Where is caseless ammo?

I am just about sure the towed 105's and 155's are still that way, but I'm not sure of the M109A6 Paladin. I'm sure they are still the same way, I don't know of any liquid propellant being fielded for sure. 155 dummy projectiles are heavy enough, you'd have to be one stout dude to heft one in a cartridge form LOL!

I am aware of the "Disintegrating case" setup on the Abrams, I was a Cavalry Scout, we trained on both the Bradley and the M-1 simulators at Knox. I was never heavy Cav though, so my experience on the real thing is limited..at Bragg we never did figure out a way to push a Bradley out of the back of a C-17 LOL!!!
 
The "shoot to wound" training concept was in fact SOP, .
Click to expand...

I am 100% certain that SOP came from Corporate advertizing brochures, namely, that of Colt Industries.

The Military industrial complex has to sell weapons, regardless of whether they will work, and military doctrines are adjusted to justify the purchase.

The first time I released this was after watching a show on airpower and the Vietnam war, and there was this fighter pilot from the era. He mentioned all the years of training he had prior to being allowed in the cockpit, then the years in the cockpit, and off he goes to Vietnam. He picked up book of a WW2 fighter pilot’s experience in WW2 and there were all these descriptions of aerial maneuvers, barrel rolls, Immelmann turn, etc, all dogfighting maneuvers , and he had never heard of them. This fighter pilot had not been trained to dogfight. He had been trained to fly his plane straight and level, point the nose at the enemy, and launch his mighty missiles, which according to corporate brochures , would automatically seek out and destroy the enemy. According to doctrine there was no need to teach pilots how to dogfight as superior, hideously expensive, American technology eliminated all that man in the loop stuff.

According to the show, at the time the US was shooting down three MIG’s for every American plane shot down. I don’t know how many MIGS were Korean era MIG 17’s, but I will bet they accounted for the most, and three MIG 17’s were cheap in comparison to one American plane.

The US military took a step back to figure what to do. The Navy decided to establish the Top Gun school and Naval Pilots were taught to out think, out fight their opponents. The kill ratio of Navy fighters immediately shot up to 21 MIGS downed per American Plane.

The US Air Force decided to keep the prime contractors happy and spend money on technology. With even more hideously expensive American technology on board, the kill ratio for USAF fighter pilots was 1:1.

Yes, but, due to the cash flow, look at which agency got more lobbying power on the hill and guess whose retired Generals were rewarded with high paying jobs at major aerospace corporations.

Not the Navy!

The more I look at military doctrines the more they look like creations of the advertizing bureaus of Defense Industries.
 
Is a paper cartridge round truly caseless....

That's a tough one, especially when thinking about the Dreyse and Chassepot guns, which had bullet, powder and primer contained in one unit...
 
I think the adoption of a cartridge that is likely to wound when aiming to kill is not quite the same thing as "shoot to wound". As far as I know, the US military has never trained or advocated for "shoot to wound", except perhaps snipers. Even then I believe it is a choice made at the trigger ... rare, if at all.
 
There has been a lot of research done over the years in creating bullets that will comply with the spirit of the Hague Accords, but which will increase wounding power.

In the move to smokless powder and smaller calibers at the end of the 19th century there were a lot of examples of new cartridges that were very low on wounding capability.

The most notable examples were the various 6.5mm cartridges, which tended to have extremely long, heavy bullets with round noses and very stiff jackets, giving extremely high sectional densities and stability in the target. They would penetrate completely through an individual without even the slightest hint of tumbling.

That penetration capability is the primary reason that famed African hunter WDM "Karamajo" Bell chose rounds like the 6.5 Dutch Mannlicher and the 7mm Mauser/.275 Rigby.

The original spitzer bullets developed in France and Germany had the dual benefit of increasing ballistic performance but also making the bullets far more unstable (thus increasing wounding capability) in the target.

Later developments, such as in Britain and Italy, involved pushing the bullet's mass as far to the rear as possible by leaving air voids at the tip, or by using fillers (cardboard or other fiber in the .303, aluminum in the 7.35 Carcano).

The current Russian 5.45 bullet (developed in the 1970s by the Soviets), has an air space at the tip, and has proven to be VERY unstable when it impacts the target, which has given it a reputation for leaving extensive wounds.

The US went a slightly different route with bullets for the 5.56. The original 55-gr. bullet was a pretty poor performer when it came to wounding. At the generally short combat distances in Vietnam, though, this was largely masked to the troops.

In the 1980s the US adopted a heavier, European-designed bullet, but which had a jacket that tended to fail above about 2,300 fps, resulting in the bullet fragmenting and causing more significant wounds.

Below that velocity threshold (generally seen at longer ranges), though, it's been found that the 5.56 round still leaves quite a bit to be desired in wounding capacity, something that has shown up at the longer ranges that have been seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and something that the military has been investigating further.

That's a pretty long way of saying that it's most likely that the supposed "shoot to wound" doctine isn't really a doctrine at all, but an outgrowth of the military's desire to find bullet designs that show increased wounding potential.
 
Whatever, that comment means?

The minirocket guns were flops. One problem is that of acceleration as the projectile did not attain a useful velocity till pretty far out from the gun.

Anything more to be said that is useful? Mike covered most of it.
 
Nuff said
 

Attachments

  • uploadfromtaptalk1375643892910.jpg
    uploadfromtaptalk1375643892910.jpg
    171.4 KB · Views: 20
  • uploadfromtaptalk1375643916792.jpg
    uploadfromtaptalk1375643916792.jpg
    49.8 KB · Views: 18
  • uploadfromtaptalk1375643982969.jpg
    uploadfromtaptalk1375643982969.jpg
    114.7 KB · Views: 18
Well the real issue is this. Most caseless rounds are not caseless. They dont use brass to hold them together, but the most reliable onesin the 90s used a plastic to hold everything together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top