Vicious_CB

*warning graphic with shitty haji music 

Rebel's attack on SAA outpost using suppressed weapons

Wont embed  

https://videopress.com/v/3oSXqr7B

IWBA Wound Ballistics Review Publications from 1991-2001

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B_PmkwLd1hmbd3pWYVVJeGlGaFE

1 hour ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The 433 might be a better gun than the 416. We'll see, I guess.

You can tell from the placement of the charging handle that ze Germans have little experience in night fighting. No room for lasers and white lights. 

On 7/8/2018 at 9:28 AM, Sturgeon said:

HK433 will be the Bundie's next gun, but it'd be funnier if Haenel won. AR-15 apocalypse!

While the rest of eurosphere gets the 416, the Bundies just had to be different. 

"There was a complex attack against the FOB in early June 2012. Insurgents utilized a local truck packed with 1,500–2,000 pounds of explosives; a suicide bomber detonated his truck bomb on the southern edge of the base, breaching the perimeter and causing significant damage to the base's buildings. The dining hall annex was leveled and the main DFAC (Dining Facility) sustained severe roof damage in the blast. Moments later, ten insurgents entered the breach armed with rifles, machine guns, grenades, and rockets; each bomber wore ACU digital military camouflage uniforms while one wore an ANA military uniform and most wore explosive suicide vests. The attackers were first engaged by two Navy SEALs driving by the DFAC in a Toyota truck, and then by a five-man team consisting of three helicopter mechanics and two vehicle mechanics; who blocked the attackers advance from two directions. After a 7-minute firefight, US service members repelled the attack, killing all ten insurgents. With the last insurgent dressed in an ANA uniform being killed in a ditch. The first insurgent to fire shot a RPG rocket into the front of a Toyota truck hitting the front right bumper but did not explode. Then a Navy SEAL riding in the truck rolled down his window and shot the insurgent. Next two insurgents came around the second wall and were shot by two helicopter mechanics. Two base contractors were killed in the attack when the DFAC annex collapsed, and a US Soldier died of a fragmentation wound to his face from a hand grenade a few days later. Although initially downplayed in the media, in July 2012 both Long War Journal and al Jazeera published an unedited attack video released by the Taliban.[8] Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid claimed that an airplane on an airstrip at the base was destroyed and that 'tens' of foreign forces were killed and wounded in the attack. The Taliban later released the video of the attack, showing the attackers practicing in Southeast Afghanistan, taking their photos, the group leader showing his shooting skills by shooting 2 machine guns and the suicide bomber in the truck."

Not combat, but what it feels like to be in the middle of an artillery strike. 

On 6/25/2018 at 3:17 PM, juretrn said:

Jesus fck, the one with Kurds vs Turks is just... can't bring myself to watch after that first point-blank kill.

Wonders of modern technology...

What combat footage used to look like

What combat footage looks like now

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

Point blank? But what about Overmatch?

Obviously we need Overmatch™ at point blank range. You heard it here first, Point Blank™. The newest thing the Army didnt know they needed. We could sell them a 5.56 version of this: 

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2015/04/30/m198-the-cartridge-that-should-not-have-been/ 

*Highly GRAPHIC*

Close range ambush of Turkish troops by Kurdish fighters. Illustrates the dangers of fatigue and exertion on combat awareness. The Kurds waited for the Turks to climb this rocky hill before ambushing them at pointblank range. Also note the tactics in the flanking of a PKM team around the boulder towards the end of the video.

Definitely not a valid antipersonnel technique for armored combat 

A thread to post and discuss/critique enemy and friendly TTPs 

ISIS in urban fighting in Mosul. Infiltration through urban structures via breaching interior walls. Seems like they're copying western urban fighting TTPs or playing alot rainbow 6 siege.  Either way these guys are far more sophisticated than AQ fighters the USMC faced in 2004 in same city.  

8 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

Tactical window smashing units for legs - the B.O.O.T.S. 

 

That looks like the tacticool version of doing this:

2018 is the year of the exoskeletons.

#Eurosatory

16 hours ago, LoooSeR said:

XM5A
   Shortened G3 from Pakistan.

   One of the earliest prototypes of the POF plant. Now they have better-made shorties, I'll show them later.

   Plenty of kolkhoz'ed modifications - they used handguards from early MP5, wooden ones. In order it to fit, they welded mounting point for handguard pin. On the receiver on the left you can see "neatly" welded latch of the folding stock.
   Charging handle was lost.  

Someone was having too much fun doing the HK slap 

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

If we're talking company level outpost defense, then nobody has any objection to 5.56mm belt feds. That's why they got relegated to company commander's discretion in the USMC. If we're not talking outpost defense, then what ganja are you smoking?

 

I swear to god, every conversation I have with SAW apologists goes the same way.

 

 

"The USMC" really implies that there is only one person involved. In reality, the IAR program was built on a coalition of interests - some of whom wanted an M16 replacement, but most of whom were serious about the IAR as such.

 

Not sure about apologist but Im definitely pro belt-fed at the squad and fire team level. Since this was mainly a suppression thread under what context do you want to see all IARs? At what level do you put a SAW?

4 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Sounds like the guys at Wanat didn't really have time for barrel changes, so how does having a changeable barrel help you in that scenario?

I can see the argument for giving an IAR open/closed bolt capability, though.

When I talk about IARs, usually I am not talking about the M27. When I mean M27, I usually say M27. IAR is a more general term.

No, it doesnt because you dont need one. The M249 is capable of essentially linking together all the ammo you can realistically carry (750-850 rounds) and firing it in one continuous burst. Thats far greater than any IAR is capable of even if you can get 200 round drums to work. 

Some MRBS/MRBF numbers http://weaponsman.com/?p=9194

That LWRC IAR entry had one but didnt get adopted. Considering the USMC cared more about getting a M16 replacement than getting an actual IAR it was doomed to fail. They could have just cheaped it out by taking existing M16A4s, slapping HBARs and heavy duty gas tubes, giving them full auto selectors and you would have gotten them capability. Probably alot more controllable than the HK too.  

Im pretty impressed with the new round. Current production issues aside or things like feedramp wear which are overblown by the 6.X mafia, there's no need for a caliber change. I just wish the round isn't so damn expensive. They should have made a cheaper ballistically equivalent training round or something. 

On 6/10/2018 at 9:24 AM, Sturgeon said:

 

Tripods aren't carried at the squad level anyway, so I don't see much of a difference here.

 

Speaking of Wanat, that battle is a very good example of M249s and M240s going tits up - which is why the M4s were pushed so hard in the first place. And we won Wanat, overwhelmingly. 

That excellent weaponsman article was more about the M4 failures its seemed. But I have no doubt that M249s and M240s went down if they were going cyclic without barrel changes. I was talking about Wanat in the context of almost being overrun ie. every gun going cyclic trying to do final protective fires. And how much worse an M27 would have done considering its poor thermal management compared to a belt-fed or even an M4 due to where it dumps its gas(Although the M27 gets around that by adding pure barrel mass)Just comparing sustained 50 rpm for the SAW vs 36 rpm for the M27, I think put in the same situation at Wanat the M27 would have fared far worse in trying to keep up both sustained and cyclic rates of fires. 

I dont advocate running a tripod with a SAW since you can still keep a pretty tight 6-9 rnd beaten zone with just a bipod while still being able do the types of fires that require an effective beaten zone. 

On 6/10/2018 at 2:24 PM, Sturgeon said:

And for the record, I do think it's a good idea to give unit commanders the authority to add MG teams to the squads if they feel it's necessary. But make it an actual MG, with an actual tripod, and at least one supporting team member (AG).

Agreed, Im all about that arms room concept, like going all M27s for fighting in an urban environment.

Yep, belt feds should be crew served at least in the general purpose forces because unless you are a highly trained SOF member who actually gets the range time to be proficient at running the SAW alone, you are not getting the full capability of that weapon. For example all SAW gunners in the Rangers have to qualify WITH the SAW in the shoot house to the same standards as the guys with M4s. How feasible is that with a regular Joe or Marine? Probably not.

How much of the results of this tank competition reflect on the merits of the crew vs the technological advancements of the tank?

For example, I saw that they had pistol portion. You cant even get people in a combat MOS, sans SOF, proficient with a handgun and you expect that out of your tankers? Are they even trying to correlate the stages with real world situations? 

7 minutes ago, Sturgeon said:

 

Leave machine gun theory to the machine guns, not the automatic rifles.

I get that an IAR is not a MG but those IARs will eventually be asked to do MG things because you cannot expect to have support from your weapons platoon all the time. And when that happens it will be an Oh Shit! moment for their new all M27 concept. Think Wanat bad. 

3 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

A squad with all-IARs can put out more fire at any given point in time than a squad with 3RB+SAW. Even if half the guns are down with reloads at staggered intervals, the amount of fire being put downrange is still higher.

 

Here's some interesting math for you:

 

Assuming an even RPM of 600 rounds/min (for hypothetical's sake, both the M27 and M249 are closer to 900 cyclic)

IAR

0.5 second burst, 1 second intervals, 5 second reload

.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 5 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 5 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 5 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 5 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 5 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 5 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5

 

IAR fires 200 rounds in 83 seconds
ready to fire the next round

If we assume that reloads instead are 10 seconds, then that becomes 108 seconds

If we assume that cyclic is 900 RPM instead (with 10 second reload) that becomes 202 or 203 rounds in 93.5 seconds

 

SAW

0.5 second burst, 1 second intervals, 60 second reload
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + 
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + 
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + 
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + 
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 +
.5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 1 + .5 + 60

SAW fires 200 rounds (plus reload) in 119 seconds

If we assume that reloads are instead 40 seconds, then that becomes 99 seconds

If we assume that cyclic is 900 RPM instead (with 40 second reload) that becomes 200 rounds in 73 seconds
Keep in mind that the M249 has 2-3x the bullet spread, and that the M249 can go down (spontaneous 1-minute+ reload) at any time if the SAW gunner has to break a belt or clear a jam.

This means that in the very best circumstances for the M249 and the very worst for the IAR, the M249 puts out an average 26% more fire than the M27. In the best circumstances for the IAR and worst for the M249, the IAR beats it by 43%. This is before you consider the fact that the faster the M249 is firing (either because cyclic is higher or bursts are longer), the more often it has to reload - a task which takes a long time and essentially forces the entire fireteam to stop advancing. Reliability is also worth a mention, as a common jam with the M27 is much, much easier and quicker to clear than with an M249. M249s are also much more likely than magazine-fed weapons to experience malfunctions that take them out of the fight entirely. Further, you can arm everyone with IARs, which is impractical with SAWs, and adding M249s to a squad already armed with IARs only increases sustained firepower by 6% assuming the best case for the SAW all the time. This increase comes with a significant mobility/assaulting ability decrease, according to the "slowest buffalo" principle.

 

The problem with the USMC's plan is switching to the M27 itself. While it made a great proof-of-concept in 2011, today it's quite dated. Something like URG-I is the way forward.

 

I agree that a drum is needed moving forward, and I think that raises some questions in and of itself.

Hmm, Ill probably have to go over this later when I can focus on the numbers better but just looking at the field manuals. 

For the M249 from FM 3-21.8    https://www.marines.mil/Portals/59/Publications/FM 3-21.8 The Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad_7.pdf

Rates of Fire:

Sustained................................................. 50 rounds a minute in 6- to 9-round bursts, with 4 to 5 seconds between bursts (barrel change every 10 minutes).

Rapid ....................................................... 100 rounds per minute, fired in 6- to 9-round bursts, 2 to 3 seconds between bursts (barrel change every 2 minutes).

Cyclic ....................................................... 850 rounds per minute, continuous burst, barrel changed every minute.

I latest figures I saw for the M27:

Rates of Fire

(a) Cyclic Rate of Fire. 700-900 rpm.

(b) Sustained Rate of Fire. 36 rpm at 95 degrees Fahrenheit.

Im going to assume 2-3 rnd bursts here since the HK416's recoil impulse is worse than the M4's making anything more than 3 rnds a waste of ammo. I

I just thought of this now but using 2-3 rnd bursts basically means a non-existent beaten zone. Meaning you cant really do any of the types of fires from the machine gun theory talked about in the FM. 

2 hours ago, Sturgeon said:

 

The problem here is that "M855A1" isn't really one unified round. It's very likely, given those results, that the rounds tested were early spirals loaded with 28grs WC846 - a hot load indeed! More recent spirals run a much more sedate load of 26.1 grains SMP-842, an entirely different propellant with a slower burn curve.

I reread your post, isnt WC 846 a 7.62 NATO powder? I guess that would explain alot! Or did you mean WC 844 which is the current green tip propellant? But like you said it probably doesnt matter since its all probably different by now. If they really wanted to push it they would use WCR 845 a double base powder they use to hot rod M995.

Interesting, is it a manually set fuse? If so I guess that means airburst is out of the question since I dont see a range dial. Ive never heard of Mesko, guess they wanted to buy domestic since the 120mm HE-T from NAMMO offers the exact same capability with a 2-mode manually set fuse. And its already been tested on the Leopard 2.

Its says the Avg powder load is 25.8gr using an unknown powder for the A1(look under "Parameters - Physical on test sheet) so I don't think this is one of the earlier hot rod loads. I didnt know they changed the burn rate since the burn rate is supposed to be optimized for 14.5" barrels, I thought the switch to SMP was because it was a much more temp stable powder. 

I dont know how I feel about the changes to the rifle squad. 12 man rifle squad with 3 3-man fire teams is a pretty big change.

The good: Introduction of a dedicated drone/communications operator. Finally, they're bringing a drone down to the squad level. This should do alot to boost the squad's situational awareness. 

Good or bad, depends: Adding a Carl Gustov to the squad. On one hand you are adding real HE capability to the squad but who's going to carry it? Is that guy also going to be carrying an M27? Can they carry enough rounds to make the Gustav worth the additional weight burden? I feel like the soviets got it right with the RPG-7 gunner just carrying the RPG and bunch of rockets. Maybe give that dude a holstered PDW like the MP7 because getting picked to carry the Gustov + M27 is probably going to be a significant emotional event. Adding a grenadier. Meh, just like in an Army rifle squad that guy is probably just going to end up being another rifleman that occasionally fires off a few rounds of ineffective HE. The DMR, sounds like its just another guy with an M27 that gets more glass and maybe more training. Technically anyone in the squad can fill that role so thats a pretty neutral addition.  

The bad:  The all IAR concept, Im not sure how they came up with a 300% increase in firepower when the M27 when they arent even introducing anything larger than a 30-round mag. The IAR needs atleast a Magpul D-60 to have any hope of proving enough sustained firepower to cover another fire team. Giving everyone an M4 with a heavier barrel would have roughly the same effect...