StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Batman wrote:

PayBack wrote: There's also the point that the M16A2 does NOT include an HEDP round.

No rifle ever manufactured includes ammunition. It comes seperately, hence the evolution known as loading. Your reasons for the impossibility of 5.56x45 HEDP would be?

Mainly that it's 40mm grenade launcher ammo?
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m430.htm

Batman wrote: No rifle ever manufactured includes ammunition. It comes seperately, hence the evolution known as loading. Your reasons for the impossibility of 5.56x45 HEDP would be?

Now you've gone past 'nitpickery' and straight into asshole.

Rifles are developed with an alread chambered round in mind and/or developed with their own rounds. Rifles do 'include' their own rounds even if you have to load them.

There is no High Explosive Dual Purpose rounds for a god damn M16 and I don't even see how it could work even if you really wanted it. The amount you could strap on the end would be of firecracker level and you'd still need to have some sort of detonator and that'll really fuck up the ballistics.

When the thing came up I believe the kid was probably refering to the HE round for the M203. And for the record; standard Nato rounds for the M16 are Ball-AP-and tracers (plus blanks and dummies).

Kartr_Kana wrote:No "CPL" the always tell us to aim center mass, and the ranges are 500 and 800. Remember I am a Marine not in the Army. What do you mean by individual and group fire? Are you talking about semi-auto and burst?

I will bring the stats as laid down in our manual.

Emphasis mine.

If you were truly a marine, then you would know that individual fire is one man firing, and group fire, is a fire team or platoon firing.

Sr.mal wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:No "CPL" the always tell us to aim center mass, and the ranges are 500 and 800. Remember I am a Marine not in the Army. What do you mean by individual and group fire? Are you talking about semi-auto and burst?

I will bring the stats as laid down in our manual.

Emphasis mine.

If you were truly a marine, then you would know that individual fire is one man firing, and group fire, is a fire team or platoon firing.

The kids dorky, but cut him some slack. If what he says is true, he's just out of boot and just starting his A school. Simply, he probably just knows how to blouse his boots, let alone standard or advanced tactics and doctrine.

Surely an MP5-A3/5 would be a better comparison for the E-11? Both are designed to be compact weapons that can have their stocks deployed for greater accuracy, they even remotely resemble each other visually (I have compared my MP5 A5 replica with my E-11 replica, they are pretty similar, except the E-11 grip is farther forward as it has no mag, the length difference is a few centimetres, and this is stocks retracted).

Lazarus wrote:Surely an MP5-A3/5 would be a better comparison for the E-11? Both are designed to be compact weapons that can have their stocks deployed for greater accuracy, they even remotely resemble each other visually (I have compared my MP5 A5 replica with my E-11 replica, they are pretty similar, except the E-11 grip is farther forward as it has no mag, the length difference is a few centimetres, and this is stocks retracted).

The E-11 is definately supposed to be a carbine for close quarters work. In the DS, some stormtroopers and Han and Luke in particular had the E-11 holstered. So perhaps a comparion with the MP7 PDW would be closer.

Perhaps a WWII Sterling SMG would be the best comparision...

Crazedwraith wrote:Perhaps a WWII Sterling SMG would be the best comparision...

Ya think?

Sorry about the HEDP statement, that was an error on my part. I'm not sure what my SDI ment when he said you could get a headshot at 500m I think he was saying that it was acurate enough that if you had a stable platform and scope you could hit something that size. Consider the 500m headshot statement retracted. The point behind this thread was to see if modern infantry could defeat stormtroopers. or if any infantry weapons were comparable to SWs in terms of firepower/range

Kinfe is right I am just out of boot camp, my first day of traing at SOI begins tomorrow. I can blouse my boots, and have the most basic understanding of fireteam tactics.

These stats come straight out of the Infantry Common Skills Student Handbook USMC Infantry Training Battalion, SOI west
M16A2: Caliber 5.56mm, Weight loaded 8.8lbs, Max effective range 550m(point), 800m (area), Rates of Fire 45rpm(semi)/90rpm(busrt)

M203 grenade launcher: caliber 40mm, weight 3lbs, max effective range 150m (point) 350m(area), Max range 400m

Knife wrote:

Sr.mal wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:No "CPL" the always tell us to aim center mass, and the ranges are 500 and 800. Remember I am a Marine not in the Army. What do you mean by individual and group fire? Are you talking about semi-auto and burst?

I will bring the stats as laid down in our manual.

Emphasis mine.

If you were truly a marine, then you would know that individual fire is one man firing, and group fire, is a fire team or platoon firing.

The kids dorky, but cut him some slack. If what he says is true, he's just out of boot and just starting his A school. Simply, he probably just knows how to blouse his boots, let alone standard or advanced tactics and doctrine.

True, but I still knew what that stuff was when I just got out of boot.

Kartr_Kana wrote:The point behind this thread was to see if modern infantry could defeat stormtroopers. or if any infantry weapons were comparable to SWs in terms of firepower/range

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: The infantry might be able to drop a few stormies if they got in some lucky hits, notably on the flexible bodyglove, but stormtrooper weapons and armour would carry the day. When your shots can be ratcheted up to the point where each one has the destructive force of a small grenade...

Elheru Aran wrote:

Kartr_Kana wrote:The point behind this thread was to see if modern infantry could defeat stormtroopers. or if any infantry weapons were comparable to SWs in terms of firepower/range

Short answer: No.

Longer answer: The infantry might be able to drop a few stormies if they got in some lucky hits, notably on the flexible bodyglove, but stormtrooper weapons and armour would carry the day. When your shots can be ratcheted up to the point where each one has the destructive force of a small grenade...

Just out of interest would the bullets momentum cause any damage to the Stormtrooper through the armour?

How would the M203 do against stormies? If blasters do the damage of a small grenade wouldn't the M203 be able to kill them?

If the shrapnel managed to make its way through the body glove? Sure. Otherwise it's more likely to just make a few nicks in the armour. You'd need something more like a LAW or RPG, direct hit, to blast through the armour.

Wouldn't the concussive force tear off arms & heads. Especially around the bodyglove area?

Batman wrote:

PayBack wrote: Apart from the fact the only way you could hit someone in the head at 500 metres with an M16 is if you use the force, and the fact if you hit him in the chest at 800 metres you better hope it's not winter cos in heavy clothing or body armour he very well may not go down.

And that's garbage again. 5.56 NATO will happily penetrate heavy clothing at that range providing you actually manage to hit.
The limiting factor WRT effective range usually isn't penetrating power, it's accuracy.

There's also the point that the M16A2 does NOT include an HEDP round.

No rifle ever manufactured includes ammunition. It comes separately, hence the evolution known as loading. Your reasons for the impossibility of 5.56x45 HEDP would be?

First of all the 5.56 round is not sentient, so it will not "happily" penetrate at that range. Hey I'm being no more of a dick about it than you are with the "loading" bullshit so meh. Given time I'll make an effort to fine evidence of people questioning the stopping power of the 5.56 round at that kind of range.

Did I say any rifle includes ammunition? No, I said an M16 does NOT include a certain type of ammo.. so why counter something I never said?

I also didn't say a 5.56 HEDP round was impossible did I? I DID say that I'd be fucking impressed if the US Marines had a 5.56 mm High Explosive Dual Purpose round.. which they don't. HEDP rounds are used in a grenade launcher you fucking nit picking dickhead.

Knife wrote:

Lazarus wrote:Surely an MP5-A3/5 would be a better comparison for the E-11? Both are designed to be compact weapons that can have their stocks deployed for greater accuracy, they even remotely resemble each other visually (I have compared my MP5 A5 replica with my E-11 replica, they are pretty similar, except the E-11 grip is farther forward as it has no mag, the length difference is a few centimetres, and this is stocks retracted).

The E-11 is definitely supposed to be a carbine for close quarters work. In the DS, some stormtroopers and Han and Luke in particular had the E-11 holstered. So perhaps a comparison with the MP7 PDW would be closer.

It'd still go with an M4 comparison. That is also a carbine that front line troops are issued. Neither the MP5 nor the MP7 are for front line troops (though with the MP5 I'm leaving myself open because yes they're used by special forces but generally for anti terrorist work, not on the battlefield). The MP7 is for rear area troops for whom carrying a carbine like the M4 is inconvenient.

Bah.. after typing that I just saw your holstering comment.. you might have a point there.

PayBack wrote: First of all the 5.56 round is not sentient, so it will not "happily" penetrate at that range. Hey I'm being no more of a dick about it than you are with the "loading" bullshit so meh.

Go right ahead. Turnabout's fair play, that was definitely uncalled for. I apologize.

Given time I'll make an effort to fine evidence of people questioning the stopping power of the 5.56 round at that kind of range.

I'd be very interested in that. I would be rather surprised if heavy clothing makes much of a difference for standard ball/FMJ rounds at any ranges worth considering but I've been wrong before.

I also didn't say a 5.56 HEDP round was impossible did I? I DID say that I'd be fucking impressed if the US Marines had a 5.56 mm High Explosive Dual Purpose round... which they don't.

Propably because it'd be useless as hell.

HEDP rounds are used in a grenade launcher you fucking nit picking dickhead.

Actually they're used in any number of large-calibre weapons from 20mm to Tank guns.

Kartr_Kana wrote:How would the M203 do against stormies? If blasters do the damage of a small grenade wouldn't the M203 be able to kill them?

I'm sure a MOAB could kill a Stormtrooper, but when you have to use something bigger than standard issue assault rifles you are in effect admitting defeat.

From what I can take from the movies, especially AOTC, I think it would be very difficult for a modern army to prevail infantry vs infantry on open ground. You would need to engage the ROTJ stupid version on rough terrain with good prior planning for a shot at victory.

Elheru Aran wrote:If the shrapnel managed to make its way through the body glove? Sure. Otherwise it's more likely to just make a few nicks in the armour. You'd need something more like a LAW or RPG, direct hit, to blast through the armour.

I assume that ST armor is designed to either deflect or mitigate the damge done by a blaster. I'm not so sure you can translate that to bullet proof. There might be something in the EU about it, but I can't think of one.

Having an arrow bounce off of it is a bit different than a .223.

Knife wrote:

Elheru Aran wrote:If the shrapnel managed to make its way through the body glove? Sure. Otherwise it's more likely to just make a few nicks in the armour. You'd need something more like a LAW or RPG, direct hit, to blast through the armour.

I assume that ST armor is designed to either deflect or mitigate the damge done by a blaster. I'm not so sure you can translate that to bullet proof. There might be something in the EU about it, but I can't think of one.

Having an arrow bounce off of it is a bit different than a .223.

There's a few things in the EU, like the fact that the Rebels had to supply native insurgents with high-tech explosive rounds to be a credible threat to Stormie armor. That, and the javelin of doom quote 'It slices, it dices, it picks stormies off the ground and chucks them into a wall... and they walk it off, krif.'

Even going to as low and unusable a source as game mechanics, it provides twice the protection against physical attacks as it does against energy.

Kartr_Kana wrote: Off the top of my head the M16A2 fires a 5.56mm round. And is accurate enough to hit a man in the head at 500m, in the torso at 800m. Its rounds include the HEDP which is used to destroy light armored vehicles (2inches steel IIRC)

The USMC very optimistically rates it as effective at 550 meters against a point target, like an enemy machine gun crew, not a persons head, and 800 meters against an area target, like a vechical. The rifle does not firing exploding ammo of any form, though the clip on M203 grenade launch can indeed fire HEDP grenades.

The US Army considers the exact same rifle to be effective at rather shorter ranges, and any attempt to hit a point target beyond about 300 meters with any rifle using iron sights is more wishful thinking then anything else. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, both the US Army and USMC found that rarely where rifles used against targets further then 100 meters away, and never against targets further then 300 meters. Of course, militaries have known this since WW2 and even earlier then that, which is why the Germans cooked up the idea of a selective fire assault rifle in the first place. No matter how powerful or accurate your gun, you just cant see a person clearly at several hundred meters, and you can't aim at what you cant see.

Max ballistic range for an M16 BTW, is about 2,500 meters, but you'd be lucky to hit the right city block at that distance.

Knife wrote: I assume that ST armor is designed to either deflect or mitigate the damge done by a blaster. I'm not so sure you can translate that to bullet proof. There might be something in the EU about it, but I can't think of one.
Having an arrow bounce off of it is a bit different than a .223.

I can't for the life of me find the relevant threads right now but there WAS extensive discussion about that (a spear thrown by a droid so hard it lifted a Stormy off his feet and threw him several metres without so much as denting the armor. IIRC it was from one of the YJK books), so I think we can safely assume .223 or even .308 won't penetrate Stormie armor.Wether or not they do damage via momentum transfer is a wholly different ballgame.

Batman wrote:

Knife wrote: I assume that ST armor is designed to either deflect or mitigate the damge done by a blaster. I'm not so sure you can translate that to bullet proof. There might be something in the EU about it, but I can't think of one.
Having an arrow bounce off of it is a bit different than a .223.

I can't for the life of me find the relevant threads right now but there WAS extensive discussion about that (a spear thrown by a droid so hard it lifted a Stormy off his feet and threw him several metres without so much as denting the armor. IIRC it was from one of the YJK books), so I think we can safely assume .223 or even .308 won't penetrate Stormie armor.Wether or not they do damage via momentum transfer is a wholly different ballgame.

Ok. But still, a spear isn't a rifle round either.

Batman wrote:Go right ahead. Turnabout's fair play, that was definitely uncalled for. I apologize.

Dude do you have a problem with me? That's about the third time you've attacked me for no good reason that I can see. If there's something I'm doing or have done that's pissed you off, at least let me know what it is.

I'd be very interested in that. I would be rather surprised if heavy clothing makes much of a difference for standard ball/FMJ rounds at any ranges worth considering but I've been wrong before.

That comment came from recalling back in the days where I read Soldier of Fortune magazine (back before the Internet when I actually read magazines) and I'll admit it was a bit like the 9mm vs the .45 arguments where there was as much opinion as proof.

Here's a couple of links. I'm at work so can't look too hard. And no that's not an excuse. As this is still a matter of contention even between "experts" I'll concede my statement is opinion rather than fact.

http://www.snipercentral.com/223.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... 86/MVT.htm

In case you don't want to read through that second link.. the main jist of it is...

The lethality of the new SS109 5.56mm
projectile on the battlefield is questionable. The SS109
projectile is longer and heavier than the M193 projectile and is
more stabilized in flight with the faster rifling twist used in
second generation assault rifles. The emphasis, in the develop-
ment of tee SS109 projectile, was to increase stability and
therefore penetration at longer ranges. The increased flight
stability of the new SS109 projectile does effectively enhance
penetration at longer ranges, but this same stability reduces the
projectile's tendency to tumble or shatter upon target im-
pact.30 As a result, the emphasis on penetration in the new
SS109 projectile may result in a sharp decrease in lethality, as
compared to its predecessor M193 cartridge.

Propably because it'd be useless as hell.

Exactly.

Actually they're used in any number of large-calibre weapons from 20mm to Tank guns.

Yeah I know, it was just that it was the one used in the M203 that Kartr_Kana would have been referring to.