View Single Post
  #430  
Old April 1st, 2018, 07:10 PM
MarkSheppard's Avatar

MarkSheppard MarkSheppard is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 864
Thanks: 64
Thanked 182 Times in 132 Posts
MarkSheppard is on a distinguished road
Default Re: WinSP MBT: Das Reich

I recently handrolled a ballistics program from a 1983 Applesoft BASIC program I found in a 1983 Warships International issue; and converted it from BASIC to Python 3, and ran some quick tests after inputting the 5.56mm and 4.7mm DM11 data into the program:

In most Field Manuals, the M-16 is rated as being "Effective" against an area target at 800m.

The M-16 round has the following characteristics at 800m when fired from a height of 1.4m (average shoulder height) at a 1.2m target (average chest height):

Terminal Energy: 193.47 joules of KE. This is 2.28 times the minimum
energy (around 85 Joules) estimated as being necessary to seriously
incapacitate a human on the battlefield.

Terminal Penetration (Ballistic Gel): 16.72mm. This is 0.05x FBI req.

NOTE: The FBI standard for small arms is 304.8mm (12in) gel penetration. This represents the average human target, taking into account bones, organs, etc. This also represents law enforcement requirement to effectively incapacitate a target within moments of wounding. It's how they came up with 10mm Auto in the early 1990s -- to fulfill that requirement in a pistol.

The (in)famous 4.7x33mm Caseless (DM11) round has the following rating at 800m:

Terminal Energy: 255.73 joules of KE. This is 3.01 times the minimum
energy (around 85 Joules) estimated as being necessary to seriously
incapacitate a human on the battlefield.

Terminal Penetration (Ballistic Gel): 15.99mm. This is 0.05x FBI req.

The biggest difference is that at around 1600m; the rates change to:

5.56mm: 63.88J, 5.52mm gel penetration
4.7mm DM11: 73.38J, 4.59mm gel penetration

This matches with other statments I have found online:

Quote:
Ballistics for the 4.7mm caseless was rather close to the 5.56mm round. However, terminal ballistics was very different as the 4.7mm did not tumble or fragment upon impact (hence the 4.7mm round was considered inferior to the 5.56mm in this regard). The G11 program was based on the idea of increased probability of hitting the intended target by using the salvo principle; to wit, multiple rounds hitting the target through high rpm burst and delayed recoil.
Biggest thing I noticed was that for the same distances; the 4.7mm DM11 required slightly less barrel elevation in degrees than the 5.56; so it was inherently more accurate.

The other big difference was that the G11 had a built in optical sight from the start, while the M-16/M-4 family didn't get a flat-rail ACOG until the 2000s.

So I would rate the G11 as having the same specications as US weapon 009 M16A4 ACOG:

ACC: 6
HEK: 3
Range: 9

The biggest difference would be in the Rifle Squad. While the typical US Rifle squad has 80 HE units of ammo for M16, this would be increased in a G11 squad to around 160-170 HE units of ammo, because 510 rounds of 4.7mm weighs the same as 240 rounds of 5.56mm.

In case you are also wondering:

9x19mm M882 Ball @ 0 elevation is 389.2 J to 82.267M, and 88.11mm penetration of ballistic gel.

5.7x28mm SS190 Ball @ 0 elevation is 238 J to 143.2M, and 21.6mm penetration of ballistic gel.

Basically, Five Seven pistols extend pistol range from 1 hex to 2 hexes, and within the context of pistol power (1 HEK basically), it's all a wash; because the difference between being shot with a 389J or 238J round is not fun.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MarkSheppard For This Useful Post: