U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

You know there is a big difference in obtainable effective range depended upon the percentage of water vapor in the air.

I can hit a relatively distant target easy with an M-4 or SEC-7 in a dry climate compared to say a very humid one.

AA

 

It's important we stop easy to convert to full auto Chinese AK-47's from entering the country.

The AR-15 is near impossible now to convert unless you really know what your doing.

The AK-47 is easy as hell.

AA

 

Hey AR do you have an extra $2500 plus shipping lying around? This would make quite the conversation piece...


http://weaponsman.com/?p=4411

 

I don't know that I'd say its a big difference. Theoretically is easier to get a vapor trail in higher humidity, and in high humidity the air is less dense.

Bullet trace is very clear if you are using a good spotter scope. If you have a really heavy rifle, and light recoiling round it is possible to see your own trace. Some people use compensators for this reason too.

- - - Updated - - -

And how many of these easily converted chinese AK-47's are used in crimes each year?

Please stop using anti-gun talking points.

 

Actually increased water vapor means an increase in air density.

And you don't necessarily have to have hot air to have high humidity.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

I am just saying they should make them so they cannot be easily converted.

I am not saying to ban them.

AA

 

Actually, humid air is less dense. I have found the effect of elevation and temperature to be much greater than humidity though.

The AK-47 is a select fire assault rifle, civilian versions are not select fire assault rifles. Even possessing the parts to convert it to full auto is a felony. They aren't widely used in crime.

When you spout that info, it tends to make things harder on legal gun owners who wan't nothing to do with breaking the law.

 

OK....as long as we are talking about air at the same elevation the addition of water molecules as water vapor in the air increases air density.

Please explain to me why you would think it decreases air density?

AA

 

Most specifically because of Avogadro's law.

You might be thinking that water in its liquid form is heavier than air, but think about steam-the gaseous form of water its much less dense and thats why it rises. Same applies when there is more water in the air-it displaces the heavier air molecules and therefore makes it less dense.

 

OK...here is the thing....although I fully agree with Avogadro's law which details the molar masses it does not account for the physical kinetic resistance of a bullet traveling through heavy water vapor ridden air that is NOT at high temperature.

Example.....if you were to boil water and collect it in a balloon the addition of water vapor does not counter the spreading of air gas molecules due to the increase in heat so you get a much higher pressure inside the balloon than exists outside and the increase in buoyancy would allow the balloon to float even with the water vapor.

HOWEVER....when air with a very high concentration of water vapor is cooled the pressure immediately decreases
and you get water vapor bonding to particulates in the air and tiny microscopic raindrops exist suspended in the air.

When water vapor exist in the air diffused upon a Molecular Level the ballistic trajectory is unaffected.

But when water vapor is in cooler air physical micro-raindrops exist suspended in that air.

Another example is specific to a specific volume of the atmosphere with a high amount of water vapor being contained by a central low pressure vortex such as in a Hurricane.

The eye of the hurricane has extremely low pressure but the walls of the hurricane contain an enormous amount of water and the water exists as rain drops or at a minimum as tiny micro-droplets suspended in that air.

This containment is similar to having a 1 cubic meter of air at 1 ATM of pressure with zero water vapor in it and then weighing that amount of air and then as in a Hurricane where this air is contained in a specific volume area taking that cubic meter of air and injecting an additional amount of water vapor.

Once weighed it obviously is denser and heavier.

When there is no storm or various containing pressure systems causing containment then YES....water vapor will cause air to become less dense as in that case it is an OPEN SYSTEM.

But when confronted with a CLOSED SYSTEM...or at the very least semi-closed....water vapor can become an impediment to ballistic trajectory.

Another example is a CLOUD.

If you have ever been in an airplane and you are flying through clear skies and then your aircraft comes in contact with a cloud.....YOU CAN PHYSICALLY FEEL THE RESISTANCE of the aircraft passing through the cloud.

Same problem with a bullet.

AA

 

Humid air is less dense...

It matters more at long range, and to target shooters but it does have an effect. Ballistics calculators account for it. Helicopters can't carry as much. Its less dense.

 

Usually humidity is specific to high temp. evaporation.

But if you take a cubic meter of air on a dry sunny day and take a cubic meter of air that is from an area between mountains and that air is dense fog....which air will effect the trajectory of a bullet greater?

The water vapor laden foggy air of course.

AA

 

Just to add because heavy laden with water vapor air will condense around particulates which of course is how a rain drop forms....even well before the particulate becomes a raindrop it still has a large number of water molecules attached to it.

These Micro-Raindrops will interfere with the ballistic flight of the bullet as unlike a round flying through a a molar consistency of gas in this case the round will be impacting the water covered particulates.

AA

 

Even full sized raindrops don't interfere with ballistic flight.

 

At long range?

Of course they do.

This is a basic tenet of Kinetic Transfer.

Anytime matter in motion comes in contact with other matter there is a transfer of kinetic energy.

AA

 

The odds of a bullet "hitting" a raindrop are slim, and even when it does happen the shockwave in front displaces the drop. Plus the time of flight is very short. Rain effects the shooter infinitely more than the bullet.

 

We are talking about firing a round at great distance which rain and even heavily water collected particulate air exists.

A short distance shot is not an issue but if your taking a shot at a long distance target there will be effect upon the bullets trajectory.

AA

 

The effect is slim to none-and if there is a miniscule effect its completely random-not something that can be accounted for.

To recap: humid air is less dense.

 

Warm or Hot Humid Air is less dense as the atmospheric conditions that cause containment of specific volumes of air counter the manner by which introduction of water vapor lessons air density in an open system.

And if it is pouring out and we are firing at a target at say.....700 yards....if you were to stop time and draw a straight line to that target the line will intersect with a vast number of raindrops.

AA

 

Trust me, you are wrong there.

I can not even begin to tell you the thousands of rounds that I have fired over the years. And the hundreds of thousands of rounds I have ovserved being fired at ranges (do not forget, I ran a rifle range for 3 years). And I have fired in all weather. Cold, hot, rainy, foggy, sunny, humid, dry, even in the snow.

And I have not once ever seen a difference in how the bullets impacted due to rain. In fact, my best range ever was just last month, in the pouring rain. I shot a perfect score, 40 out of 40, all in the black. And interestingly enough, my best score prior to that was in 1990, at Camp Schwab. Firing in almost monsoon conditions, 240 out of 250.

The bullet is simply to small and traveling to fast to be affected by water, which might as well be static when velocities are compared. Like trying to claim the water hitting a football during a pass makes it travel a lesser distance. Or the water hitting the windshield of my car decreases it's performance and makes me burn more fuel. Or flying through clouds makes a jet burn more fuel.

 

I trained in artillery at Fort Sill and I know a little bit about artillery. One of the most devastating forms of artillery fire is called "time on target" where multiple batteries time their fire so that all of the rounds land on the target at the same time. There was a demonstration of this at Fort Sill where a clump of trees where the target and when the incoming artillery hit that small grove of trees it was like a cluster bomb of 105mm and 155mm rounds going off. Nothing could possibly live through that barrage of hundreds of rounds of artillery.... except when the fire stopped several deer ran out of that small clump of trees. I also know that the 8" gun was the most accurate artillery piece during the Vietnam War and even it had a significant range "probable" error and rarely hit it's target down range. As often as not this was due to the spotter that couldn't accurately define the coordinates but in any case it always required numerous rounds before any target was actually hit. A 16" naval gun, firing twenty miles down range, is probably lucky to get within 1000 meters on the first shot.

I can only relate my personal combat experience in Vietnam but to me it's obvious that you must not have been involved in the Vietnam War. We virtually never saw the enemy and the only way to kill the enemy was basically by accident. I was mostly in the central highlands that are heavily forested and you could only see about 25 feet typically and it was worse in the jungles. When you started taking fire at best you knew what direction it was coming from. You never had a "target" to take aim at. If you waited to shoot until you actually saw the enemy you'd probably end up dead before you ever fired a round.

Working with Army Special Forces I also learned something valuable. When you came under attack you had two choices. You could attack the enemy position which normally resulted in you dying or you could execute a tactical retreat. To illustrate a tactical retreat I'll use a four-man squad. Two would fire on full automatic to suppress the enemy fire while two retreated a short distance. Then the two that retreated would open fire allowing the first two to retreat, reload, and open fire to cover the retreat. It was a leap-frog process that relied on full automatic fire to suppress the enemy fire. This type of tactical retreat was SOP (standard operating procedure) when ambushed and it unquestionably saved a lot of American lives in Vietnam.

Yes, they've modified the M-16 to limit it to three-round bursts which just means the soldier has to pull the trigger more often in the same situation.

 

Good, we shouldn't be in the business of being involved in wars in the first place. We have enough to defend our shores as it is.

 

More importantly is that the soldier doesn't really care if it's raining or not when they're in a fire-fight.

 

I could not hit the broadside of a barn on a good day, but as I understand it long range shooters do need to factor in the "Coriolis force" as a result of the earth's rotation.

Basically air moves from high to low pressure in the northern hemisphere, it is deflected to the right by the Coriolis force.

My knowledge of the Coriolis effect stems from aviation, not ballistics, as it does strongly influence wind currents (jet stream), so the aircraft does need to factor those in that way. As to the direct effect on an airplane, it's negligible, something on the order of 300x weaker than gravity. Nevertheless there is a tendency to steer very slightly leftward to compensate when flying in the Northern Hemisphere.

 

I'm familiar with the "Time on Fire" seen it done with two 105 howitzer batteries. Seen training films where an entire arty battalion conducted a TOF with air burst.
Naval ships were suppose to be able do the same but never seen it done. Usually just one destroyer or cruiser on the gun line firing six or 9 gun salvos (volley for you arty boys)

The whole idea of the "Time on Fire" was to catch Charley unexpectedly, no spotting round to adjust. Usually a FT or VT fuse for an air burst.

Remember the "Zone and Sweep" fire missions ?

Re: 8" gun, you are referring to the 8" howitzer not gun. The largest gun on the ground was the 175 mm gun. Guns are high velocity flat trajectory weapons.
Never seen an 175 mm on the other end, 25 mile range so they say but the further it went out, it was said it was less accurate.

The Iowa's 16" guns were very accurate. Every time a 16" gun fired there were recalculations made for barrel ware. The new gun barrels that were produced during the 1980's tripled the barrel life compared to the old barrels manufactured during WW ll.

I served in l-Corps, never got up in the ll-Corps Central Highlands, it was never the Marines TAOR.

I-Corps had a little bit of everything. From wide sand dune beaches, lots of rice paddies, long open planes with no trees, especially up near the DMZ , rain forest near the rivers to high rugged mountains to the east near the Laotian border. Vietnam wasn't tank country and what few tank battles that took place, it happened in I-Corps.

Most who heard of the Green Beret camp that was over run during the battle of Khe Sanh, it was over run by NVA tanks not infantry.

I concur that you rarely saw Charley, at least during the day. Most contact happened at night. Charley decided when he wanted to fight and it was usually at night. It's when the NVA up in I-Corps would bring out their artillery. They were to scared to use their artillery during the day in fear of A-4's and F-4 Phantoms.

 

A four man squad ? That's being really under strength. Just jerking you off. Four man fire team. Marines use the "Rule of Three" it was created by Marine Gen. Merritt (Red Mike) Edson during the Banana Wars. Three fire teams to a rifle squad. Three rifle squads to a rifle platoon, etc, etc.

I was TAD a couple times to an Americal Division infantry company and noticed that the Army's tactics were different than Marine tactics. Even how they used fire support like artillery or close air support.