Marksmanship

Re: Spyware link!

Norfolk said:

Not an expert on 5.45mm or AK-74 (let alone the AN-94), but the Russian 5.45mm round is lighter than the NATO 5.56mm round, and I think the latter requires a tighter rifling twist than the former.

aquilis, delete the link you have posted. That's a spyware program; my security system can handle it:nono:, but someone else might not have as good a security system.

Click to expand...

First of all I own you guys an apologize for my infected link was not my intention to hurt anybody. Second Nato 5.56mm NATO rds are more accurate than the Russian 5.45mm rds probably for the reason you tell me before but 5.56mm NATO rds are more acurate than the 7.62mm rds. Why?? China have their own 5.8mm rds (proove to be nearly as acurate as the NATO 5.56mm rds but better penetration power than both 5.45mm Russian and 5.56mm NATO) for it new QBZ-95s Assault Riffles, It seems the PLA is more short and intermidiete range engagements scince they engage targets at 150 meters.
I still wondering how the PLA rate their soldiers as marksmen, sharpshooters and experts marksmans. Scince they have a more acurate riffle than the Kalashnikov based

aquilis182 said:

5.56mm NATO rds are more acurate than the 7.62mm rds. Why?? China have their own 5.8mm rds (proove to be nearly as acurate as the NATO 5.56mm rds but better penetration power than both 5.45mm Russian and 5.56mm NATO) for it new QBZ-95s Assault Riffles, It seems the PLA is more short and intermidiete range engagements scince they engage targets at 150 meters.
I still wondering how the PLA rate their soldiers as marksmen, sharpshooters and experts marksmans. Scince they have a more acurate riffle than the Kalashnikov based

Click to expand...

The NATO 5.56x45mm has a flatter trajectory than the NATO 7.62x51mm round because, the smaller round (in light or no cross-wind) meets with less air resistenace, and, proportionately, the 5.56mm has more propellant in its case than the 7.62mm. It wasn't originally that way. What is now the NATO 7.62x51mm has gone through a couple of changes. Right now, of course, it is practically identical to the .308 Winchester, but originally it was a much longer round, namely the good ole' .30-06 (7.62x63mm) - capable of bringing down buffalo. It also probably helps that most current NATO 5.56mm ammo has a heavy metal penetrator (Semi-AP) in the nose that the 7.62mm doesn't, adding to its stability and its momentum. So, AFAIK, that's basically why.

The PLA's 5.8x42mm calibre is probably the finest all-round small calibre going, especially when using the heavy round. I would suspect that it accuracy is close to that of the NATO 5.56mm, and its stopping power noticeably greater. I would imagine that PLA Infantry, at least, would be trained to shoot out to at least 300m with the Type 95 (if they haven't already been doing so anyway with earlier weapons). "Marksman", being a generally accepted standard, would almost certainly be the same in the PRC as it is in the US, even if the applications and scoring is done a little differently.

Have you read Timmothy Yan's article about the 5.8? Read it before you make a broad statement like that. A more reasonable statement is that the 5.8 was perceived to fit the PLA's needs and doctrine.

It would be rather more productive for you to have posted a link to the Yan article before making an unproven statement. Once the link to the article is posted by you, then forum members can pick over it and make up their own minds. Until then, that statement remains unsubstantiated.

Sorry, afaik, the English version of the article was never published online. I think it was published in Guns and Ammo magazine, but I might be mistaken. Since Mr. Yan is a bigwig on CDF, the original English version was not posted so people would buy the magazine. Anyway, here's the Chinese version.






In my opinion the round fits what the PLA wanted, which was lighter weight so more rounds could be carried, smaller impulse so recoil during burst was more controllable, cost low enough for the PLA to afford, and probably most importantly, enough penetration to keep up with body armor developments. All designs are tradeoffs of things you want for things you are ok having less of, and the PLA was ok having less of wounding potential and accuracy. As Mr. Yan states in the article, the PLA for sees most combat happening in the field, not in urban or close-combat situations, so wounding potential is not as critical. As for accuracy, the PLA doesn't plan to have its normal infantry make accurate shots much over 300 meters. It does not equip optics to the average infantryman and there are designated marksmen ala Soviet doctrine. As a round for suppression fire, the 5.8mm does ok. In that role the high penetration is useful.

One question I've pondered about is how "knockdown power" changes when body armor is penetrated. I will consider the momentum transferred aspect of knockdown power. When body armor is not penetrated, the full impulse of the round is transferred, which is like the effect of having no exit wound when using a a submachine gun round. When body armor is penetrated, during the process, some of the momentum is transferred to the body armor (if the round slows down at all) and some more of the impulse is transferred as the round goes through flesh. If the round is slower, it may tumble earlier in flesh than would have without going through armor first. So it seems to me that after a round goes through armor, the effect is generally larger than without armor.

The original article appeared in the June, 2006 edition of Small Arms Review (Vol.9 No.9). Inconveniently, there are subscription and copyright issues.

Actual marksmanship beyond 200 metres makes litlle sense for the average soldier.
Ever have tried to identify anyone at his distance???
What kind of clothing is (s)he wearing? Civilian or military. If It's miltary, what outfit? Is that a shovel or a gun (s)he's holding...

If someone fires on you from that distance and misses (since you can tell) he either is a bad marksman or a blody fool in giving away his position! Anyway you just give his position to the section's MG man or the mortar squad and you're off the hook.

True marksmanship is (should be) reserved for designated marksman at platoonlevel or snipers operating in 2-man teams. Giving 'simple' soldiers a false idea about their marksman capabilities, only leads to filled bodybags on your side! A firing range is nothing like a true firefight!
For standard soldiers of any branch, rapid and correct response (identification and possible armed response) at distances from 5 (inside buildings) to 100-150m (open space), is the key elment to their survival and the succes of the operation they're engaged in.

pendragon said:

Actual marksmanship beyond 200 metres makes litlle sense for the average soldier.
Ever have tried to identify anyone at his distance???
What kind of clothing is (s)he wearing? Civilian or military. If It's miltary, what outfit? Is that a shovel or a gun (s)he's holding...

If someone fires on you from that distance and misses (since you can tell) he either is a bad marksman or [] giving away his position! Anyway you just give his position to the section's MG man or the mortar squad and you're off the hook.

True marksmanship is (should be) reserved for designated marksman at platoonlevel or snipers operating in 2-man teams. Giving 'simple' soldiers a false idea about their marksman capabilities, only leads to filled bodybags on your side! A firing range is nothing like a true firefight!
For standard soldiers of any branch, rapid and correct response (identification and possible armed response) at distances from 5 (inside buildings) to 100-150m (open space), is the key elment to their survival and the succes of the operation they're engaged in.

Click to expand...

There are only two caveats I would add to that, pendragon:

The first is about assigning a target to one of your automatic weapons or even your mortars. If you use them to deal with only one, two, or even three individuals, you have to displace them soon after because you may have revealed their positions to the enemy. Much better to pop them with rifles or grenade launchers. Don't use your heavier weapons until you really need to.

The second is about not requiring most soldiers to shoot beyond 150 m. I agree that there is quite some merit to your argument, and practically speaking it's difficult to train troops to consistently nail targets with high accuracy at 300 to 400m even on KD ranges. But where this becomes a problem is in certain climes, especially in mountainous terrain and some arctic and desert climes. In those cases, being able to use a rifle at longer distances can be really useful, even vital. If you haven't already, take a look at this article, it sounds like you're making much the same observations as William Owen:



By the way, love your point about DM's at platoon level.

And welcome to SinoDefence Forum!

Best,

Norfolk

pendragon said:

Actual marksmanship beyond 200 metres makes litlle sense for the average soldier.
Ever have tried to identify anyone at his distance???
What kind of clothing is (s)he wearing? Civilian or military. If It's miltary, what outfit? Is that a shovel or a gun (s)he's holding...

If someone fires on you from that distance and misses (since you can tell) he either is a bad marksman or a blody fool in giving away his position! Anyway you just give his position to the section's MG man or the mortar squad and you're off the hook.

True marksmanship is (should be) reserved for designated marksman at platoonlevel or snipers operating in 2-man teams. Giving 'simple' soldiers a false idea about their marksman capabilities, only leads to filled bodybags on your side! A firing range is nothing like a true firefight!
For standard soldiers of any branch, rapid and correct response (identification and possible armed response) at distances from 5 (inside buildings) to 100-150m (open space), is the key elment to their survival and the succes of the operation they're engaged in.

Click to expand...

Im half agree with you practice marksmanship is not like a real firefight, is different to shot dummys that just stan there witing for you to take them out, real targets shoot at you and try to avoid your shoots, besides we feel no regrerts to shoot dummis but marksmanship is better than nothing at all.... Velieve me practice marksmanship helps you to develops the shooting fundamentals and increment your accuracy... It may not be nearly as shoot humans but something is better than nothing!
In ancient ages Spartan soldiers practice using heavier weapons and killing enemy POWs and criminals... althoug I don't aprove brutalities like that I have to recognize thats should be mush more effective scince you are dealing with real humans, perhaps it should be more effective to use death sentence prisioners to practice marksmanship instead of plastic dummies it should be more effective and less cruel than execute them in a more painfull way like the electric shair... As a soldier I personally don't like the idea even of kill death condemn prisioners scince even if the have been found guilty by a fair court... scince the executioners never will have a 100% of know if they are killing a real criminal... but I have to recognize thats it shoul be much more effective (still dosn't mean I personally like the idea but if works so well in ancient times why not gonna work now?)

I am a former reservist of SAF, Singapore Armed Forces. Infantry.

We have a very comprehensive BASIC marksmanship test for even the most ordinary soldiers. And during my time I did this using M16 with iron sights.

We shoot from 300m, run down to 200m.
We shoot at 200m, run down to 100m.
We shoot at 100m, and then down to 50m, 35m, 10m, 5m.

We shoot from all the basic positions from foxhole, prone, squatting, kneeling, standing. The last one at 5m we shoot from the hip. We shoot at full-body targets, half body targets, one quarter body targets. Stationery targets and also quite fast-moving targets.

Total round expenditure would be something like 8 magazines of 4-rds each. 32 rounds.

The toughest thing about this test was the running. We have to run 100m and then immediately get ready to fire. And then run again and fire etc... You have to be in very good shape to be able to run and shoot accurately.

This concludes the first part of the marksmanship test.

The second part of the marksmanship test is for night firing.

Again we fire at a whole range of targets using tracer and non tracer bullets. Lighting will be very low ambient lighting, no lighting and enemy with red blinking light to simulate his weapon firing. We shoot from 200m to 50m, no running required.

This concludes the whole marksmanship test.

In SAF marksmanship grade comes with a prize money award of SGD400 (RMB2,000), and the right to wear a 2 rifles badge on my left arm. Fewer than 10% make the marksmanship grade in a typical rifleman unit. I usually earn that SGD400.