Comments by "mpetersen6" (@mpetersen6) on "British EM-2: The Best Cold War Battle Rifle that Never Was" video.

  1. I really don't think the US Army Ordinance Board did not realize the benefits of a smaller round able to do the job required of it. Frankly to kill or wound a human being by means of massive wound trauma. I think what happened is that having read the after action reports regarding the ranges at which most combat took place they did a "what about" in regards to those actions that took place at longer range. It is my opinion that they really did not to give up the capability of troops to engage the enemy at longer ranges. I also do not think the Ordinance Department expected the average rifleman to engage and hit targets at ranges out past 600 yards or meters. Just how many rounds were fired on average during WWII to one casualty (1). If you can force the enemy to take cover and stop him from doing what he wants but rather force him to react to what you do you are a fair way there to winning the fight. I really do think the Ordinance Board screwed up though. A smaller round that can do the job required of it that weighs less means a larger ammunition load per man for the same weight. It means lower recoil, potentially better shooting on the part of the rifleman (2) and other benefits to the infantry. (1) This also might have played into Ordinance Department thinking. Increased volumes of fire means increased strain on logistical system, the production system, costs (the increased costs are mainly going to be in the materials area. There will be a slight increase in costs man hours but mainly it's in the materials. Do you sufficient supply of copper and zinc for brass etc) Plys for the US you are looking at everything has to be produced, transported to a port, loaded on a ship, sailed across potentially hostile seas, unloaded and moved through the logistical system. (2) In reality just how many of the members of the average infantry squad, platoon or company really engaged the enemy with useful fire? 20%, 25%, more or was it less?
    1