[JBelk]

All I know about the Sherman was absorbed by osmosis from a school buddy with a dad that didn't look anything at all like mine and my dad that kept up with the Congressional hearings after the war and telling my mom 'that was about John Brown's 'thing'.' He was disgusted by the testimony and it probably rubbed off on me.

BUT, since we're talking guns, why not the Pig (M-60)? Wasn't that Stoner's idea? I had six of them in Korea that could break in the Arms Room, no range time needed.

 

[Darkker]

All this banter about penetration and "conspiracy" theories is humorous to me.

The truth is lots of folks have been unhappy about the 5.56 NATO, for a whole slough of reasons. One of which is the continual "reports" of putting a bazillion rounds in combatants, and them not going down. The reality when actual studies and data acquisition is done, is that's predominantly fairytale by stressed folks with poor aim. It goes back to that one guy telling stories about the fish that was "this big", or someone swearing to Bigfoot being real.

So to the topic of penetration and perceived deficiencies. The Army decided a while ago, that even with the M855A1 EPR they might need more. Fine and dandy, so did they do testing analysis for actual numbers? Maybe.
The claims of "see, we're deficient" are based off a still classified, ballistics report. Some might claim, that it's because they don't want any "potential enemies" to know what was in the report. While they may be true, it doesn't square with reality very well. Those same people are the folks who like to claim that the penetration of the 5.56 is so bad, and "everyone knows it". If everyone knows this, what secrets are we keeping again? Also, with as open as the military has been with penetration results, including with the EPR. It would be a sudden and recent about-face, to suddenly decide to keep a "secret" that everyone supposedly knows. Possible, but with no actual evidence; I ain't buying.

Having to repeat myself once again, watch the Pentagon brief I linked in the other thread.
With that and any research outside of last months Vogue magazine, anyone can see the latest trials had nothing to do with penetration testing anyway.
The Army said it was going to look at a different rifle system and caliber. Neither of those things have been a secret, and were stated rather long ago.
The Army awarded a shell company of Vortex (Sheltered Wings?) $2.7 Billion for around 250,000 new optics(called the fire control system), specifically for their new rifle and caliber; Believe that happened in January. All contestants in this rifle contest were given 277 bullets, unless they wanted to provide their own for another caliber. Even Ray Charles can see why the contestants chose 270.😉 So the various new rifles being entertained, HAD to have ammo that weighed less than the 7.62 NATO, period, full stop. Beyond that, it went like this:
Compared to an issued M4. Do soldiers like the ergonomics better? With the new FCS which tells you how to hold for a hit, can you show hit at distance better? Do you have a higher calculated "energy" on target? That was it.

The Army scores showed folks liked the MXC, or what will most likely end up being called the M5; better than the alternatives. The Army themselves liked the idea of a round that could give monster ballistics from a extremely short barrel(the high pressure round). So they awarded SIG $20.4 Million to build an ammo facility, and supply them around 35 rifles. Once SIG completes the facility, the army will THEN begin actually testing the ammo, and feasibility of the high pressure round.
Several years later, the army is hoping to have a separate building up at LC, to start producing some of their own ammo. But if you pay attention to the Army, not gentleman's quarterly; you'll read that they didn't actually plan on completely walking away from the General Dynamics ammo concept of polymer cased ammo.

In conclusion.
Will a bullet with greater sectional density penetrate better than the 5.56? That shouldn't need explained. Will it be "better"? Depends on what you define as "better". It's what the Army wanted, and what they chose; so let's hope.


Cheers

 

[JBelk]

I'm sure the National Match shooters will like a better target round.

 

[DarkLord]

2 to the chest, 1 to the head will make your target dead.

British Sherman tank crews called it the Ronson lighter. "lights the first time. every time!!!"

Sherman tanks were mass produced. in a cargo ship, you could fit 2 Shermans' against 1 heavy tank.we did quantity over quality. in theory, a Sherman tank could not fight a tank battle. instead, they were infantry support vehicles. Shermans would let a tank destroyer battalion (m10 and m36) or a true heavy tank (later in WW2) m26 Pershing.

The Ronson thing is a total myth. Another myth they were infantry support vehicles; that was never US doctrine in WW2. US doctrine was to lead with tanks, and that was doctrine from the very beginning. The M4 Sherman was a very competent and capable tank. But when you go up against other tanks that are capable, the guy who wins is almost always the guy who shoots first...regardless of what kind of tank he's in.
Not quantity over quality, the Sherman was the best medium tank in the world...but it was a medium tank. When US Generals were asked if they wanted any heavy tanks (M26 Pershings), they almost to a man said no thank you. Not sure why they would do that if the Sherman was so bad.

Might I recommend this as a starting place.

 

[Legolas]

I am sure Darkker is right about the Army not forgetting about the General Dynamics/True Velocity polymer cased technology. The “6.8x51 True Velocity Composite” was SAMMI approved for 65,000 psi. It has different case dimensions from the .277 Sig, but as I understand it, True Velocity has developed a practical polymer case technology. Their design had a little stainless steel in the rim and case head…not as much as the Sig design, but enough to be approved for 65,000 psi.

The General Dynamics rifle had a moving barrel, kind of like an old Browning A5 shotgun or a Browning .50 BMG, where the barrel came back and helped eject the case. I kind of doubt that a conventional bolt and extractor (like the Sig rifle) could PULL the polymer case for reliable extraction…but I don’t really know.

In a desperate wartime national emergency, where copper would be in short supply, polymer case technology is there.

 

[tdoyka]

if you say so, Dark. i'll believe my late grandpap on his experience on the Sherman in European WW2. it was a piece of history that is best forgotten and worst being b-word at because it lights up like a Christmas tree. oh, by the way, ask the Russians about German tanks......it will be the complete opposite of what you said. i will believe what old timers said before i believe the misinformation that they spew now.

 

[Darkker]

I kind of doubt that a conventional bolt and extractor (like the Sig rifle) could PULL the polymer case for reliable extraction…but I don’t really know.

They don't struggle to. Obviously it depends on what they're using specifically, but from the little I've looked into the them out appears to be in the UHMW family. Which is ultra slick, and gets used as bearing material in the Ag world.

Read it From the horses mouth. Note the date, and there were a few from 2019 in the related pile. The Army decided 270 bullets long ago, they just hadn't decided what/how these obviously magically superior bullets would be fired; until very recently.


Cheers

 

[MikeG]

The Sherman would have had much higher survivability if it had a diesel engine, not gas. Probably a supply chain issue, one less fuel to ship, but they burned pretty spectacularly when hit, as will anything with a full gas tank that takes incoming fire.

Probably the majority of German heavy tanks taken out by the Americans weren't by Shermans, but when the Army Air Corps finally started putting pilots on the ground to call in air strikes. Dependence on air strikes lead to a temporary German success in the Battle of the Bulge, due to poor weather that grounded planes. Once the weather cleared.... it was curtains.

T-34 and especially the later T-34 with either the 85 or 90mm gun, forget which, was a far better tank than anything we had, and that fact was unfortunately proven in Korea.

"Best light/medium tank" is a dubious label, ranks right up there with "best survivability of a Smart Car when hit by a cement mixer".... yes, there may be a different, but mainly you don't want your Smart Car to run into a cement mixer, for ultimate survivability Just sayin'

Shermans, with bulldozer blades, were what got us through Normandy, so they weren't all useless. Just had a specific purpose. Light, move fast with jeeps and trucks, and keep up with infantry. But hardly the 'land battleships' of the day.

Getting somewhat back on topic, I've talked to infantrymen who served recently. Biggest complaint they have is packing well over 100 pounds with each step. Said the load wasn't too bad in a vehicle, but step a few feet on the ground, in a HOT climate, and it was pretty miserable. Something to think about.

 

[Im2Tall2Play2!]

Ok, I'll chime in here. One thing to remember is that commanders in military, political or civilian roles are years if not decades removed from "on the ground" experience. Thus the trend to adopting parts & policies that might have solved the problems on the ground when they may have been actually involved.

Second, most if not all of the highest rank were likely better @ politics (managing up) than being actual leaders. Not all, but a significant number. This leads to spending our money on weird stuff w/no practical utility because it might lead to a promotion.

Which brings us to the old "follow the money". A whole lot of higher ups know their time is limited, they will retire from military/politics rather soon. SO, looking for their next job they are eyeing the military/industrial complex & how are they going to elbow their way into it. One way is to bring the unending flow of tax dollars to a corporation & become valuable to said corporation. Seen it in action. Not everyone falls into this large boat, there are some truly valuable folk who graduated into industry.

Now understand I'm not saying anything about SAWs, M4s, or howitzers (I do think longer range howitzers are good). I AM saying that projects that get support from the grunts vs ones that get all their support from mid-level & above should get more support!

I was never LEO or military, but I have many freinds who were. I did suffer these maladies (sp again?) in industry.

Ok, retiring the soap box for a minute or many.

 

[DarkLord]

So lets see if I got this straight.

The Army adopted a new rifle, LMG, and cartridge without consulting actual field soldiers...Is that what you're saying?
Have you read the adoption process of ANY US Military arm. These things take years (and they have been working on a new cartridge for a good 20 years now), and has to get the signoff by a fecal matter ton of people, including the soldiers.

 

[rvance]

you have a stick, i have a sword

you have a sword, i have steel armor and a sword

you have a bodkin tipped arrow, i have chain mail

and so on.

weapon beats armor everytime. do you want to be in a t-80 tank or a Javelin operator? i'm not trying to go political, but where would you rather be? i'd take Javelin every day and twicet on Sunday.

Bodkin beats chain mail every time. Plate loses about 20%.

 

[sarky]

Well here we are, the military morons have decided, that after we have left Afghanistan that we need a long range troop weapon. So, what is wrong with the 6.5 Grendel? Or the 6mm ARC? Both of which are supersonic out beyond 1000 meters. The Grendel has the same energy at 1000 meters as the 7.62x51. And the Grendel fits in the M-4 platform.

 

[JBelk]

I liked it better when the inventor went to the White House and asked Mr. Lincoln to fire his Spencer Carbine into the wood pile. A thousand were ordered before dark.

 

[rvance]

🍿

 

[DarkLord]

Well here we are, the military morons have decided, that after we have left Afghanistan that we need a long range troop weapon. So, what is wrong with the 6.5 Grendel? Or the 6mm ARC? Both of which are supersonic out beyond 1000 meters. The Grendel has the same energy at 1000 meters as the 7.62x51. And the Grendel fits in the M-4 platform.

If ya'll followed this program, you'd know they tested the Grendel cartridge all the way back in the early 2000's, and ruled it out. They also ruled out 6.8 SPC, 6.5 SPC, 7.62 NATO, and 5.56. They also took caseless for another test drive, and tested three different types of polymer cartridges, including case-telescoped cartridges. They have known they need a wholly new cartridge for at least a decade now, and after a decade of testing against their actual test criteria (AR500 plate, and composite armor at 600m), they have developed and settled on this new cartridge because it actually meets their needs.

They didn't just wake up one day and say, "Hey, let's invent a new short version of the .270 Winchester and just give that a try."

Does it just make people feel smart second guessing the actual experts? I'm completely at a loss as to how everyone here knows better than the actual people who are doing the thing.

 

[DarkLord]

I liked it better when the inventor went to the White House and asked Mr. Lincoln to fire his Spencer Carbine into the wood pile. A thousand were ordered before dark.

You'd still get a dozen people saying the Spencer should have been chambered in .44 Russian, or some such nonsense.

 

[SubBuilder27]

Kinda makes me curious what the Army went through in adopting the Minié ball and (shortly thereafter) breech-loading infantry weapons in the mid-19th century. Can you picture that debate among senior leaders used to smoothbores as the main infantry weapon and exotic muzzle loading rifles with tight clearances and low rates of fire for the sharpshooters? I remember reading about generals in the early 1860s looking askance at breech loading weapons because their rate of fire was so high that the troops would run out of ammunition too quickly. The Army had to completely rethink tactics and techniques, and really needed the pressure of a hot war to motivate that rethinking. Made logistics even more important, too.

This has been a fascinating discussion. Thanks for all the perspectives. I'm a Navy guy who spent my career in submarine design, acquisition, and technology development. I can tell you that there are many, many very good people who know how to follow a specification but very few who can actually write one. To do the former, you just (!) need to be competent. To do the latter, you need to be both competent and have a profound knowledge of the game that is afoot. Here's praying that the Army's RDT&E team has the profound knowledge and that the leadership has the wisdom to hold the reins loosely enough for the team to do their job right.

Never could figure out why we call it "common sense," either. I never found it to be all that common...

Cheers!

 

[MikeG]

"Not invented here." Explains why the previous 130-140 year's worth of knowledge / experience / history was discarded, and "magically" we found a NEW, never invented before cartridge configuration, that met all the 'new' specs.....

Practically any cartridge with some sort of reasonable case capacity, can penetrate whatever amount of body armor in existence, with the right bullet. As hunters have known (or should have known) for centuries, it's the bullet impact on target that does the work. We just couldn't give the soviet x39-based case the nod, no matter how capable it or its offspring are. Embarassing!

Put some tungsten-core bullets in practically ANYTHING and you can penetrate all the body armor you want. Heck a fast-twist 5.56 could likely have done all they wanted, with the right bullet.

'Splain how the 'new' stuff is all that different from various European 6.5 and 7mm cartridges over the years (it isn't). Heck a .250 Savage with the "right" bullets would do pretty well, I suspect. Oh wait it was already invented.... we can't have that

 

[rickyerby]

we have some great cartridges in the ar-15, like 6.5 Grendel, 6.8 Wolverine, 6.8 SPC, heck i even go with the 6 ARC (didn't the gummint already had this?)....but the gummint says ar-10 in 6.8x51(277 Fury).

i'm going from memory(don't trust it. i don't!!!), the gummint wants to have a heavier platform, 20 - 25 rnds per magazine, heavier cartridge, semi to full auto, 2 piece cartridge body, it "kicks" the bejeezus out of ya. this is all for the 3000fps+ and it penetrates body armor? ahhhhhhhhh...yeah, go ahead and buy it. and find out that Army/Marines qualification scores go down.

this is just me, but wouldn't the gummint do a 2 piece case in 6.5 Grendel or 6.8 SPC? then they could do ar15 type weapon with 80,000 psi or CUP or whatever. DARPA, i'm talking to you.

i like the idea of 6.8x51 for the heavy machine gun, it could take the 7.62x51 off the map and the 5.56 MG(m240 and 249) and throw them away.

hmmm....maybe i don't want 6.8x51. 80,000psi is alot pressure and can it take it? the barrel life, i mean. i have never done it, but the m60 with 7.62x51 could heat the barrel red hot. thats why we trained with 6 - 9 rounds (a short burst). i think it somewhere around 250 rounds that you had to change the barrel? but we never did, we go 750 - 1000 rounds before we changed the barrel (makes you glad to use and carry an asbestos gloves ), but that was with short bursts. a long burst was really, really frowned on by our sergeants. not that i did it or anything...............

oh well, NMP.

It's doing that 3,000 fps in a 13" barrel. This is a disaster waiting to happen.

 

[rickyerby]

This is a absolute nightmare. There is nothing wrong with the 5.56 as a combat cartridge as you can see in the Ukraine. I carried the M4 as a contractor in Iraq and always carried 400 rounds of ammo and that is something I could not do with this abortion. If I was Grizzly hunting sure but for people massive over kill and too heavy.