What does this actually mean? ISIS isn't a tribe nor are they an ancient culture. And stop capitalising your statements; I can read. I doubt that. The new generation of "smart weapons" can only target tanks. And a cluster bomb is not going to weigh the same as a general purpose bomb. And the civilians within that 500 mile radius will be killed as well and that's assuming that this weapon actually exists or has even gone to the point of mass production. That's not even a sentence.
By the way longknife....I was shot in the chest by an AK-47 at spitting distance while wearing an advanced high tech ultra-light vest....and because of the proximity there was ballistic penetration. If I had been shot in the chest at that distance by any M-16 Varient especially the M4....I would be dead. AboveAlpha
Once again, you failed to read what I wrote. The Kalashnikov has strengths as the M16 has strengths. The use it is put to would determine which weapon to actually purchase.
You distorted what I actually said. I said that the use the weapon is put to and which factors were considered more valuable would determine which weapon should be supplied. Also, I would like to point out that he actually didn't compare the AK to the M16, he compared the M16 to the AR15, the M4 and the M14. You do understand about apples and oranges, right?
In other words, no good answers to any of the objections raised. - - - Updated - - - An AK would hit harder due to the larger round. We've been over this. What do you base your statement on?
I have already posted about this but since you REFUSE to read....here... The 5.56×45mm NATO cartridge and can produce massive wounding effects when the bullet impacts at high speed and yaws ("tumbles") in tissue leading to fragmentation and rapid transfer of energy.[75][76][77] This produces wounds that were so devastating that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and many countries[78] considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon.[ In June 2010, the U.S. Military began issuing the 62-grain M855A1 Enhanced Performance Round (EPR). The bullet had a solid copper core to eliminate lead contamination, and a steel penetrator tip. The EPR has better hard target penetration than 7.62 mm NATO ball, while also performing more consistently against soft targets than the M855. While the M855A1 was made to give better performance out of the shorter barrel of the M4 Carbine, it gives enhanced performance from the full-length M16 barrel. If I had been shot those 3 times with an M-16 or Varient of such as the M4 A. #1. My High Tech. Ultra-Light Vest would NOT have been able to slow down the Ballistic Penetration of the American 5.56×45mm Round. #2. The 3 5.56×45mm rounds would have entered my body deeply and tumbled and caused massive internal damage. #3. I would have died right then and there and would not have been able to be fixed by any Surgeon. I was LUCKY to have been shot by an AK-47 even at that close a range.....because if it had been an M-16 or M4.....I would be dead with no chance. AboveAlpha
Actually not. What this actually means is that there is a high degree of variability in severity. It is also possible for the bullet to yaw along bones and even exit the same side it entered, causing minimal damage. What this means is that the new rounds penetrate better. This in turn means there is less tumbling when one scores a hit, thus negating your previous point. Since the AK rounds did in fact penetrate, This part of your post has no meaning other than negation of your first paragraph. So? Your protection was penetrated. Do you really think your internal organs are hard enough to stop a bullet? From 'spitting distance'? If so, you are a hard man indeed. Don't know about tumbling. 'Massive' is a relative term. Anyone hit three times in the chest should be down for the count with internal injuries (collapsed lungs, heart stopped due to injury or impact (commotio cordis). Yet you managed to beat out your unwounded aide to shooting a bad guy. You see why you are less than believable in your story? I don't think you can really say that. Not that I believe your story for a second, but even were it true, I don't believe you can predict what happens to a given round on impact. You are overstating your case.
Yes....I went down HARD. I was wearing an Ultra-Light High Tech Vest that CATCHES rounds like a Chinese Finger Puzzle as we cannot move as quickly as is needed in high temps. wearing full metal and ceramic plated insert body armor. Where I was shot there was ballistic penetration but it slowed the rounds down enough so that the rounds were able to be removed by my Medic. Bones were broken. The person who shot me had NO INTENTION of killing me as he could have just as easily shot me in the head or face as I do not wear a Kevlar Helmet. His intention was to wound the Team Leader...ie...ME....and then follow us....all the way back to the extraction point as if we did not make it back we would not be picked up andour existence disavowed. It is an OLD technique....wound one...preferably the one in command....follow....recon where that team goes....and destroy their pickup. I ended the persons life that shot me. And my sniper crews set up days before the Meet and Greet using .50 Cal. Barrett M82's.....well....I just thank GOD my mistake did not cost the lives of any Member of my Team.....but my men cut them down like they were tall grass. AboveAlpha
As ANYONE who has ever been shot at and wounded by a round coming out of an AK-47 will tell you....THANK GOD IT WAS NOT A 5.56×45mm ROUND FROM AN M4!!!!! The AK round is heavier but it will either fall short of a distant target where as we can kill them froma much greater distance.....or the AK-47's 7.62×39mm Round if it hits you will penetrate right through you or hit bone but IT WILL NOT FRAGMENT WHEN TUMBLING!!! NVC and NVR Troops when suffering even a hit to the arm or leg never mind a body shot from the M-16's 5.56×45mm round DIED!!! 96%.....DIED....that were just hit with one 5.56×45mm round from an M-16 to the arms or legs!!! Leg shots even if on the outside of the femur resulted in Internal Damage to the Femoral Artery. Arm shots....also damaged arteries to the point they could not be repaired. A BODY SHOT....forget it....dead. I amvery happy to have been shot by an AK-47!!! AboveAlpha
Once again your credibility suffers as a direct result of your less than truthful statements and ill considered comparisons. Are you trying to tell me that almost every Viet Minh and NVA troop hit by an M16 died as a result of his wounds? I'll really need to see a source for that particular statistic. also a comparison of their field medics and hospitals that says they were as good or better than ours. 5.56mm is only .223 caliber. It may cause damage disproportionate to its size, but it remains a small round. 7.62mm rounds, both NATO and Russian are equal to .30 - .06, almost half again as large.
The M-16 and the 5.56×45mm were CONDEMNED by the UNITED NATIONS as being a weapon using a form of ammo that caused so much body trauma that even a hit to a pesrons extremedies caused so much trauma from a single would the M-16 and the 5.56x45mm round in the way in was in use was ATTEMPTED TO BE BANNED AS AN INHUMANE WEAPON!!! Take some time and Google survival rates of a person being shot by either weapon and round. An AK-47 even though having a heavier round moves at a far less velocity with far less spin of the round. The 5.56×45mm coming out of an M-16 or M4 or other Varient is traveling at such a high velocity and spinning incredibly fast and as it hits flesh that velocity and high velocity spinning of the round transfers it's kinetic energy and force in a much different way than a round froman AK-47. The slower but heavier 7.62×39mm AK round which also spins at NOWHERE NEAR THE SPIN VELOCITY OF THE 5.56×45mm M-16 or M4 or Varient of them round. The AK's 7.62×39mm round unless encountering Modern U.S. Military Forces Body Armor will tend to lose a great amount of Kinetic Force at distance but within close quarters the AK's round will penetrate through and through an unarmored human body. THAT MEANS....if the AK-47 Shooter does not hit the heart, Liver...and other Internal Organs or hit a main artery during bodily penetration the round willshoot right through unless it hits dense bone....and even then the AK's 7.62×39mm round remains intact. THE 5.56×45mm M-16 or M4 or Varient of them round upon hitting say....the outer flesh of the Human thigh will tumble and fragment to the point it will most likely rip open the Femoral Artery on the other sideof the Femur. It is a devestating wound that a 5.56×45mm round from an M-16 or M4or Varient of inflicts and this would kill anyone hit in this manner. The AK-47's 7.62×39mm round....if it hit the same spot....would pass right through the flesh never touching the bone or Femoral Artery....andthat person would live without a doubt. AboveAlpha
Dude, a ballistic vest is intended to stop shrapnel and pistol rounds at moderate range. Against rifle rounds 'at spitting distance', it is as much protection as a silk shirt. Your overblown boasting hurts your credibility. Not only on this single post or this single thread, but every post on every thread. Again, I take personal offense, not only at your feeble untruths aimed at gaining you undeserved respect, but at the way those untruths detract from those who truly deserve our respect. I advise you to stop before you embarrass yourself some more. ETA: More spin on a round would tend to stop it tumbling. Your argument against a .30 round's deadliness is weakened by your assertion of its lack of spin. I see You have little knowledge of ballistics as well.
READ. Terminal ballistics[edit]A brief comparison between cartridges reveals that the AK-47's heavier 7.62×39mm cartridge has much better penetration than the M16's lighter, higher-velocity 5.56×45mm cartridge.[12][13][165][166][167] However, it also reveals that the M16's lighter, higher-velocity 5.56mm bullet has a tendency to fragment on impact causing larger wounds than the AK-47's heavier 7.62mm bullet, which does not fragment on impact. The M16 has always enjoyed a reputation for excellent accuracy.[153][154] Newer M16s use the newer M855 cartridge increasing their effective range to 600 meters.[114] They are also more accurate than their predecessors and are capable of shooting 1–3 inch groups at 100 yards.[155][156] The M16s light recoil, high-velocity and flat trajectory allow shooters to take head shots out to 300 meters.[153][157] "In Fallujah, Marines with ACOG-equipped M16A4s created a stir by taking so many head shots that until the wounds were closely examined, some observers thought the insurgents had been executed."[158] The newest M855A1 EPR cartridge is even more accurate and during testing "...has shown that, on average, 95 percent of the rounds will hit within an 8 x 8-inch target at 600 meters."[159] The AK-47's accuracy has always been considered to be "good enough" to hit an adult male torso out to about 300 meters.[154][155][160] "At 300 meters, expert shooters (firing AK-47s) at prone or at bench rest positions had difficulty putting ten consecutive rounds on target."[161] Despite the Soviet engineers best efforts and "no matter the changes, the AK-47's accuracy could not be significantly improved; when it came to precise shooting, it was a stubbornly mediocre arm." LINK....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16 And here is WHY I was happy to be shot by an AK-47 compared to an M-16 or Varient...... heavier 7.62x39mm round has superior penetration when compared to the M16's lighter 5.56x45mm round and is better in circumstances where a soldier has to shoot through heavy foliage, walls or a common vehicle's metal body and into an opponent attempting to use these things as cover. The 7.62x39mm M43 projectile does not generally fragment and has an unusual tendency to remain intact even after making contact with bone. The 7.62x39mm round produces significant wounding in cases where the bullet tumbles in tissue,[168] but produces relatively minor wounds in cases where the bullet exits before beginning to yaw.[165][169][170] In the absence of yaw, the M43 round can pencil through tissue with relatively little injury and it's wounding potential is limited to the small permanent wound channel the bullet itself makes.[165][171] The original ammunition for the M16 was the 5.56x45mm M193 round. When fired from a 20″ barrel at ranges of up to 100 meters, the thin-jacketed lead-cored round traveled fast enough (above 2900 ft/s) that the force of striking a human body would cause the round to yaw (or tumble) and fragment into about a dozen pieces of various sizes thus created wounds that were out of proportion to its caliber.[12][165] These wounds were much larger than those produced by AK-47 and they were so devastating that many considered the M16 to be an inhumane weapon Same LINK. Performance[edit] 5.56mm NATO shown alongside other cartridges 5.56×45mm NATO cartridges in a STANAG magazine.The 5.56×45mm NATO SS109/M855 cartridge (NATO: SS109; U.S.: M855) with standard 62 gr. lead core bullets with steel penetrator will penetrate approximately 38 to 51 cm (15 to 20 in) into soft tissue in ideal circumstances. As with all spitzer shaped projectiles it is prone to yaw in soft tissue. However, at impact velocities above roughly 762 m/s (2,500 ft/s), it may yaw and then fragment at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet).[15] These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries.[16] Fragmentation, if or when it occurs, imparts much greater damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This fragmentation effect is highly dependent on velocity, and therefore barrel length: short-barreled carbines generate less muzzle velocity and therefore lose wounding effectiveness at much shorter ranges than longer-barreled rifles.[17] Proponents of the hydrostatic shock theory contend that the rapid transfer of energy also results in wounding effects beyond the tissue directly crushed and torn by the bullet and fragments.[18][19] These remote wounding effects are known as hydrostatic shock LINK...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56×45mm_NATO OH....and the Rifling Twist for the AK-47 Round is 1 in 9.45 inches.....while the original M-16 was 1 in 14 inches and that was increased to 1 in 18 and higher in some varients. SPIN.....and VELOCITY.....and TUMBLE OF ROUND DURING PENETRATION....causing the 5.56 x 45mm M-16 or varient of round when at various ranges but EVEN MORE SO AT CLOSE RANGE....to impact the Human Body at such a speed and spin velocity the 5.56 x 45mm M-16 or varient of Round TO TUMBLE AND FRACTURE INTO MANY PIECES!!! This causes a wound to the body that is governed by HYDROSTATIC SHOCK....thus transfering the vast majority of Kinetic Energy and Force into the Human Body causing massive and life threatening due to arterial bleading injuries even if the M-16's 5.56 x 45mm round does not initially penetrate the body near an artery or internal organ as the pieces of the round will travel and bounce off bone thus areas of the Human Body at distances over 16 inches away or more have been effected even if the initial point of penetration was part of the fleshy area of the Human body with no arterial or organ areas behind the site of penetration. The AK-47's heavier 7.62mm bullet would simply enter the Human Body and exit the fleshy no artery no organ part of the body and pass THROUGH AND THROUGH!! THAT IS WHY IF I WAS SHOT WITH AN M-16 OR VARIENT OF I WOULD BE DEAD AND WHY I AM ALIVE BECAUSE I WAS SHOT BY A NOW DEAD MAN WITH AN AK-47!!!! AboveAlpha
Amigo, now you're beginning to be trapped by your lies. In post#84 you said there was ballistic penetration and that the rounds could be removed by your medic. Obviously not through and through. Stop. Between your ignorant references to 'ISIS tribal headdresses', your lack of knowledge about whom servicemembers salute, your flat out wrongheadedness about how missions work in a war zone, and now your conflicting statements about getting shot, you are losing credibility at an incredible rate. You cannot be believed. Should you say it gets dark at night, I would have to check.
Alpha.. read the following. http://www.newsweek.com/isiss-enemy-list-10-reasons-islamic-state-doomed-268953
I disagree; I think the worst decision made was to get involved with eliminating ISIS in the first place; let Europe and the Middle East nations deal with it in the first place. Why waste American blood and money on a country where the tribes have been fighting with each other for centuries; we should have learned from past mistakes that we cannot force our way of life on other countries. Let the them battle it out and may the best man win.
Well then look at it as long term political repercussions since the rest of the world blames the United States and this particular president for the triumphant rise of ISIS as a successful regional power in the first place. You recall that one facet of Obama's countless promises to the people of this nation and to the entire world when he swaggered into office at the beginning of 2009 was the FACT that he was going to clean up all of G.W. Bush's stupid screw-ups and elevate the sagging reputation of the United States to giddy heights once again? Well now how can he claim to have accomplished any such things when all that Alpha wrote is correct and all of that happened before Barack Obama's very eyes while he was busy taking Hawaiian vacations and golfing all the damn time that he was not actively fund raising? You think the rest of the world is going to give the Leftwinger's Anointed One a free pass on this and then NOT take it out on the United States one way or the other? There are repercussions to any political party when they front a bad president and then put an obviously bad president into the Oval Office not once but twice in a row. There were consequences to the Republican Party for having done that with Bush and there are definitely going to be consequences for the Democratic Party for having done that twice with Obama . . . unless Obama finally learns how to be a good president here and now. So cleaning up his ISIS mess is part of the process.
Your certainly entitled to your viewpoint; I just happen to disagree with it and unlike both you and alpha, I'll keep the partisan aspect out of it. We never should have gotten involved over in the mid-east in the first place, but for whatever the reason we did; now they want more US involvement over there; in my opinion, there is no valid reason for us to be over there whatsoever. Let the locals or Europe get involved for a change without US assistance.
I wasn't being partisan. I was telling you point blank the nature of reality and what the consequences will be if Obama does not correct at least some of his major foreign policy blunders. During his years as president I was just as unforgiving and tough on G.W. Bush; being as I was utterly against the Iraqi War Venture from the very beginning.
When you refer to the President as "the anointed one", that alone is being partisan. It would be the same if I referred to Geo. Bush as "King George II". Like you I was against the Iraqi War Venture from the get go as well, only I'm more extreme; we should have closed down all embassies overseas with few exceptions. We have no business being over there trying to impose our will on those who do not desire it. However the thinking heads in Washington DC decided that we have to stick our nose into every countries business including our allies. Btw, I have been very tough on all Presidents from Nixon on up to Obama as well since all of them (with the exception of Gerald Ford) have made decisions that I found deplorable.
Today, Obama is going to tell the world that it is imperative that US taxpayers and a "coalition of the willing" go to the aid of elitist kingdoms and puppet dictators who already have their own armies. It's to be expected that most US citizens will drink this State Department Kool-Aid. I would have hoped that some kind of anti-war movement developed to oppose this, but as far as I can see the only people speaking out against more US intervention are Ron Paul and a few of his hard-core supporters. No doubt that the Republican critique of Obama's speech tonight will be that he is not proposing enough intervention.
Absolutely!! The #1 Thing that Middle Eastern Nations, Groups, Military's and People DO NOT WANT TO HAPPEN AGAIN....is to have the 800 lbs Gorrilla back in the room...ie....U.S. Military Forces. All these Middle Eastern Leaders, Nations, Groups and People KNOW is that it is possible however unlikely that if members of ISIS pulled off a 9/11 style attack most likely in Europe or against a U.S. Military Base or much more unlikely an attack in the U.S. itself....THE PEOPLE AND MILITARY OF THE UNITED STATES WOULD ABSOLUTELY GO INSANE WITH RAGE!!! This is why some Middle Eastern Nations who call the U.S. ally but then to keep themselves in power to apease Islamic Fundementalists would donate Millions to them....do not do so anymore. In fact Iran is willing to go to great lengths to coordinate bombing attacks upon ISIS Forces by U.S. Aircraft and this is happening now. This is the Middle East's DEFINING MOMENT. Either the region becomes prosperous, peaceful and continues upon paths to Democracy.....OR.... After an overwhealming U.S. Military Campaign not seen in level and lethality of it's violence since WWII....the entire Middle East becomes a U.S. Military Protectorate just as East Germany and Japan became and still are to this day. AboveAlpha
