Posted on 02/09/2004 1:30:14 PM PST by Cannoneer No. 4
The American public doesn't understand why Humvees and soldiers couldn't be better protected when they spend $87 billion for operations in Iraq. I sure would not want to be a notification officer for any American whose son died because of a slow procurement system. The correct answer I was taught was: "No Excuse, Sir!".
There are many ways that the shaped charge in an RPG may have been deflected or more likely not even armed, but no wheel, no engine and certainly no part of any Humvee can withstand a 'direct hit' from a RPG and take only minor damage. The whole story hasn't been told. Have a nice night.
Cue The Village People: "In the Naaaavy"
No plans to employ that in the Army.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
That is being pushed hardest by the raggediest-ass gang of phonies and wannabees I have ever seen... led by some guy who shouts about his rank, mumbles about naval special warfare, and when you actually take a hard look at him, turns out to be a dentist. What a fraud.
Way too much weapons development is being done by tinkering hobbyists and way to little by engineers. True or false: one reason the M4 had problems with bolt rebound, is that nobody did any analysis (not even a few envelope calculations, let alone FEA) on the system as revised?
When I bag on the process pushing the 6.8, I'm not saying an improved round wouldn't be a good idea, especially when the Army sacrificed the initial performance of the M193 round by stuffing the -16 with nasty, fouling ball powder instead of the stuff designed into the system. Which I think was a version of IMR that never made the commercial market, but definitely fouled less.
But the damn thing should have science and engineering behind it, not some phony without military, scientific or engineering credentials.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Your priorities of life and obligations notwithstanding, the next time I'm invited to the ball, you're welcome to accompany me. I've had something in mind on the back burner since last summer, and hope to have it come to a boil around March or April, one way or the other. You needn't even polish your boots for the dance; these are tankers we're talking about, after all....
-archy-/-
Good news for you: The Brits picked up the idea, and have developed it as Brimstone
Bad news for you: The Russians also picked up on it, and have fielded it as the supersonic 9M114 Ataka/Sturm launcher/missile, with a range of 6KM, now being extended to 10KM. Fitted to light personnel carriers or obsolete tank chassis with their turrets removed, they can make armor operations very costly.
Sturm-S launch system on MTLV amphibious personnel carrier/ATR vehicle:
No plans to employ that in the Army.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Shhh. Don't tell 2nd Rangers at Lewis. They'll start pressing seams down the sides of their trousers and replacing their sandhat berets with those funny little white *Dixie cup* hats.
Go ALL the way back, to the early 1950s, when the British developed the .280 EM-2 [actually a .276/7mm, usually described as the 7x44mm cartridge, or as the .280/30. Though the later version used the cartridge base and rim dimensions of the U.S. .30 cartridge in hopes that WWII-era manufacturing tooling and cartridge manufacturing machinery could be saved, an earlier versiou used a smaller diameter cartridge base and rim. And though the cartridge used a somewhat longer bullet [140 grain, IIRC] than most 5,56 ammunition, the slightly shorter case would allow the possibility of the use of the old EM-2 cartridge in weapons using a 45mm cartridge case: the 5,56x45mm M16 round and the Czech 7,62x45mm of the Vz52 carbine and Vz58 assault rifle in particular. That could allow ammunition development while the design and testing of such other possible platforms as the XM-8 or a *Super M4-plus* could be worked out.
Or the old EM-2 could be revived, using modern materials. The 700-800-yard effective range of that weapon would be nothing to sneeze at, nor should the possible effectiveness of it on soft body armor be overlooked. And it'd be a dandy in SAWs.
comparison table: British .280 caliber intermediate cartridge vs. most common modern military cartridges
ballistic data is estimated using Norma ballistic calculator and Sierra Bullets data on ballistic coefficients.
| 5.56x45mm NATO | 7x43mm EM-2 | 7.6x39mm M43 | 7.62x51mm NATO | |
| bullet weight | 4.01 g (62 gr) | 9.08 g (140 gr) | 7.9 g (122 gr) | 9.72 g (150 gr) |
| bullet velocity, at muzzle | 921 m/s | 745 m/s | 710 m/s | 860 m/s |
| bullet velocity, at 300 yards (273 meters) | 585 m/s | 570 m/s | 470 m/s | 674 m/s |
| bullet velocity, at 550 yards (500 meters) | 385 m/s | 450 m/s | 341 m/s | 516 m/s |
| bullet energy, at muzzle | 1700 J | 2519 J | 1991 J | 3594 J |
| bullet energy, at 300 yards (273 meters) | 686 J | 1475 J | 872 J | 2207 J |
| bullet energy, at 550 yards (500 meters) | 297 J | 919 J | 460 J | 1294 J |
--
I'm always leery of ballistic stats because they are missing important data. The two things most important in shooting people with guns are (1) can you hit the guy, and (2) will enough energy be transferred to him to significantly alter the course of his weekend? In ballistic terms you could state these as practical accuracy (which is really a product of the whole system, including the human interface engineering of the weapon and teh shooter himself) and terminal effect (which is not quantified in any generally agreed-upon way, efforts of the dentist and his various dental assistants notwithstanding).
If you don't hit your guy somewhere important, (2) is impossible. So (1) is the most critical measure, but nothing pertaining to it is in that table. To illustrate, the table you posted makes it look like the AK's M43 round has an edge on the 5.56 that improves with range. But in fact, at ranges beyond 200m, the short stock, crummy trigger, tiny sighting radius, crude sights, and high recoil-thrustline of the AK series makes hitting men problematic.
Not to mention the ballistic drop of the M43 which is getting pretty bad by 200m and approaching howitzer ballistic arcs (albeit scaled down) by 300.
Then, there is the issue of terminal effect. Give most guys who do a lot of shooting (people, not targets) a choice between the AK and the M16 series, and their choice will depend on whether we're talking about them shooting someone or someone shooting them.
By the way, if we go all the way back, isn't that to the FG-42? (What I love is army arsenals people copying the bolt design from that weapon, unaware that the designers of the FG [Haenel? Rheinmettal?] had cribbed their design from the (American) Lewis Gun of WWI.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
Well, the SA-80 has had its problems, but is now in its third-generation L85A2 version, just as the M16 went through its M16/M16A1/M16A2 variants. My limited experience in hauling one around a few times gave me no worries, including one occasion when the targets shot back. Interestingly, the Gurkhas noted few problems with them, and most of the glitches came when the weapons were on semiauto; there was an easy cure for that. Then the open-bolt L86A1 Light Support Weapon was known to give problems on full-chat, usually extractor/ejector failures; that's been solved with the introduction of the belt-fed FN-Minimi to many combat units, AKA the M249 SAW in U.S. service. The Royal Marines and Paras have been playing with the Minimi since the turn of the century; now the 7th Armoured's Desert Rats and the Black Watch Highlanders have had them for a year or so. And the Gurkhas have been using the *baby-gimpy* for some time....
-06-03-2003]42%2015a9.jpg)
The EM-2 had other problems, not the least its tendency to bounce hot brass off the nose of a left-handed firer. Downward ejection, or perhaps forward out the foreend is better called for, and other refinements. But extending a cheekpiece from the foreend rearward would seem possible, at least, certainly now in these days of honeycomb insulation and synthetics.
I'm always leery of ballistic stats because they are missing important data. The two things most important in shooting people with guns are (1) can you hit the guy, and (2) will enough energy be transferred to him to significantly alter the course of his weekend? In ballistic terms you could state these as practical accuracy (which is really a product of the whole system, including the human interface engineering of the weapon and teh shooter himself) and terminal effect (which is not quantified in any generally agreed-upon way, efforts of the dentist and his various dental assistants notwithstanding).
Agreed. I can think of all sorts of swell ballistic offerings that look great on paper but don't do all that well in the real world. Likewise a great cartridge can be a horrid flop if offered in a miserable weapon, and vice- versa. In these recent troubled times we seem to have the opportunity to try various equipment out on uncooperative targets, just as the Russians did in Afghanistan for a decade, and changed a few things around.
If you don't hit your guy somewhere important, (2) is impossible. So (1) is the most critical measure, but nothing pertaining to it is in that table. To illustrate, the table you posted makes it look like the AK's M43 round has an edge on the 5.56 that improves with range. But in fact, at ranges beyond 200m, the short stock, crummy trigger, tiny sighting radius, crude sights, and high recoil-thrustline of the AK series makes hitting men problematic.
Unless you're using an RPK.... Love those RPKs, just wish they had a interchangable barrel and a little better sights....
Not to mention the ballistic drop of the M43 which is getting pretty bad by 200m and approaching howitzer ballistic arcs (albeit scaled down) by 300.
One reason the Russians have gone to the 5,45 caliber in their AK74s and AN94 *Abakan* rifles...and RPK 74s. There I am, back on those RPKs again....
Then, there is the issue of terminal effect. Give most guys who do a lot of shooting (people, not targets) a choice between the AK and the M16 series, and their choice will depend on whether we're talking about them shooting someone or someone shooting them.
By the way, if we go all the way back, isn't that to the FG-42? (What I love is army arsenals people copying the bolt design from that weapon, unaware that the designers of the FG [Haenel? Rheinmettal?] had cribbed their design from the (American) Lewis Gun of WWI.
The FG42 is a great little machuine, though heavy and its ammo is bulky. I had the great fun of shooting one extensively in Switzerland in the mid-1960s, having brought a German Kar98k to a Swiss rifle match at Thun, my hosts seemed to think I deserved a treat in return for my long trip to attend. But I had plenty of very nice clean 7,9 ammo, which is a great old cartridge, just fine for knocking bad guys down at a quarter-mile. Or a half. But it throws a nasty flash at night....
Funny the Yugoslavs never picked up the manufacture of the FG42 for their postwar efforts...their *M53* MG42 copies are quite credible, and also a joy to cut loose with...and still in the original 7,92 caliber, unlike the German/Italiaqn/Austrian NATO MG42 variants.
Weapons are cool. They are a professional interest, obviously. But... give me a chance to apply better training and leadership and I'll beat better weapons every time.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
CROWS was not to be ready for service until 2006. But it has been doing so well in testing, that four systems were sent to Iraq and mounted on armored hummers. After six weeks of use, the four CROWS systems had suffered no failures, performed as they were designed to and the troops using them didn't want to give them up.
Typically, weapons in a hummer turret leave the gunner very exposed to enemy fire. This is not the case with the CROWS. In addition, the day sight has telescopic capabilities, as does the thermal sight (for use at night and misty weather.) With CROWS, the gunner is safer, and so is the convoy he is with, because the CROWS sights allow the gunner to see farther, and fire more accurately. CROWS has a stabilizer and software that does all the calculations to make the most accurate shots with whatever weapon is mounted, even if the vehicle is moving. CROWS is going into production ahead of schedule because of the successful operational tests.
M1114 w/CROWS or M981 with SP 155mm BN in DS?
The AMRWS was developed by Vinghog, industrialized and further modified by Kongsberg Protech to become the Protector, Remote Weapon Station (RWS). The Protector, RWS design is today owned by Kongsberg Protech. Vinghøg is still a major sub-contractor. The Protector is now in high volume production for the US Army BCT programme and per January 2003, Kongsberg Protech has delivered more than 300 units for this programme.
Navy Seal AA12 Assault Shotgun.
Nothing says "Clear" like a full auto 12 guage.
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.