Re: [SG] more ww2

Just to drag this down into a semantical nightmare, hopefully skirting
the issue or ballistics and whatnot:

How do you define "powerful" in order to compare the relative power or
rifles vs. grenades?

Certainly an assault rifle puts more firepower into the hands of a
soldier than a heavier calibre bolt-action...  Unless you're only
looking at the power of a single round fired from each weapon.

Grenades of WWII had less explosive force, and produced fewer fragments
than today's grenades, but the fragments were larger and, according to a
dubious source, able to inflict wounds and larger distances than
fragments from today's grenades (should you happen to be hit by one).

Short version:	I don't have an answer, but I can complicate the issue
just fine!  *grin*

On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 00:18, John Leary wrote:
> 
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> > G'day,
> > 
> > Just to ask the obvious.... the effects of grenades
> > of ww2 were as strong compared to bolt action rifles
> of the time as modern grenades are compared to assault
> rifles (in other words I don't have to correct for
> alternative
> > strengths) right?
> 
> 
> Wrong!   The bolt action rifle was MORE powerful than
> the assault rifle.   The assault rifle was created
> using
> a round with less powder, even if it was the same
> caliber as the standard bolt action rifle.   Modern
> grenades tend to have more explosive power in a
> smaller container.
> 
> Modern battle rifles have the features of the assault
> rifle, I.E. auto fire, select fire as in SLR, L1A1,
> G3,
> M14.	 The AK-47 is a true assault rifle using a
> reduced power cartridge.
> 
> Bye for now,
> John L.
> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
> http://autos.yahoo.com
> 
-- 

--Flak Magnet
Hive Fleet Jaegernaught
http://www.geocities.com/flakmagnet72

"...why I'm so sympathetic to the monsters. The answer is simple.