Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

The Small Arms Thread, Part 8: 2018; ICSR to be replaced by US Army with interim 15mm Revolver Cannon.


Khand-e

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

So, I will admit to being Not A Mortar Expert, and until very recently the class of "commando" mortars was not something I was well aware of.

However, I don't think the convertible mortars like the M19 and M224 have sighting systems in individual mode, and they can't be carried loaded, isn't that right?


Some mortar designs can conceivably be carried loaded, as they have individual triggers.  However, I'm not aware of the safety features to prevent accidental firing if carried loaded.  Some of the older foreign designs simply used hash marks on the sling for elevation/range.  You just step on the hash mark for the appropriate range and pull up on the tube to tension the sling. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, D.E. Watters said:


Some mortar designs can conceivably be carried loaded, as they have individual triggers.  However, I'm not aware of the safety features to prevent accidental firing if carried loaded.  Some of the older foreign designs simply used hash marks on the sling for elevation/range.  You just step on the hash mark for the appropriate range and pull up on the tube to tension the sling. 

 

(IIRC) the Japanese "knee mortar"  had a horrendous pull as the "safety".  It took a stout tug to fire the one I had a chance to make noise with. 

 

As far as a "WW2 M-79", it was not completely terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

So, I will admit to being Not A Mortar Expert, and until very recently the class of "commando" mortars was not something I was well aware of.

However, I don't think the convertible mortars like the M19 and M224 have sighting systems in individual mode, and they can't be carried loaded, isn't that right?

M4 has a sighting system in the handle (including a spirit level, I think) and a lanyard to fire. I don't know about a safety, but you can certainly set up and fire one by yourself.

 

The little I've heard about them seemed to indicate that the bomb itself wasn't all that powerful. It also wasn't all that accurate, as you have to hold it at a specific inclination yourself. I think the main use was as a suppression tool to keep other people's heads down while your mates maneuvered.

 

I'm pretty keen on the idea of an integrated, computerised rangefinder/sight (mentioned above), as this shifts the role of the weapon significantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Xlucine said:

Ratheon pike in a 60mm mortar sounds like a better idea than the 40mm to me. you'd get a bigger boom per round, and the complicated guidance part should cost the same per round

 

The guided mortar rounds came first, actually. I'll have to find that powerpoint...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Scolopax said:

Is the trouble here the reloading and dealing with the belt?  Going off that, is there much of a difference in role between a SAW and a GPMG?

 

Yes, the GPMG has 3 guys running it, while the SAW just has one dude.

 

Note the part where his buddy (a rifleman) comes over to help him reload - so now you have not just a fourth of your fireteam down for a good long while reloading, but HALF of your fireteam. That's half of what is supposed to be a mobile fire-and-maneuver unit sitting there dicking around with one guy's gun getting it up and running again.

 

The rifle squad is not supposed to sit there and put fires on the enemy. It is supposed to maneuver, close, and bring the fight to the enemy. They cannot do very effectively that if one guy in four's gun goes down every 50-200 rounds and takes a minute to reload, often while pulling other guys from the fireteam out of the fight to help.

 

At this point, I am about 98% converted over to the side that thinks the SAW is just a stupid idea. The Soviets tried it, and abandoned it after less than a decade. The USMC abandoned it (and the pitch I was given as to why sounds extremely compelling). The Army is about to abandon it. It's just a shitty idea.

 

The M249 isn't really a bad gun (when in good repair - which US Army guns usually are not), but the SAW concept of giving every automatic rifleman a belt fed... 98% sure that's idiocy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

 

At this point, I am about 98% converted over to the side that thinks the SAW is just a stupid idea. The Soviets tried it, and abandoned it after less than a decade. The USMC abandoned it (and the pitch I was given as to why sounds extremely compelling). The Army is about to abandon it. It's just a shitty idea.

What weapon was this and when?  The RPK comes to my mind in this discussion as an ideal weapon for the task at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...