[Gank]

Well changing weapons wholesale in a war isnt exactly that easy, militarys use standard weapons and ammunition so unless your enemy has something better than you you're stuck with what you've got. Its not like you can go down to the K-mart and get new guns. Anyways I believe hes reffering to Sgt Randy Shughart, US Delta Force killed in Somalia, used an M14 because the heavier round had more stopping power.

[Flipside]

This was a problem encountered by a lot of Middle Eastern bodyguards. The temptation was to buy the most powerful gun you could afford and equip your troops with it, but a high-v rifle is for headshots or disabling an opponent, not slowing down someone who is already dead in their own eyes.

A friend of mine was actually one of the people sent over there by the UK to train the bodyguards in using pistols and semis.....

[Janos]

Originally posted by Hippo
I've got a friend who swears that smaller callibur bullets are banned, since they tend to leave the victim alive to bleed to death. he said that someone named Shugart (Itallian i belive) outfitted his troops with larger bullets, because the smaller ones (before banned) would often fail to even knock over an enemy soldier, and simply made holes in them...

Ding. Smaller caliber [like 5.56 or 5.45] has few significant strong points. It is lighter to carry, bullet has flatter trajectory (it is more accurate in long ranges, believe it or not) and just wounding an enemy is better than outright killing him, when it comes to traditional enemies. Wounded people are great demoralizers and a burden to their comrades.

7.62x39 rounds are heavier, granted. Whether their hitting power is bigger is under dispute, general consensus being that yes, it is. re hit . But it is also a bit more inaccurate, heavier and requires heavier weapons to compensate for more brutal recoil. On full auto mode the weaknesses of light weapon + heavier ammo become quite clear.

Oh yes, bear in mind that there are quite a few "7.62" rounds around. There is the oh so common 7.62x39 - the Kalashnikov round. 7.62x52 for Russian heavier weapons, such as PK's and PKM's, is also a "7.62" round, as is 7.62x51 NATO, which weapons like G3 and M14 use.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Gank
The 1899 convention is the one which covers expanding or exploding bullets. If I get you right Sandwich you're saying the IDF use hollow-points as the standard round? Because no other rifle ammunition is illegal.

No, the IDf doesn't use hollow-point as standard, nor in any other manner of which I am aware. The first hollow-point bullet I saw was in the personal handgun of a reservist, completely unconnected with the IDF.

Originally posted by Gank
Neither is phosphorous as a weapon afaik.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/11/09/wirq09.xml

You may be thinking of Phosgene, which was one of the main gases used in ww1 and most definitley is illegal.

Israel has phosphorous grenade launchers on many of her armored vehicles. It's quite a potent and painful anti-infantry weapon, I'm told. Burns the skin, water only excaberates the problem, etc. I saw it used twice in my whole career, both times during training excercises.

Moving on, the Belgian MAG squad-level machine gun uses 7.62mm, and was the squad-level machine gun used by the IDF when I was in (1997). But fairly soon after I went in, they started phasing the MAGs out and replacing them with the Israeli-made 5.56mm Negev light machine gun.

Originally posted by vyper
[q]Have you been involved in urban warfare for the past two months[/q]

Have you?

*waves*

His actions, even if unjustified, are understandable. Combat as infantry in built-up areas is pretty much the worst nightmare a soldier can have. Go watch Black Hawk Down or something - that was, on my word as a soldier - quite realistic in depicting the battlefield in buit-up areas, including the tension and nerves and such.

[Annihilation]

Originally posted by aldo_14


It's either that or give the military carte blanche to do what it wants without having to worry about criticism.  After all, are most politicians soldiers?  Usually not - so why should they tell the military what to do? In fact, most people have no experience of working in politics and balancing social welfare, etc, so maybe we shouldn't be criticising politicians either?

Best post in this thread man. You said it all.

[NGTM-1R]

Or did he? We can and we should criticize them. The politicians because we elected them. The military because they're using our tax money. We have the right of participation.

White phosphorous has been used as a weapon since at least the Second World War, mainly in artillery rounds. Sandwich's description of the effects is pretty much accurate.