30 feet sounds like a bad range to me. It's close enough that your target could cover the intervening distance in a couple of seconds if you miss your first shot, which means you'll have to deal with CQB anxiety. It's far enough that you can miss your first shot and be in a poor position to pursue if the target flees. It's close enough that the target might well hear or spot you even if you're being very stealthy. It's far enough that the target won't immediate freeze. And so on and so forth. Just my opinion, though.

Browning's early machine guns didn't get developed because he was told that the military wasn't interested, even after they'd seen the concept prototype tested. His first prototype was belt fed, though it wouldn't have been a very practical weapon.

Survivor--
"...people are idiots." Sigh.

This sentiment is no doubt true in regards to the procurement of many potential weapons, but it's simply not true in the case of the G11...or the Civil War Gattling.

Both weapons were excellent concepts (they still are!) but they were initially unsuccessful because they were founded on immature technology. This is a VERY common theme in the history of weapons development--ever hear of the Messerschmidt 163 Komet? How does that song by Led Zeppelin go? "...military ideation marches on like the burn on the end of my joint but the song remains the same." Or something like that. Hammers of the gods, dude.

As for the early Browning machine guns, yeah, they worked but the Maxim worked better and it came along first. Browning was too smart to waste time by trying to play catch-up ball, so he turned his attention toward other projects.

Iron sights are inherently inaccurate beyond a certain range because you cannot see the target anymore, a man sized target being completely obscured behind the front sight post of your weapon. With an adjustable elevation on the rear sight, you can overcome part of this problem but you still can't overcome the fact that the forward sight post is only a few feet from your eye and the target is hundreds of yards away, meaning that they aren't in the same focal group. Scopes were invented for a reason, they aren't just to make the rifle look pretty.

What you are describing isn't "inherent inaccuracy." It's obedience to the laws of physics.

Inaccuracy is just the wrong word to use. Inaccuracy means that even if the shooter sights on the correct point in space, the bullet still might miss the target. That's not the case with iron sights, even at extreme ranges.

What you are saying is that the laws of optics make it exponentially more difficult to sight on the correct point in space at extreme ranges with iron sights. Sure. Nobody's disagreeing with you about that. But "inherent inaccuracy" is the wrong phrase to use to describe that.

By your reasoning, scopes are "inherently inaccurate" past a certain range. A Win Model 70 chambered in .308 with a super match grade, fluted, floated barrel, McMilan A-4 tactical stock, adjustable cheek rest, and Leupold Vari-X III 6.5-20 tactical scope is "inherently inaccurate" past a certain range because you exceed the scope's ability to adjust for elevation.

I very respectfully beg to differ with Survivor.

I believe you have it backwards: Browning’s machine guns did not achieve any longevity until after he STOPPED producing gas-operated weapons and instead concentrated on recoil-operated weapons. E.g., the M1917, the M1919, and the M2.

The only gas-operated Browning to see significant use in World War 2 was the M1918, and it was rather mediocre. The M1918 was simply inadequate to the role of a squad automatic weapon. Luckily, this inadequacy was offset, in part, by the excellent M1 Garand. (The best squad automatic weapon of World War 2 was Britain’s Bren gun, though the Russian Degtyarev was also very good. The German Mg 42 is over rated.)

“But you will notice that virtually all modern machine guns are based on the Browning model of gas actuation rather than recoil, and have been since WWII.”

Well, no.

The “Browning model” (for which he obtained a patent in or near 1890) involved a rotating lever and an exposed gas tap. However, virtually all modern gas operated weapons utilize a cylinder and piston, including the Swedish Ljungman and its notable derivative, the AR15/M16. (The M16’s gas piston is located inside the bolt carrier; the shaft and gas seal of the piston are part of the bolt.)

Browning’s best full- and semiauto designs were all recoil operated. This includes civilian long arms like the Browning Model 11. Browning was—and is—the undisputed master of the recoil-operated weapon. Virtually all modern semiautomatic handguns are based on either the Browning delayed blow-back system, or the Browning simple blow-back system, both of which are recoil-operated.

Now for iron sights vs. scopes.

I agree with J. It’s not a matter of "inherent inaccuracy". To clarify matters, my original assertion regarding iron sight vs. scopes was, and is, as follows:

My point is that you can do almost anything with iron sights that you can do with a scope. The main advantage a scope offers is ease of use, which speeds up training and gets more long range shooters into the field sooner.
Now for the continuing G11 debate.

“You still haven't provided any evidence that the current G11 is based on "immature" technology. What exactly is wrong with it?”

Coming right up, sir! It all has to do with reliability.

The most important consideration in regards to ANY military equipment is reliability. A reliable sharp stick is superior to a broken, non-functioning G11. The easy-to-produce and reliable Russian tanks of World War Two beat out the complex and unreliable German tanks of the same era. Caseless ammunition still has not reached the level of reliability of old-fashioned brass ammunition.

Managed to read through every post about all the guns, while meeting up with my old friend google every other post to find pics of the mentioned weapons.

Always found weapons technology fascinating, and it's interesting to read all this. Some great knowledge on show by J and survivor but I'm dumbfounded by your technical insights Corpsegrinder! What did you say you do again?

Anyway its 3:40AM, time to hit the sack. Cool looking and seemingly futuristic weapons invented 20 years ago can only keep you up for so long! I gotta add though, the XM8 looks just as futuristic(and cool) as the G11 sounds. I'd be happy with either!

Why, thank you. I’m a civilian contractor for TACOM, the branch of the US Army that tests new and recently deployed weapons systems. At the moment, I’m up in Delta Junction, Alaska, trying to figure out why nothing works right when it’s -47 degrees Fahrenheit.

The northern lights are very nice, though.

Just because something can be both precise and inaccurate, that doesn't mean that something too imprecise to meet a standard is therefore able to be accurate. Just because the physical laws that govern the behavior of light dictate that something can't exceed a certain level of precision (and therefore can't be accurate under a specified condition), that doesn't mean that it is inaccurate to say that the thing is inaccurate under those circumstances.

If the shooter can't sight on the correct point in space with any confidence, then the weapon is inaccurate. And yes, obviously if a target is simply out of range for the sights, then the sights are inherently inaccurate for that range. That's what I'm saying. If the sights do not allow enough precision to reliably hit a target at a given range, then they are inherently inaccurate at that range.

This argument is so dumb I'm going to drop it. Iron sights aren't good enough beyond 300 meters. Scopes are. There are things you can do with a scope that the laws of physics prevent you from accomplishing with iron sights.

I'm not dissing Browning's recoil/blowback designs. I'm saying that the same design is limited in utility for a good machine gun. I suppose that I need to clarify that I meant weapons designed since WWII, though it should be obvious that even weapons designed in the middle ages saw service in WWII, so that's not exactly what I would sensibly have meant. The world spent decades futzing around with recoil operated machine guns because Browning was told that there was no use for gas actuation. He didn't forcefully pursue the concept because he didn't want to beat his head against a wall trying to get people to buy something they were too stupid to appreciate. Which is why it was left to later inventors to develop the gas actuation concept.

Which is the point of my argument. Because Browning was dissuaded from developing the concept when he first invented it, it took years for the potential to be realized.

“Browning was told that there was no use for gas actuation. He didn't forcefully pursue the concept because he didn't want to beat his head against a wall trying to get people to buy something they were too stupid to appreciate…I'm not dissing Browning's recoil/blowback designs. I'm saying that the same design is limited in utility for a good machine gun.”

No. Browning was too smart for that. When he switched from gas- to recoil-operated weapons, he was being a good businessman. And in any case, your second assertion is inaccurate because it erroneously presupposes that gas- and recoil-operated systems are designed to fulfill the same combat requirements.

In point of fact, gas-operated systems are best suited toward light, man-portable weapons which fire 5.56 to 7.62mm ammunition. Conversely, the recoil-operated systems are best suited toward heavy, high-impulse projectiles. Are you asserting that the light systems are “good machine guns” while the heavy systems are not? …or were you talking specifically about assault rifles? If you were, then your statement would be accurate.

Here’s a specific example of how your original statement is inaccurate: Both of the weapons for which the Stryker ICV’s remote weapons system is optimized, are recoil operated. The first of these weapons is the M2HB—designed by John Browning, himself. The second is the 40mm M119, which is a foreign derivative of the Browning-designed delayed blowback system. Both of these weapons systems are “good machine guns”.

Conversely, the secondary armament of the Stryker mortar carrier variant is the light, gas-operated M249, which is another “good machine gun”.

This same separation of gas- and recoil-operated systems dates all the way back to the First World War. During WW1, the most successful heavy machine guns were all recoil-operated. E.g., the Maxims, Vickers, Parabellums, etc. Conversely, the most successful man-portable systems were gas-operated. E.g., the Lewis gun and the Browning M1918.

The machine guns that broke this rule—the French Hotchkiss and the Chauchaut—were mediocre, at best. The Chauchaut was pure garbage. And they were both French. Hmmm…

“I suppose that I need to clarify that I meant weapons designed since WWII, though it should be obvious that even weapons designed in the middle ages saw service in WWII, so that's not exactly what I would sensibly have meant.”

Okay, ya stumped me--which machine guns from the Middle Ages were used during the second world war? Sorry…I just couldn’t resist.

Well, now that we’ve cleared that up, let’s go back to the heart-rending saga of the G11. Your question is as follows:

“You keep saying it isn't reliable. Since when? There were major problems with caseless ammunition as late as twenty years ago, but what are the major difficulties now?”

Well, the major problems NOW are the very same problems that Dynamit Nobel encountered back during the 60’s and 70’s—have they managed to solve these problems since then? Frankly, I don’t know. What I do know is that no one has successfully PROVED that these problems have been solved. This isn’t a court of law; the burden of proof rests on squarely Heckler & Koch, and by extension Dynamit Nobel. And frankly, H&K has ALWAYS been hesitant to subject to the G11 to the aggressive, extreme testing that the USP, the MP5, the PDW have endured. As I said before, even the XM8 has endured more testing than the G11.

In order to be successful, caseless ammunition must be able to endure the same range of environmental conditions as brass ammunition, right? (I’m talking small arms ammo here; caseless and combustable case rounds for artillery is another subject.)

The challenge that caseless ammo faces is the fact that traditional brass is extremely reliable. Milspec brass is very resistant to complete immersion in water. It performs well in a very wide range of environmental conditions. Brass ammo also has a very long shelf life—I routinely shoot 30 year old surplus ammo through my M1 Garand; it’s not as accurate as fresh stuff, but it works.

Thus, brass fulfils the primary requirement for military equipment: extreme reliability. No, wait; that’s not quite right. What I mean is, EXTREME RELIABILITY!!! DROP AND GIVE FIFTY, MAGGOT!!!!!!!!!!! There, that’s what I mean. You know, soldier proof.

Has caseless ammo been developed to the point where it fulfills this very tough requirement? Well, no one has proved it, yet. Like everything else in the military, caseless ammo is guilty until proven innocent.

“This argument is so dumb I'm going to drop it. Iron sights aren't good enough beyond 300 meters.”

Argument? Huh? I must’ve missed something. I though this was all a fascinating discussion that was contrasting two different points of view. If you wanna drop it, sure. But before we do, let me point out that when I say iron sights are good out to extremely long ranges, I am speaking from personal experience.

Here is the rifle I use when I go out to the thousand yard range down in Yuma, AZ (It’s not hell, but you can see it from here.)…

http://arizona.rifleshooting.com/srca/swede.html

This is the M95 Carl Gustav rifle, with a 30-inch barrel and a ladder sight that’s calibrated out to two thousand meters. Mine was manufactured in 1917. With careful hand loads, this rifle CAN and DOES hit a 24” trash can lid at six hundred yards…with nothing but a good rest and iron sights. Hit to miss ratio: approximatly 75%.

Caseless isn't good enough till you say it is, and you won't say it is until it's good enough. I get it. And I still say it's stupid.

Recoil designs are inherently limited in which weapons they can be successfully used in by a number of factors, including the relative mass of the weapon to the bullet and the cyclic that can be achieved. Gas actuated systems are not limited in these ways. You admit this, even while you claim that I'm mistaken to assert it. Again, whatever.

No problem. Lemme introduce ya to summa these nice folks…

http://www.palma.org/

Palma is an international organization dedicated to long range shooting. A typical Palma match involves 1000-yard matches for BOTH scoped and iron sighted rifles, both of which use the same six foot dia. target. FYI--at a thousand yards, the relative size of a six foot target is about the size of the period at the end of this sentence. (Well, maybe depending on the point size of the text on your screen.)

One of the culminating events at a typical Palma match is the mixed scoped and iron sighted match. As one would expect, the outcome of such a match depends more on the skill of the shooter than on the equipment being used. Its fascinating to watch a guy (or gal) with a scoped Remmington 700 competing side-by-side against someone with a Creedmore Sharps, firing hand-loaded black powder cartridges.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:Q1Rrg BHXxtYJ:www.michrpa.com/PDFS/2005%2520LR%2520SeptemberProgram.pdf+long+range+iron+sights&hl=en

This is the home page for the Michigan Long Range Invitational, a Palma-sponsored match that will be held in Sept. of this year.

http://www.assra.com/

This is the home page of the American Single Shot Rifle Association. These guys are mostly collectors, but their site still has a lot of good info on long range black powder.

http://www.crci.org/Tournaments.htm

This is the Colorado Rifle Club schedule of events for this year—check out the number of long range black powder events & high power “any rifle any sights” matches.

http://www.researchpress.co.uk/targets/sandyhook.htm

This last one’s a golden oldie.

“Caseless isn't good enough till you say it is, and you won't say it is until it's good enough. I get it. And I still say it's stupid.”

No, I’m not the one who makes that particular determination. I simply observe, document, and quantify the results of a structured test, upon which that determination is made at a later date. The decision you’re describing is way above my pay grade. But that’s okay; flattery will get you everywhere.

If you know something I don’t then please, by all means, tell me about it! If some other military organization is is torture-testing caseless ammo, I wanna know. I have a professional interest.

Honestly, I find that I learn as much from an amicable discussion, such as this, as I do from reading a plain, dry text. If you have first hand knowledge of something interesting, then share the love, dude! It doesn’t help me when all you offer is a semantic analysis of my previous statements; give me something that I can track down and explore on my own.

“Recoil designs are inherently limited in which weapons they can be successfully used in by a number of factors, including the relative mass of the weapon to the bullet and the cyclic that can be achieved. Gas actuated systems are not limited in these ways. You admit this, even while you claim that I'm mistaken to assert it. Again, whatever.”

That’s because you are mistaken. Do you have a source for your info? I am very curious as to where you’re getting this. Here’s an example of how you're mistaken: the German Machinegerwehr 43, AKA MG-43. This was the typical late-war German squad automatic weapon, and it was recoil-opereated. Here are the specs:

Rate of fire: 1200-1800 rounds per minute.
Weight: 11.5 kg
Calinur: 7.92x57mm--typical German high-power round.

I’d love to check out the sources for your info.

For the scopes v. iron sights, I'll stick to my guns (so to speak) and reiterate that I do not have the sort of eyes for which it doesn't make a difference. Neither do most humans. The optical limitations of my eyes and the eyes of people I happen to know are a serious limiting factor on how useful iron sights can be at long range.

Never heard of the MG-43. I presume it is similar to the MG-42, given your description. I'm not certain about this weapon's specifications, particularly the remarkable variation in rate of fire. But I do find it interesting that most of the modern weapons developed using significant features of the MG-42 are not recoil operated. See, with gas-operation, you don't have to balance barrel/bolt assembly weight, desired cyclic, and ammunition type, and mechanism in a tricky four way equation. You can just design the weapon the way you want it. If you choose not to believe that difficulties exist in adapting a recoil system to specific weapon requirements, then I will not waste time trying to persuade you.

quote:

---

A typical Palma match involves 1000-yard matches for BOTH scoped and iron sighted rifles, both of which use the same six foot dia. target.

---

A quick google search suggests that the limit of unassisted human ability to discriminate the existence of a contrasting object from its environment is, on average, when the size of that object drops below about a twentieth of a degree. At 1000 yards, this would be approximately 3 feet. Note that this is only very slightly smaller than the 20" bullseye on those targets. In some situations, this drops to a fifth of a degree (10 feet) or below. Most people would barely be able to see the target these people are shooting at, let alone hit it.

Hitting it requires being able to accurately locate the centre of the post in your sights, because chances are you're not using one as slim as the bullseye of the target itself (which would be about 1/32 of an inch at the end of a typical rifle), which is a much harder job than detecting presence; that fifth of a degree figure is about as good as you're going to get, judging by the description of how it was derived, so unless you have substantially above average visual ability the closest you're going to be able to point your rifle is within 10 feet. And that's before any inaccuracy introduced by the mechanics of firing it. If you're really good, I'd say you might hit it 25% of the time.

Yeah, the best I can do with iron sights is to hit a 24" circle at six hundred yards. I'm lucky if I can even get it on the paper on a thousand yard target, and I've got 20/20 vision. Those thousand yard guys are mutant freaks...but only in the nice way.

Survivor--

"Fine. I'm the one asking the question..."

Sheesh! C'mon, Survivor, play nice. Remember, "...those without mirth hath no defense against wit."

"...do you have any specific information on what is currently wrong with caseless ammunition? Specifically, that used in the G11."

The "current" problems with the G11 are the same ones that knocked it out of the Advanced Combat Rifle demo trials. Most of the info that follows comes straight out of JANE'S DEFENSE WEEKLY...

* The pitted, orange peel-like surface of the ammunition tends to collect dust, grit, & etc. Consequently, the ammo transports all of this crud straight into the rotating chamber, where it then destroys the weapon's gas seals.

* The gas seals in the chamber resemble those of a Wankle rotary engine. That is, they are spring-loaded wipers that act against the polished circumference of the chamber as it rotates. The introduction of grit into these extremely critical surfaces greatly accelerates their eventual failure. (This may not be so much of a problem in Central Europe, but it's a very big concern down in Yuma where we have lots of fine, sugary sand blowing around in the air. It's an even bigger problem in the Middle East.) However, brass ammo works as well in the Middle East as it does in Germany.

* The wearing surfaces of this weapon must endure more heat than those in a weapon that fires brass ammunition. Spent brass carries a great deal of heat away from an automatic weapon when it is firing, but not in a G11. These bearing surfaces are composed of a high-tech self-lubricating plastic, but engineering polymers simply don't tolerate the lethal combination of intense heat and grit. These critical sealing surfaces must operate within extremely close mechanical tolerances in order to function. However, brass ammo doesn't have this problem because it comprises its own sealing surface. Brass (or copper, or aluminum, or mild steel) is a self-renewing gasket between the bolt and the chamber.

Heckler & Koch were unable to directly solve the problems described above. Instead, they attempted to bypass them by marketing the G11 as a "sealed system".

In other words, Heckler & Koch attempted to wangle a contractual stipulation to the effect that there be NO USER-SERVICEABLE PARTS in the G11. If the weapon broke, or experienced a serious jam (like, if a big chunk of monograin breaks off and falls into the rotating chamber) then the entire weapon must be sent to a place where it can be serviced by a contractor rep.

There, the H&K techs would ostensibility break the seal, split the case, and correct the problem. The weapon would then be resealed and returned to combat.

This "sealed system" concept also included the ammo & magazines, which came preloaded from the factory. Soldiers were to be discouraged from transferring loose rounds to top off partially depleted magazines, which isn't a problem with brass ammo either.

Presumably, a sealed system would prevent system-killing contaminants from ever entering the weapon in the first place. But, it would also prevent soldiers from performing quick, simple field repairs on non-function weapons.

In effect, the only way to repair a simple problem would be to replace the entire rifle. The logistical constraints of such an arrangement would eventually reduce the number the of working rifles in the hands of the troops.

It all comes down to reliability, and ease of maintenance is a subset of reliability.

"But I do find it interesting that most of the modern weapons developed using significant features of the MG-42 are not recoil operated. See, with gas-operation, you don't have to balance barrel/bolt assembly weight, desired cyclic, and ammunition type, and mechanism in a tricky four way equation."

Um, I really hate to break this to you, but the MG-42 and -43 were both RECOIL-OPERATED. I mean, it seems like you've put so much...imagination into all of this.

Can you cite any real world examples to back up what you're saying?

Oh yeah, I have to admit that line about the cannibals with poison darts was pretty good.

As for problems in the ACR competitions, I was thinking of something more recent than 15 years ago, but since I did say "20 years ago" at some point, I'll let it slide for now. On the other hand, I will continue to assert that the failure to aggressively pursue the G11 concept represents military/industrial stupidity at its finest.

Until the establishment shows some willingness to pay more than token attention to a new concept every 15 years or so, it is effectively excluding the possiblity of exploiting new technology by anything but vanishingly slim luck.

And not to take sides but you still haven't provided any evidence survivor Gimme something to read damnit! I love it!

Re M16's... GAH!

My only experience with guns and rifles comes from being the Marines. I could easily hit a human-sized target, center mass, at 500 yards, with whatever sights on the rifle -- I'm assuming they are iron sights as described in previous posts. Still, when you're front sight post covers the entire target, it's a pain.

But the point I want to make about M16's is that they are utterly unreliable. Even in pristine conditions, properly maintained, cleaned, and lubricated, they would still jam for no reason at all. Not to mention that the stamped-metal magazines were so shoddy that a good drop onto a solid surface would render them useless.

When M16's were introduced during Vietnam, a lot of soliders got killed because their weapons didn't work. Many soliders appropriated the more reliable AK's from the dead Vietnamese. And typical military idiocy, that knew that M16's were substandard, persisted in forcing it's troops to use the rifles when they should have cancelled the contract with the manufacturer.

Yeah, I read your post. The problem is that your post is essentially meaningless unless you cite some real world examples to back it up. This is THE GREAT HERE AND NOW, dude. This isn’t ancient Greece where “…all knowledge is accessible through pure thought, alone”.

“Until the establishment shows some willingness to pay more than token attention to a new concept every 15 years or so, it is effectively excluding the possiblity of exploiting new technology by anything but vanishingly slim luck.”

Well, in point of fact, small arms technology has already leapfrogged past the G11. What I’m talking about is a weapons system with NO moving parts (except for the projectile(s), the trigger, and other user-interface gadgets) that can fire a wide range of mission-adaptable ammo without having to be reconfigured. In low intensity urban enviornments, it’ll need to be able to switch between “lethal” and “less-than-lethal” force with a push of a button.

To continue R&D on the G11 would therefore be a step backwards. You really need to do something about this unhealthy G11 fixation of yours…tell me, what are your deep feelings about your mother?

“Oh, and about user-servicability and all that, maintaining an M16 is an increadable pain in the neck, as admitted in all the selling hype for the "ultra-reliable" X-8. I suppose that "reliability" is only an issue for new rifles.”

Huh? Why are you using the word “admitted”? H&K does not manufacture the M16, thus they are not in a position to admit anything. And, in any case, I am by no means an XM8 partisan. Official testing and evaluation on the XM8 is still ongoing, and at least for the time being, and there are no immediate plans for deployment.

HSO—
Yeah, the M16 was a fiasco. In Vietnam, the AK-47 had it beat, hands down. Remember the M1 Garand? In the Ardennes, when an M1 would freeze up, the soldiers would all stand around and p!ss on it, then beat on the cocking handle with the butt of another rifle until it broke loose. Then it would work just fine.

Zerhoe—
“…being stuck in the desert with a gun you can't open while being shot at. Sending it to the base might take a while, if you don't die before then. Mmmmm...actually that sounds like a half decent start to a story eh...hehe”

I'm not big on the concept of being able to fire lots of different kinds of munitions (including mixed lethal and non-lethal) from the same weapon. I think it's a dead end, the sort of thing that is likely to increase casualties among the soldiers using it. A good weapon should basically do one thing, but do it flexibly and well.

As it happens, I think that the sealed munition concept is workable for any army that uses conventional logistics. We're not in the business of living off the land, after all. But I'm not a supporter of it as such. I do think that the overall lifespan of the weapon measured in thousands of rounds expended isn't really very relevant to whether or not it is any good on the battlefield. A weapon needs to be able to fire all the ammo you brought with you. If you need to trade it in or whatever at that point, then that isn't any skin off the soldier's nose.

I suppose that we all hate M-16's. I've never been able to figure out why the army wouldn't jump at anything else.

My attachment to the G11 is more a matter of...art, I suppose. There are actually a number of things that I would change about the design, if I were developing it. I think that it is a shame that H&K never got any incentive to continue development. Perhaps I lack a "fixation" on brass.

In WWI, the Canadian government decided to equip its army with the Mark II Ross Rifle. While the Ross Rifle was a good sniper rifle, it was terrible as a field rifle. It jammed easily, especially in wet and muddy conditions. If it was improperly assembled, the bolt assembly could fly off and hit the soldier in the head.

It took more than three years for the Canadians to officially change over to the British Lee-Enfield.

Artillery is the real killer, though. In the Civil War, the ratio of casualties inflicted on the enemy was something like 60% for small arms and 40% for artillery. In World War 2 it was 60% for artillery and 40% for small arms.

In World War 1, it was also 60% for artillery and 40% for small arms.

But battles are won by the guys too tough/smart/lucky to die by the big guns. The big guns are just to clear the pawns off the board so that the real fighting can be done.

"But battles are won by the guys too tough/smart/lucky to die by the big guns. The big guns are just to clear the pawns off the board so that the real fighting can be done."

Oh yeah? Let's see you prove that, junior birdman.

Certainally not! Refer to definition 3a, below, especially the “as by evidence or logic” part…

Definition of "prove":

I'll conceed that it is possible to "win" a battle by simply using heavy weapons to entirely sterilize the contested area along with any areas that could contain enemy reserves, if your rules of engagement allow it and you call such an engagement a "battle". I don't. The more usual term is "extermination". Depending on the specifics of the situation, the term "genocide" could also be applied.

It is also the case that in environments where all the combatants are forced to fight from vehicles to remain combat effective, it would be probable that virtually all casualties would be inflicted by artillery in the broader sense of the word. But that's a very human-centric way of viewing the general concept of "artillery" and "small arms" being applied to a situation that isn't really human-scaled.

Basically, this is a matter of definition. But I find it more useful to look at a battle in terms of autonomous combat units, and divide weapons into "artillery" and "small arms" by whether they are targeted on specific autonomous combat units rather than by whether a human could plausibly carry and use them by hand. This scales both ways, a can of Raid counts as artillery in a battle between two ant colonies just as a 20mm cannon counts as a small arm in a dogfight.