Army Testing German Rifle?

Also against armor, 50 cals lose effective killing capability after several hundred meters. KE has just drop off to much too penetrate. Larger rounds with shape charges since they don't rely of velocity are as effective from the point of arming till they hit their Max range. A hit on a BMP3 at extended range with a 50 will only suppress. A hit at extended range with a 25 mm HE/DP will have some good effects.***************

True, but with modern ceramics and reactive armour there is much debate about the effectiveness of small caliber HEAT vs AFV's. APDSFS is currently the ultimate killer when it come to direct fire weaponry. That may change. Shaped charge shells smaller than about 30mm are not practical IMO, both from an effectiveness standpoint and a manufacturing one. The smallest HEDP round I know of right now is the 30mm used in the M230 Chaingun on the Apache. This is a medium velocity weapon, that uses a very heavy for caliber projectile. The so called "mine-shell", which has very large payload relative to weight. This allows an effective HEDP. The M242 25mm gun used by the USMC and Army relies on APDSFS for anti-armour work. And we are going to at least 30mm(preferably 35mm) due to the (perceived) improvement in threat armour level. I also question the effectiveness of the OICW fragments after they penetrate the protection(PASGT vest). Will they be lethal? is the question that the Picatinny tech guy was not able to answer to my satisfaction. Also the number of fragments decreases as their size increases. The size is needed to get penetration. Reduced probability of an "effective" hit. Effective is the key. I don't think they can get enough fragments of the needed size from the projectile caliber they are using now. One new development in body armour, and we're screwed because there is no upgrade potential. They are running things on the ragged edge right now. It's just like the Brit tanks in WWII. They started with 2pounders and it was a good gun, AT THE START OF THE WAR. 1942, and it was hopelessly obsolete, but the Brits couldn't get a bigger gun into the turrets that would fit on their tanks. They had to design completely new tanks, and while that was happening the Germans were having a field day in N. Africa. I think we are doing the same thing the Brits did. But this for another time.

***Interesting to see that the "Raufuss" (SP?) was type classified. Viewed some literature on it when the EOD guys were getting Barretts and was impressed. Are the rounds being loaded in belts for the M2?*****

Not to my knowledge. The M3 on the anti-aircraft Avenger probably uses it, because the greater effectiveness justifies the cost, but the line M2 gunner won't see it because, at $7/round it's too expensive for general issue. We use it in the Barrett, but we don't go through near as many rounds as an MG would. They might issue it to CH46 machine gunners, but probably not. API is generally good enough. S/F....Ken
 
Rik - you ever handle the SL8 version? There are many reasons to opt for the G36...
Especially if we manufactured the US version to use standard M-16 GI Magazines.
 
Why would you re-equip an entire military with a another 5.56 rifle when it is NOT a major improvement over what you have and then try to save a couple bucks on mags? I want to see how this G36 shakes down before I decide to buy one. H&K has had a lot of over rated stuff (model 21, model 23, G3, G11, model 53, etc) , so I want to see how they REALLY do first. Semper Fi....Ken
 
George yes I have handled the SL8---I have also handled a Dealer Sample G36. It's a nice gun, but I don't think it would be worth the money and effort to change over.
 
How the G36 shakes down?
The troops love it. I remember seeing a web page about the G36 - authored by a German Soldier who was issued one. Nothing but praise.

I'll try to find that webpage again...
 
http://www.stud.unit.no/~johnhe/g36.html
mg36_l.jpg



[This message has been edited by George Hill (edited September 13, 2000).]
 
ok guys i see in GUNS MAGAZINE that the OICW has a 5.56mm barrel on it that is 10" in length and it's Total weight Empty is 16.35lbs. now a Colt M4A1 Carbine has a 14.5" barrel and with a M203 40mm Grenade Launcher it's weight Empty is 8.65lbs.

so what about that guys.

------------------
US NAVY SEALs HOOYAH!!!!!!!!
 
This just in from JANES:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>US Army presses on with ETC project
The US Army has announced that it intends to pursue electro-thermal
chemical (ETC) gun technology as a leading armament candidate for the
Future Combat Systems.[/quote]

A lazer rifle... I read a book called EON where the troopers carried APL called "apple" which stood for Anti Personell Lazer. The Russian troopers carried a new variant of the AK. Interesting - but I'ld opt for the real gun.
 
Thin skin armor vehicles cannot be equipped with reactive armor, the armor of thin skin vehicles would act like it was hit by a HESH round and would produce an interior scab and spall inside the vehicle. Currently the ultimate is high velocity, but lets face it those velocities aren't coming from a 50 Cal. LOSAT and APFSDS rounds are relatively heavy penetrators (measured in pounds vice grains) leaving the tube or launcher at 5000 plus FPS, A 50 cal really cannot compared. Yes, small HEAT rounds aren't that effective. But the 25 mm shaped charged on a ICM bomblet can go through 2-3" of RHA. Most shaped charges can penetrate 5 timed their diameter, how thick it the front of LAV or a BMP, less than 3 inches for sure. There are two ways to get through armor, small and fast, or bigger and slower. The OICW frag was of the smaller, but faster type. Not as good as the big chunky type of frag produced by artillery that tears gapping holes. But when all that is left un-hit is the torso, a target is can be effectively neutralized.

The 25 mm sabot round is a APDS (not fin stabilized).

The avenger 50 cal is a lower power 50 cal round (That is what an avenger gunner told me, cannot verify that with hands on experience), not a full power round like used on the M2. The message I saw on the Mk 211 rounds in 1998 said it was available as a linked ammo.
 
Somebody will find a way to get reactive armour to work on LAV's sooner or later, all that's needed is a war to stimulate research. At the present just about everybody has some sort of ceramic add-on armour for LAV's, I know that our LAV-25 had interlocking ceramic(aluminum oxide right now, will probably upgrade to something like silicon carbide WTSHTF) bricks that were being tried at 2nd LAR when I was at Lejeune in '96. I think they had a different type for Saudi as well. Bomblets are very effective, but I would have to say that there effectiveness is maximized because they impact more or less vertically on a flat surface(the upper hull of the AFV). They are also not spin stabilized, which has a detrimental effect on penetration. When a similar sized shaped charge is tried in a dynamic environment hitting at a compound angle, I think performance will be much worse, more field realistic. SLAP ammo for the M2 is APDS and moves out at 4000+fps, haven't seen it issued in a while, but it's out there.
I have my doubts about the OICW, as I have made fairly clear. I guess we will not know whether it measures up until we start shooting people with it. This may not be a good time to learn. But the Pentagon doesn't ask my opinion that often anymore.
The M3 mounted on the Avenger I saw going out with 26MEU used standard 12.7x99 50 caliber ammo. It basically a M2 set up to work at a higher rate of fire, from an open bolt.
ETC (electro-thermal cannon) are not lasers! They use electrical energy to ignite the propellant. This allows the use of better and different propellants. Liquids and dense solids, there is also talk of CAP guns. That's Combustion Augmented Plasma. They use a wire and a liquid propellant. They dump megawatts of power into the wire, it vapoizes into a plasmic state and increases the effeciency of the propellant. We're going to see this used for tanks guns and artillery far before we see it for manportable stuff, there is still the conservation of momentum. Increase the velocity=increase in recoil. Since so many people these days seem to think that 7.62 kicks too much :) I doubt we're going to see anything much wilder.
 
SLAP is great AP round but still has the limitation that the penetrator is only around a 30 caliber size and is not that heavy. It can go though APCs, but as range increases it starts to lose it penetration power.
The ceramic applique armor for LAV and AMTRACs is available, it proofs them to 50 cal and maybe 14.5. On the LAV, if it is added its so heavy that it has lost its limited swim capability and slows down a lot. The LAV III has armor equivilant or a little thicker than a brad, it cannot swim and is not as fast.
On the reactive armor, I'm sure if they research it they can solve the problem. But their is no emphasis there because of the added weight issue. Also reactive armor is not good if you are around dismounts like the LAV will be. When they go off it has a very similar effect as a claymore.
The reason the I was told the Avenger required a lower power round is the higher cyclic rate of the weapon and realativelt soft mount.
On the next generation propellant, at least for artillery and armor, the thought is the current generation (and generation in the works like crusader) will be the last generation of weapons that rely on chemical energy. The current push is toward electromagnetic weapons, like rail guns.
 
And when railguns hit the battlefield - things will change. 50+ tons of fighting vehicle will be a thing of the past. Armor will no longer matter, because regardless of how much you have - your still not protected.
The change will be to speed, manuever, and stealth. Fights will be hyper furballs on the ground. These low profile, tricked and hot-rodded fighting vehicles will probably all be wheeled... leaving tracks to mobile Arty, which will be fighting from much farther away. Janes has a picture of a future tank that is 2/3 the hight of the M1. Thats a start. That italian mobile gun/tank killer that we talked about will be a much more common pattern.
Right now a tanks gun shoots its projectile at about 1 Kilometer per second (if I remember right) where as a railgun could be shooting as much as 11 KPS. Which means you could shoot aircraft if you could track it and lead it. Range estimation can be a little more sloppy as that round will be a super flat shooting weapon. Easier hits if the target doesnt know if its been seen.
 
I wouldn't get too ahead of myself yet, George. There will always be a call for armour, it's nice to have. You have to mount this giant railgun on something, and it's gonna be large, which means easy to hit, which means it's gonna have to be hardened. Stealth is great, I live by stealth, but when you get it caught in the ringer, which IS gonna happen you want big things with big guns and lots of armour. Railguns ARE going to make planes obsolete IMO. LOS weaponry makes things that fly doomed. You're still gonna have super stealthy stuff, but it'll probably be unmanned, because no pilots are dumb enough to go up in an unarmoured bullet magnet like that. Ceramics and heavy alloys are going to improve right along with weapons tech, always has. The problem is bridges and logisitics and hopefully that will improve too. The again looking at todays Army, maybe not.
OK, I looked it up and the 25mm M242 uses 25x137mm ammo. They do have TWO types of ADFSDS rounds. The M919 uses a DU penetrator, and the M935A2 uses a tungsten penetrator, both FS. The M935A2 is rated at 42mm RHA at 60 degrees at 1000m. The older M791 APDS is still out there and will most likely be commonly encountered in training. Tungsten penetrator. The 30mm Bushmaster II uses 30x173mm and that's what stuck in my brain.
Reactive armour IS tough on dismounts, all the more reason to get the hell away from this giant target you just jumped out of. I don't think this is a reason not to field it. Another training issue.
It has been the case in every peace time military to skimp on armour protection because the crews are not getting killed in mass numbers to stimulate design. Armour is protection. Speed and mobility is NOT, except in the ability to hit the enemy unexpectedly, an operational level concern. Higher velocity weapons decrease time of flight and make speed futile. You have to be able to get hit. Also any armour that going to stop a sabot round is also protection vs RPG and ATGM fire, which is a concern when you have to use your tanks as point blank firesupport for the grunts. This will happen, and has (Somalia, Sarejevo, Kosovo, and Chechneya) You need tanks to support grunts, you need grunts to support tanks. -Ken-
 
You are right on the newer round, I was looking in my Marine Plt Cmds note book, only the M791 is listed. It was produced last year so I think only Brads have the rounds.
 
I'm not saying armour will disappear altogether - you need it for protection from fragments and a rifleman's small arms.
But heavy weight will slow you down... and with railguns running around - you'll need all the scoot you can get.

Also - I dont think that these railguns will be all that big. They dont need to be. What will be big is the power supply until the technology for power storage improves a great deal.
 
One thing that is always forgotten in the rush to use technology to "improve" weapons is that atleast for infantry weapons, some poor dumb b*sturd has to haul the stuff around.
It seems that going to the high tech battlefield will require that the soldier haul more gear than ever before which will reduce his efficiency. Not to mention that Murphy will still be around and our reliance on technology will only hurt the forces when they no longer have these tools and they have forgotten how to fight using the old tools. Case in point, look at the Land Warrior 2000 program. They plan on saddling a soldier with thermal/night vision gear/video/radio gear and weapons that fire 20mm bursting rounds as well as 5.56. The soldier is going to have to be pretty buff to haul that around.
The M-16 is a fine weapon that will continue to serve well into the future.
 
A few years ago, DOW or another of the large chemical companies, created a stringy substance that contracts when a mild electrical impulse was run through it. Essentially what they created was synthetic muscle.

Wake me when they invent the Marauder suit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top