Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

Vicious_CB

Contributing Members
  • Content count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Vicious_CB

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. http://soldiersystems.net/2018/05/14/nswc-crane-carbine-mid-length-gas-system-testing-shows-increased-performance/ So in Crane's testing of the URG-I vs M4A1, the numbers make sense except for this one. Maybe you ballistic gurus can answer this because I have no idea. How can you have 2 significantly different mean muzzle velocities at 100 yards when they both started off with nearly the same muzzle velocity, out of the same length barrels with the same twist rate? It cant be stability since that is based on starting velocity and twist rate. Is there some kind of magic that the midlength gas system imparts on the bullet that causes it to have less velocity decay or is this just a statistical artifact?
  2. Vicious_CB

    The Suppressive Effect of Small Arms

    After listening to it again I think one of the most overlooked in this discussion is the doctrine difference between the US Army and USMC squads. The IAR concept in the USMC works because of the 13-man squad can still maintain 1 fire team armed with a SAW for base of fire. The 9-man squad in the US Army has you so limited in man power that you have to pick and choose what capability to have. Are you mainly doing building entries? OK you probably don't need a SAW gunner. Need to cover fire teams on a bounding assault? Yeah, you probably want a SAW for that continuous base of fire to cover the assault element for that last 50-100m to the objective. The worst decision the Army could have made was base the squad size on how many Joes you can fit into an M2 Bradley... Increase the squad size to 11-men. Maintain the SAW with an AG and keep them with a SL and actually teach them machine gun theory so he can actually direct fires via propper fire commands and give the maneuver elements IARs for organic fires to keep them light and fast, and to deal with anything the support element doesnt have line of sight to. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a225438.pdf
  3. Vicious_CB

    The Suppressive Effect of Small Arms

    I would highly suggest listening to this segment of this podcast from a highly experienced SOF veteran.
  4. Vicious_CB

    AFV Coax Thread

    Thanks for the warm welcome guys. Hope I can contribute with my limited knowledge base. I see. So a M230LF coax is probably out the question since its eating up too much space inside the turret. In terms of ammo volume 7.62 vs .50 cal, I know the M1 Abrams particularly carries an absurd amount to coax ammo comparably to other tanks, something like 10,000 rounds. Im not quite sure what ratio would be if you swapped 7.62 to .50 cal(2:1?3:1?) you would probably still have as much coax ammo as other MBTs. Also logistically .50 cal is very common in both light infantry and with the stryker guys so there would be no shortage there. As far as gunners lighting everything up with main gun, isnt that a training issue? Like we say in the shooting community, sounds like a software issue not a hardware issue. Something like a technical probably doesnt warrant a main gun round. .50 cal API also makes swiss cheese out of double reinforced concrete walls that can easily stop 7.62 SLAP. Also Ive heard more than few times in Helmand where USMC tanks on overwatch were unable to support their infantry clearing a compound due to the fears of some devil dog catching a sabot petal in the back of the head. I have no idea what the danger space is when firing a saboted round is but Ive heard its a real issue when supporting infantry. Maybe the answer is stick a M230LF on the commanders CROWS? if you used the CROWS-LP it probably wouldnt be much larger than the CROWS /w M2HB(height wise) than we have now. The question is where to store all the ammo. Now at least you have some HE throwing capability when infantry are within the danger space of the main gun. If volume is an issue the most space efficient system would be the .338 NM LWMMG from General Dynamics. .50 cal range in a M240 package though it probably doesnt have the same barrier defeat capability as a .50 cal slug. Supposedly the 160th SOAR is interested in this round to replace their .50's with this which makes sense in aviation where take off weight is a huge issue where less weight = more time on station before going winchester bingo. Vehicle wise you can probably get away just swapping the M240 with the .338 LWMMG since they are similarly sized where a M2 would probably call for a redesign of the mantlet.
  5. Vicious_CB

    AFV Coax Thread

    Ive been mulling over this topic for a while so it was a boon that I found this forum. Being mostly a small arms guy I admit that I know very little about AFV design. I was always puzzled why the 7.62 was the coax caliber of choice when the advantages of the heavy MG in range, barrier defeat and actually being able to take advantage of the FCS of an AFV without the main con of weight that infantry have to deal with.The only downside being volume. Im pretty sure a proper FCS makes a .50 cal far more effective than Joe aiming with the tip of barrel and walking the tracers into the target. But which heavy MG? I feel like the M2HB ROF is too low for a proper beaten zone at range. Maybe a AN/M2 or even a M3M at 1,100 rpm? Also how does the new M230LF fall into the coax discussion?There are talks of it replacing the M2A1 and Mk19 on RWS or even vehicle mounts. Would it make a viable coax? How about it replacing the M2 on the TC's CROWS?
×