended at 500m

I killed three men, I had to aim higher than where the dude was, and I lost all my ammo (8 magazines)

I did another test at 250m, and I killed 4, injured at the end, and I used 2 magazines, the firefight lasted very short compared to the one of 600m

I found it too much accuracy for 250m, but for the 600m it's okay, so i don't know if it's something that can be changed from the game or it's just that I have played it too much Razz

.

Anyway, in RO i haven't killed someone at 250m, because when something explodes near you, or a bullet pass near your head, the game oscure the view and makes the aim shaking for a momment, simulating suppression, and if you trust on me, that happens a LOT in that game, I would say that you are crawling the 90% of the game to not get killed

#24: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 8:38 pm
—

Nacrox wrote (View Post):

Well, I just did a test with a 10man squad of k98's (i know, it isn't the real composition of it), vs a 10 man squad of mosin's.

The firefight started at 600m, and ended at 500m

I killed three men, I had to aim higher than where the dude was, and I lost all my ammo (8 magazines)

I did another test at 250m, and I killed 4, injured at the end, and I used 2 magazines, the firefight lasted very short compared to the one of 600m

I found it too much accuracy for 250m, but for the 600m it's okay, so i don't know if it's something that can be changed from the game or it's just that I have played it too much Razz

It's because usually you don't start a fight in clear even terrain on 250m. And if there would be a cover, they would dash for it and after a short time you wouldn't be able to shot at them at all.

Then at 600m, I think there's a problem with the AI. I checked an engagement at ~600m with Soviet squad and a Maxim vs. a German platoon. It ended up with my squad surviving with 2 losses and two other squads getting completely massacred in a few minutes.
It was because I have went to the ground and pulled out my squad in time. The others got massacred because they continued advancing.

Nacrox wrote (View Post):

Anyway, in RO i haven't killed someone at 250m, because when something explodes near you, or a bullet pass near your head, the game oscure the view and makes the aim shaking for a momment, simulating suppression, and if you trust on me, that happens a LOT in that game, I would say that you are crawling the 90% of the game to not get killed

I'm not sure if that's what suppression means in RL. I think it's supposed to keep you from exposing yourself to fire, not to make you unable to aim.

#25: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Nacrox,

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:23 pm
—
In OFP the effectivity of the AI is calculate with a skill valor, and, by default, it's 0.2 on cannon fodder, and 0.4 in the seniors, and 0.5 to the leaders... That apply to all units that you put with the group screen.

In the test I upgraded the AI skill to +0.25 to the default values, so they were better that the "original" ones.

Anyway, it depends of every mod, some mods have the engagement values higher (like WGL, SLX and WW2MP), and anothers have the original engagement values (circa 300-250m, they don't shoot at longer rates, instead they run to get at that distance and you just need to pick them as they run at you), so it's config.cpp based.

---------------------------------------

I strongly suggest you to watch and Red Orchestra Ostfront video and see it by yourself, and i don't know but i think that suppression mean the fact that an enemy that is in constantly fire, is going to see his own life instead of return accurate fire... In RO it's simulated by the fact that you obscure your view when a bullet pass over your head, like a tinkering of the eyes, and make the rifle shakes more, because the soldiers become more nervious or mentally affected... But RO isn't a simulator of war, it's more a relaxed-sim than that, and for example the long routes to the firefights from the respawn zone makes you think twice if it's better to launch you to your death or find a cover and return random fire.

OFP isn't a infantry simulator either, it only haves the battlefield feel, without the respawns (some missions have revive respawn, other serious clans used missions without any respawn), and all the long firefights in squads, and it depends of the mission itself more than the game/mod that is used

-----------------------------------------------

Returning to the actual discution, the actual fact is that a rookie soldier is going to hessitate to pull the trigger more than an experienced soldier, and that will make to miss more shots than the veteran that is aiming with causion his shots.

The problem is that it requires almost no fear to actually aim shots when you are under heavy fire, even if the fire isn't going right at you, and almost none of the army's use too many tracer rounds, so only the sound of various guns firing will make you to find cover instead of looking what is really going on

#26: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: papa_whisky,

Posted: Sun Sep 04, 2011 10:48 pm
—
The number of rounds fired per 'kill' has greatly increased since the second world war. This is probably the combination of greater numbers of semi and fully automatic weapons and the general rule, as already stated, that soldiers (especially not very well trained ones) tend to shoot towards the enemy rather than at them.

The general use of smaller calibre rounds adds to this, as infantry carry more rounds creating a tendency to be more liberal with use of ammunition (i.e. infantrymen will use as much as they can as long as they don't run the risk of running out).

Larger calibre rounds tend to weigh more and have a bigger charge. This when combined with a long barrel gives a high muzzle velocity and high momentum. This gives a longer and more accurate range compared to smaller calibre on a shorter barrel.

The stopping power of a round is a combination of its momentum on impact and what the round does to the body when it impacts. Smaller lighter rounds have a greater tendency to breakup tumble and ricochet within the body, the shockwave caused by the impact will be less. At shorter distances the 5.56 is probably more effective than the 7.62 in its ability to incapacitate a target, at longer distances less so.

In Afghanistan the Taliban knowing at shorter distances they cannot deliver sufficient fire power to win firefights so they attempt to engage at longer distances with their older larger calibre weapons. Hence the allies have now started to reintroduce 7.62 weapons back into the rifle squad.

#27: Re: Effectiveness of fire in combat? Author: Therion,

Posted: Tue Sep 13, 2011 8:21 pm
—

Nacrox wrote (View Post):

I strongly suggest you to watch and Red Orchestra Ostfront video and see it by yourself, and i don't know but i think that suppression mean the fact that an enemy that is in constantly fire, is going to see his own life instead of return accurate fire... In RO it's simulated by the fact that you obscure your view when a bullet pass over your head, like a tinkering of the eyes, and make the rifle shakes more, because the soldiers become more nervious or mentally affected... But RO isn't a simulator of war, it's more a relaxed-sim than that, and for example the long routes to the firefights from the respawn zone makes you think twice if it's better to launch you to your death or find a cover and return random fire.

The main problem with such mechanics is that they are usually redundant. Player is usually excited, which decreases aiming accuracy and aiming with mouse is much slower and less precise than aiming with actual weapon held in hand. From my experience with BB guns, aiming (even as in purely lining up the sights with the targets) at even relatively close objects with mouse is much more difficult than aiming in RL and being under fire in game additionally makes it harder due to nervousness (as the player will lose all his progress in mission if he dies).
I would say that there should be suppression rules for the AI, though as id doesn't have any such problems. Being hit by the AI is mainly the function of time - usually it's something like 10 seconds before one is hit when the AI is targeting the player, even with very bad AI skills.
Meanwhile for example poorly trained Iraqi fighters were known to usually miss horribly a lot while using up a lot of ammo.

Nacrox wrote (View Post):

Returning to the actual discution, the actual fact is that a rookie soldier is going to hessitate to pull the trigger more than an experienced soldier, and that will make to miss more shots than the veteran that is aiming with causion his shots.

Even when the rookie soldier is after shooting 1000s of rounds in training under a competent instructor while the veteran is a fighter with no formal training?

Close Combat Series -> The Mess

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT

Page 1 of 1