• @Something_Complex
    link
    English
    11 year ago

    Interesting thins this is why our armies are using smaller calibers offen.

    Especially more then in passed large wars. The point isn’t to kill its to injure

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      61 year ago

      Logistic cost, soldier hit probability, and sustained suppression during firefights drove that decision more than wounding instead of killing. More bullets = more suppression = more time to flank/flee/hold for backup/etc

      It’s easier for a soldier to take a shot and actively observe the puff of dust, disturbed bushes, etc and correct their aim with lower recoil guns. Old school ‘full power’ cartridges recoiled too hard; you see the target, shoot, recoil rises the gun, sights rise way off target, and you need to completely require the target to shoot again. A 5.56 or the like is very flat in recoil, but has decent terminal effect

      There’s a new theory being trialed leveraging modern optics to focus on precision rifle fire to psychologically suppress (I.e. “Dave popped his head out for a look and got sniped, I’m not doing the same”) versus the OG storm of metal in the air. The former encourages suppression regardless of sustained gunfire. The latter mo’ dakka method only work DURING gunfire.