5.56 damage output

[The Dad]

Why is it so bad?

[TheBoomofDoom]

Originally posted by Hoxer:

The question is not why NATO uses 5.56, the question is why BIS does. The reason NATO uses peas like this is because NATO wants to incapacitate the enemy before killing him.

In Arma though you'd just like to kill your enemy.

That's a myth. It has nothing to do with wounding. All about velocity and being light.

[unknown]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inDOMJrtPvs
this should explain the 5.56 but trust me it isn't underpowered it has to do with hitboxes and armor that can make it feel like the enemies are from cod but it has to do with a very detailed damage model

[El Berl]

Originally posted by anonymous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inDOMJrtPvs
this should explain the 5.56 but trust me it isn't underpowered it has to do with hitboxes and armor that can make it feel like the enemies are from cod but it has to do with a very detailed damage model

This video is approaching five years old. The systems in question have been significantly adjusted since then.

[unknown]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Originally posted by anonymous:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=inDOMJrtPvs
this should explain the 5.56 but trust me it isn't underpowered it has to do with hitboxes and armor that can make it feel like the enemies are from cod but it has to do with a very detailed damage model

This video is approaching five years old. The systems in question have been significantly adjusted since then.

a lot of the values have been ajusted, however the principle is the same...it actually much better than the video where you literally need to put 5 rounds into the chest its now more like 3 but either way they haven't changed all that much

edit: some of the changes i believe (i could be wrong) was increased hitbox sizes and a less damage absorption by armor so you dont get those shots that "graze" when they should be direct hits and miss when they should graze

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7521ysymZY
a slightly more up to date video

[El Berl]

Originally posted by anonymous:

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

This video is approaching five years old. The systems in question have been significantly adjusted since then.

a lot of the values have been ajusted, however the principle is the same...it actually much better than the video where you literally need to put 5 rounds into the chest its now more like 3 but either way they haven't changed all that much

edit: some of the changes i believe (i could be wrong) was increased hitbox sizes and a less damage absorption by armor so you dont get those shots that "graze" when they should be direct hits and miss when they should graze

If the target is wearing armor rated for 5.56x45mm, and the rounds are striking the armor, then going from 5 to 3 is actually a downgrade in terms of realism. Less damage absorption by armor is also a poor move, considering the capabilities of a ceramic plate in terms of energy capture. Nonetheless, the video is old and does not currently reflect the base game as it is right now. Ergo, it is obsolete and not a good reference. That's my point.

After all, to take it as gospel would be to use data from a pre-adjusted version of the game. That data is simply bogus for the 2019 version of Arma III.

2016 (second video) is also old. The best idea is for someone to do a testing video of the game right now and we use that as a reference, rather than old and fairly out of date videos.

[unknown]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Originally posted by anonymous:

a lot of the values have been ajusted, however the principle is the same...it actually much better than the video where you literally need to put 5 rounds into the chest its now more like 3 but either way they haven't changed all that much

edit: some of the changes i believe (i could be wrong) was increased hitbox sizes and a less damage absorption by armor so you dont get those shots that "graze" when they should be direct hits and miss when they should graze

If the target is wearing armor rated for 5.56x45mm, and the rounds are striking the armor, then going from 5 to 3 is actually a downgrade in terms of realism. Less damage absorption by armor is also a poor move, considering the capabilities of a ceramic plate in terms of energy capture. Nonetheless, the video is old and does not currently reflect the base game as it is right now. Ergo, it is obsolete and not a good reference. That's my point.

After all, to take it as gospel would be to use data from a pre-adjusted version of the game. That data is simply bogus for the 2019 version of Arma III.

i would agree...and i am not sure if that is actually the case i do know it usually takes 3 shots to kill to the chest however i am usually running rhs and the armor values on a lof of those units are different from the ones in vanilla but yea...but either way the 5.56 is not underpowered it is usually a lot of different places damaged or simply good armor/ misses or grazing hits

edit: again its not about the values being reflected in the video but the system. they have made some changes but at its core it is still very similar

[El Berl]

Originally posted by anonymous:

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

If the target is wearing armor rated for 5.56x45mm, and the rounds are striking the armor, then going from 5 to 3 is actually a downgrade in terms of realism. Less damage absorption by armor is also a poor move, considering the capabilities of a ceramic plate in terms of energy capture. Nonetheless, the video is old and does not currently reflect the base game as it is right now. Ergo, it is obsolete and not a good reference. That's my point.

After all, to take it as gospel would be to use data from a pre-adjusted version of the game. That data is simply bogus for the 2019 version of Arma III.

i would agree...and i am not sure if that is actually the case i do know it usually takes 3 shots to kill to the chest however i am usually running rhs and the armor values on a lof of those units are different from the ones in vanilla but yea...but either way the 5.56 is not underpowered it is usually a lot of different places damaged or simply good armor/ misses or grazing hits

edit: again its not about the values being reflected in the video but the system. they have made some changes but at its core it is still very similar

The values being reflected in the video are reflections of the ammunition's hit & caliber values within their cfgammo class, as well as the damage resistance of the target character found in their cfgvehicles class and the armor values of the vest (found in the cfgweapons entry). For further reference, I suggest reading up on the Arma 3 damage description for infantry on the official BI Community Wiki. Simply put, values for the number of shots it takes to kill are a reflection of changes in the system. I've modded this game for quite some time, so I know how it works under the hood.

"Some changes" would be an understatement. Any change to any of the above variables invalidates prior data because it creates a simple difference between the values (and ergo, effectiveness under certain conditions) depicted in the test and those that can be expected out in the field.

[unknown]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Originally posted by anonymous:

i would agree...and i am not sure if that is actually the case i do know it usually takes 3 shots to kill to the chest however i am usually running rhs and the armor values on a lof of those units are different from the ones in vanilla but yea...but either way the 5.56 is not underpowered it is usually a lot of different places damaged or simply good armor/ misses or grazing hits

edit: again its not about the values being reflected in the video but the system. they have made some changes but at its core it is still very similar

The values being reflected in the video are reflections of the ammunition Hit & Caliber values within their Cfgammo, as well as the damage resistance of the target character found in CfgVehicles and the armor values of the vest. For further reference, I suggest reading up on the Arma 3 damage description for infantry on the official BI Community Wiki. Simply put, values for the number of shots it takes to kill are a reflection of changes in the system. I've modded this game for quite some time, so I know how it works under the hood.

i think we are actually on the same page...correct me if im wrong...the values damage wise are very different now than in those videos, however how damage is applied is still the same where their is damage absorbtion and different damage areas that lead to a kill once they reach 100 right?

[El Berl]

Originally posted by anonymous:

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

The values being reflected in the video are reflections of the ammunition Hit & Caliber values within their Cfgammo, as well as the damage resistance of the target character found in CfgVehicles and the armor values of the vest. For further reference, I suggest reading up on the Arma 3 damage description for infantry on the official BI Community Wiki. Simply put, values for the number of shots it takes to kill are a reflection of changes in the system. I've modded this game for quite some time, so I know how it works under the hood.

i think we are actually on the same page...correct me if im wrong...the values damage wise are very different now than in those videos, however how damage is applied is still the same where their is damage absorbtion and different damage areas that lead to a kill once they reach 100 right?

The fundamental issue is that the hit areas themselves do not result in a kill directly, with the exception of hitHead (your head), hitFace (your face), and a hit zone called hitBody that is your actual overall health. All other areas of your body contribute to hitBody indirectly, so it's a bit more nuanced than your description. You cannot damage hitBody directly, even if you hit the "chest", since that is actually divided into hitAbdomen, hitChest, and hitDiaphragm, all three of which contribute to hitBody. Any change to any of these zones, or the specific values by which damage from them is divided into hitBody, automatically invalidates testing data from before the change itself. Armor vests also have two kinds of armor. Armor, and structural armor that functions as a divisor. Consider the regular "armor" to just be additional "health points" in a very basic way of understanding it. This specific part of Arma's simulation is where it is weakest, with vests often being a little more inconsistent than they should be due to funky math.

Nonetheless, the best way to determine armor performance in 2019 is to disregard the old videos and simply test in your current, up-to-date version of Arma. This will rule out any undocumented changes to the armor system.

[unknown]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Originally posted by anonymous:

i think we are actually on the same page...correct me if im wrong...the values damage wise are very different now than in those videos, however how damage is applied is still the same where their is damage absorbtion and different damage areas that lead to a kill once they reach 100 right?

The fundamental issue is that the hit areas themselves do not result in a kill directly, with the exception of hitHead (your head), hitFace (your face), and a hit zone called hitBody that is your actual overall health. All other areas of your body contribute to hitBody indirectly, so it's a bit more nuanced than your description. You cannot damage hitBody directly, even if you hit the "chest", since that is actually divided into hitAbdomen, hitChest, and hitDiaphragm, all three of which contribute to hitBody.

Nonetheless, the best way to determine armor performance in 2019 is to disregard the old videos and simply test in your current, up-to-date version of Arma. This will rule out any undocumented changes to the armor system.

ok...we are on the same page...the videos were not meant as a way of showing what the values of the weapons are, but rather that damage is applied to different areas such as chest abdomin leg and a total health bar. And that having over 100 damage spread out doesn't mean you have 100 damage to your total thalth but you may have 85 damage total but 34 to the torso 50 to the right arm 79 to the abdomin and 60 to the right leg which means your target is still alive. that was the intention. describ how the damage model in this game works, not what the values are as it can contribute to why someone may feel that the enemies are not dying to 5.56.

Edit: agreed on the testing part

[El Berl]

Full disclosure, I consider the base game terminal ballistics model (the ballistics upon hitting the target and the resulting event) to be very lackluster and more focused on balance than on realism. There are alternatives or augmentations elsewhere I think you should consider if you're interested in better ballistics, like what's contained within ACE3 or HC_Damage or SABRE.

[lamacra]

Guess why we only fight 3rd worlders? (they don´t have body armor) the 5.56 is pretty useless against modern body armor.

[El Berl]

Originally posted by lamacra:

Guess why we only fight 3rd worlders? (they don´t have body armor) the 5.56 is pretty useless against modern body armor.

Incorrect. It depends entirely on the threat level of the "modern body armor in question" as well as the mechanism by which it is often defeated. Even our most basic lead-core M193, only due to its velocity and velocity alone, will pierce your typical 1/4" AR500 Steel plates with ease - provided it is fired out of a long enough barrel. M855, despite the steel element contained within, is not better against steel in most cases due to the potential for the core to shatter and the overall lower velocity of the heavier 62-grain projectile (M193 is 55 grain). M855, due to the higher ability of its steel to handle friction without deformation, is much more potent against polyethylene armor than M193. M855A1 is a souped up M855, but is still not good enough to tackle most NIJ Level III / SAPI-grade Ceramics at close combat distances. Most modern body armor you'll see out in the field today consists of ceramics, whether they be Level III / SAPI or higher, like Level IV / ESAPI or something like GOST-BR5 on the Russian GOST 50774-95 ADD. 2014 Standard. You can go even higher, like to the protective abilities of the XSAPI or even Model AA4.

There are more exotic tungsten-cored rounds, like 5.56x45mm M995, that can pierce NIJ Level IV ceramic armor thanks to having dramatically higher strength and sectional density in the core compared to M193 or M855. The obvious disadvantages of M995 are limited wounding potential and high cost, so they're rarely used outside of SOF in the real world. This M995 can do what a .30-06 M2AP steel-core armor piercing projectile cannot, and it can even beat 7.62x54mm B-32 Armor Piercing Incendiary at piercing body armor. There are yet even stronger rounds, like 5.56x45mm DM31, that boast of better tungsten penetrators and can thus pierce even stronger armor than your average NIJ Level IV / ESAPI-grade Ceramic up close, or pierce ESAPIs at longer distances.

In short, 5.56x45mm is a good armor penetrator if you're looking to pierce AR500 Steel (use M193 and a 20" barrel), Polyethylene (UHMWPE) plates, which should be shot with M855 out of any reasonable barrel, or most ceramics, which requires M995 or DM31 or something even beefier. 7.62x51mm M80 cannot beat the UHMWPE and Steel plates I speak of, and M995 outperforms even 7.62x51mm M61 Armor-Piercing, which is a steel-core and thus has lower sectional density.

While 7.62x51mm has "better" penetrators like M993, M995's bigger brother, tungsten is still required to reliably defeat Level IV armor, and the usage of a non-expanding and non-fragmenting tungsten core results in poor lethality even from a 7.62x51mm rifle. Besides, the next "level" beyond ESAPI is the XSAPI, which can stop three hits of either M993 or M995 according to FQ/PD 07-03D. I will admit, however, that the next popular (has multiple different plates on the market for it) "level" of armor past that, the 7.62x51mm Swiss P AP protection of the Ceradyne Model AA4, TenCate CX-950 IC, and others, will require a 7.62x51mm with a better penetrator than Swiss P AP (which is much better than M993) like M948 (which fires a .22 projectile, subcaliber in a sabot, and thus massively compromises the creation of an effective permanent wound cavity). 5.56x45mm, at that completely exotic level that no first world military even uses outside of very high-end SOF, will not suffice even with tungsten in play. Up there, you're right, but for 99% of situations, 5.56x45mm is an effective armor penetrator. All that matters is the ammunition you use.

[lamacra]

Originally posted by V. Berlioz:

Originally posted by lamacra:

Guess why we only fight 3rd worlders? (they don´t have body armor) the 5.56 is pretty useless against modern body armor.

Incorrect. It depends entirely on the threat level of the "modern body armor in question" as well as the mechanism by which it is often defeated. Even our most basic lead-core M193, only due to its velocity and velocity alone, will pierce your typical 1/4" AR500 Steel plates with ease - provided it is fired out of a long enough barrel. M855, despite the steel element contained within, is not better against steel in most cases due to the potential for the core to shatter and the overall lower velocity of the heavier 62-grain projectile (M193 is 55 grain). M855, due to the higher ability of its steel to handle friction without deformation, is much more potent against polyethylene armor than M193. M855A1 is a souped up M855, but is still not good enough to tackle most NIJ Level III / SAPI-grade Ceramics at close combat distances. Most modern body armor you'll see out in the field today consists of ceramics, whether they be Level III / SAPI or higher, like Level IV / ESAPI or something like GOST-BR5 on the Russian GOST 50774-95 ADD. 2014 Standard. You can go even higher, like to the protective abilities of the XSAPI or even Model AA4.

There are more exotic tungsten-cored rounds, like 5.56x45mm M995, that can pierce NIJ Level IV ceramic armor thanks to having dramatically higher strength and sectional density in the core compared to M193 or M855. The obvious disadvantages of M995 are limited wounding potential and high cost, so they're rarely used outside of SOF in the real world. This M995 can do what a .30-06 M2AP steel-core armor piercing projectile cannot, and it can even beat 7.62x54mm B-32 Armor Piercing Incendiary at piercing body armor. There are yet even stronger rounds, like 5.56x45mm DM31, that boast of better tungsten penetrators and can thus pierce even stronger armor than your average NIJ Level IV / ESAPI-grade Ceramic up close, or pierce ESAPIs at longer distances.

In short, 5.56x45mm is a good armor penetrator if you're looking to pierce AR500 Steel (use M193 and a 20" barrel), Polyethylene (UHMWPE) plates, which should be shot with M855 out of any reasonable barrel, or most ceramics, which requires M995 or DM31 or something even beefier. 7.62x51mm M80 cannot beat the UHMWPE and Steel plates I speak of, and M995 outperforms even 7.62x51mm M61 Armor-Piercing, which is a steel-core and thus has lower sectional density.

While 7.62x51mm has "better" penetrators like M993, M995's bigger brother, tungsten is still required to reliably defeat Level IV armor, and the usage of a non-expanding and non-fragmenting tungsten core results in poor lethality even from a 7.62x51mm rifle. Besides, the next "level" beyond ESAPI is the XSAPI, which can stop three hits of either M993 or M995 according to FQ/PD 07-03D. I will admit, however, that the next popular (has multiple different plates on the market for it) "level" of armor past that, the 7.62x51mm Swiss P AP protection of the Ceradyne Model AA4, TenCate CX-950 IC, and others, will require a 7.62x51mm with a better penetrator than Swiss P AP (which is much better than M993) like M948 (which fires a .22 projectile, subcaliber in a sabot, and thus massively compromises the creation of an effective permanent wound cavity). 5.56x45mm, at that completely exotic level that no first world military even uses outside of very high-end SOF, will not suffice even with tungsten in play. Up there, you're right, but for 99% of situations, 5.56x45mm is an effective armor penetrator. All that matters is the ammunition you use.

Well you gave a great detailed answer, (and it shows that you definitely know something about calibres and projectile effectivety in different situations.
But the main problem of the 5.56 is still that it is so lightweight. Of course this gives it a better v0 over heavier calibres BUT this allso means that it loses speed (and there for energy) very fast.
In general you are correct the smaller heavier and faster the cartrige is the better is the penetration power (lets just assume that every used projectile is allways made of something that is hard enough to defeat the "plate" material . i mean there is a reason why pretty much every modern military in this world would use sabot rounds in a tank vs tank fight.
But lets face it a 7,62 nato for example is simple a lot heavier than the 5,56, This means the V0 is lesser but lets say at 200 m the velocity will be the same because because of the heavy weight it does not lose speed that fast. and now the weight kicks in, A 5,56 has about 1800 joules at the start. 7,62 starts with about 3500 (and loses lesser joules than a 5,56 every meter it travels), So at the same speed (at 200m for example) the 5,56 hast still the advantage (in penetration terms) that it has the smaller diameter BUT bigger the energy of 7,62 because of its weight will more than compensate this. So the 7,62 will penetrate far deeper

[El Berl]

Whether the 7.62x51mm or 5.56x45mm will penetrate deeper depends entirely on bullet design and the target medium. I recommend you read up on what sectional density is, as well as differences in penetration between something like drywall (in which the 7.62x51mm is at the automatic advantage, even with differences in sectional density present) and ballistic steel (in which sectional density and velocity count for more.)

To say that energy is a primary factor in causing penetration is completely false. A .45-70 carries a lot more energy than a 7.62x51mm or a 5.56x45mm, but it is completely inferior against ballistic steel. Your understanding of the subject matter is taking the effects of various aspects and attributing them all falsely to one aspect. This is incorrect. Furthermore, energy retention as you describe it is not just a property of weight. It is also a property of ballistic coefficient and the shape of the bullet in relation to drag. Longer bullets have an advantage here.