Printable View
it's the same gun-system as on the CV9035DK, so there's a laser range finder that gets the range and the shell is fuzed per rotations, computer does the math on the number of rotations to get said range and voila.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lachesis VII
Makes sense to me.
tech-wise it's actually quite simple to put together such a system today, it's just a three axis accelerometer chip in the shell counting the number of times its "up" running off a couple of capacitors, as most of these gun types are electrically primed anyway you can use part of that charge to prime the actual capacitors and talk to the counter inside the shell.
Alliant even did some work on what is essentially a type of beam-riding remotely detonated projectiles for the 50mm conversion of those guns, for use against things like UAV's and Helicopters.
https://ve.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_p...2Bm1u653o0.mp4
Interesting new cartridge case to reduce the weight of all the shit a grunt must carry!
Brass head and Neck Polymer body.
Oxymoron: “Non Toxic Ammunition!
Who wants to shoot non toxic Ammo in a firefight!!!:D
the advantage of using brass is that it helps getting heat out of the action because it's a decent heat conductor, i wonder if that polymer can do the same, considering he's picking it up like that just after it got fired, but then on the other hand, we can't see how much went trough that gun before the recording started.
also, modern battlefields are functionally toxic shitheaps, don't underestimate the value of getting rid of some of the repercussions.
Replacing inert brass with polymers of unknown durability and stability. Seems like a downgrade to me.
nah it's fine
heat is not an issue in vehicle mounts
this stuff is for infantry use though.Quote:
Originally Posted by RazoR
it propably doens't matter much in rifles, they basically go wobbly fairly quickly and you're not supposed to spray and pray to begin with anyway, but on MG's ?
i can't see that stuff working in a sustained suppression role.
here's a article on this stuff, by somebody who's obviously never actually seen squad MG's in use up close. they're arguing that since the polymer is a insulator rather than a heat conductor the heat goes down the barrel along with the gas, that implies much more frequent barrel changes and this is bad for reasons that should be obvious, especially if you're lugging LSW type guns without quick change barrels, RPK's, L86's, M27's, LSV M/04 type things. it's less of a problem on actual machineguns where you can swap barrels, but it's a fucking pain in the ass to do in the first place.
fuck asbestos gloves, LMG/62 barrels and all their friends, the new M60E6's are supposed to be easier, but it's still a bag of dicks to do barrel swaps.
>copies a paratrooper rifle for MG design instead of the MG with easy and fast swaps
>is murica
hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
the automatic rifle design as a magazine fed light machinegun/support weapon dates back to the Madsen LMG razorbro, the RPK is basically 50 years late to the party.
it's also the longest serving machinegun bar none, 1902 to 2008.
what
madsen is a 9kg machined slug
soviets had degtyaryovs in that role
RPK is an intermediate round LSW
And i'm talking about M60, m8. Should have cloned MG42 like more sensible people.
If you want to play the game of who's been the first there is RPD that predates Minimi by 30 years which is only being thrown out now while soviets transitioned to heavy barrel ARs (RPK) and already dumped them too.
Now we just have to wait for first world to catch up on PKM that doesn't require aluminum and plastic to be a serviceable GPMG. Inb4 Stoner LMG.
from everything i've heard, and i haven't handled it myself, the new piggy is doing just fine as a squad and platoon MG, the barrel change system is apparently based off the FN MAG, where you use the carry handle as leverage, removing the need for that infernal asbestos glove the old MG-3's require.
the M60 cribs a fair few things off the MG/42 as well.
actual AK appreciation
I wonder if the weight/performance trade off is worth it. How much weight are you saving per 200 rounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Liare
they're claiming 40% per cartridge, so if we're assuming 7.62x51 NATO, assuming the boring old M80 that everybody is using some derivative or equivalent of a cartridge is 25 grams, more or less, so that's 10 grams less with a polymer body, or 3kg for 200 rounds, versus 5kg for 200 rounds of brass, it's significant but you have to remember the offset of additional barrel changes and attendant extra barrels to drag about, and the ammo weight is less annoying to deal with than the actual ammo itself in practice (and i say that as a former ammo carrier for a MG-3, the cans can just go DIAF as far as i am concerned), you also have to consider the fragility of the polymer cases, notice in the video how the bottom of the case is almost blasted off on some of them ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Not LarkonnisI wonder if the weight/performance trade off is worth it. How much weight are you saving per 200 rounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Liare
i dunno, with ammo hogs like the nazi saw, i can't see it being worthwhile, but maybe on MG's with a more manageable rate of fire like the new M60E6's or FN MAG's ?
40% seems optimistic. More than a decade ago (fuck!) my scale was 1000 rounds (maybe 25 on the gun, 2 lots of 50 in my webbing pouches and the rest in one big link in my daysack) plus an extra 100 per paleface/Fijian in the team (and whatever I could persuade the natives to carry). That's a significant weight saving overall, but as you say, you have to accept a drop in performance with increase in barrel swaps. IIRC the pamphlet 'advised' swapping every 200 rounds on the L7 (FN-MAG) whatever the rate of fire (25/50 rpm normal light/SF 200 rpm rapid). Scaling for the light role was one spare barrel and 2 spares for the SF role.Quote:
Originally Posted by Liarethey're claiming 40% per cartridge, so if we're assuming 7.62x51 NATO, assuming the boring old M80 that everybody is using some derivative or equivalent of a cartridge is 25 grams, more or less, so that's 10 grams less with a polymer body, or 3kg for 200 rounds, versus 5kg for 200 rounds of brass, it's significant but you have to remember the offset of additional barrel changes and attendant extra barrels to drag about, and the ammo weight is less annoying to deal with than the actual ammo itself in practice (and i say that as a former ammo carrier for a MG-3, the cans can just go DIAF as far as i am concerned), you also have to consider the fragility of the polymer cases, notice in the video how the bottom of the case is almost blasted off on some of them ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Totally Not LarkonnisI wonder if the weight/performance trade off is worth it. How much weight are you saving per 200 rounds?Quote:
Originally Posted by Liare
i dunno, with ammo hogs like the nazi saw, i can't see it being worthwhile, but maybe on MG's with a more manageable rate of fire like the new M60E6's or FN MAG's ?
But if you're dropping performance by saving weight it means you can carry more bullets or more 'useful' kit...
we did/do 500 on the gunner, 1500-2500 on the ammo carrier, all in belts in 250 round cans with a belt in the gun, the cans where always stacked in the top of my pack, and it could juuust about fit four side by side, with the barrels on the side (3 total, 2 spare 1 in the gun), webbing space was basically reserved for my rifle and assorted kit, everybody with any space left-over humped extra ammo for the MG or for the Gustaf, the home guard is foot-only infantry with no actual transportation attached (officially anyway, in reality we'd use private vehicles as needed) so you gotta carry everything.
barrel swaps was every 2 belts, we basically did it with the assistant reloading and the gunner doing the barrel swap, it's supposed to be the assistant's problem to do that as well (never saw a team actually do it that way tho), but the whole thing pivots open on the right, and i where on the left sorting out belts.
and yes, you can carry those 250 belts rambo style, and yes it was done occasionally, typically when we expected to fight from fixed/semi fixed positions and the point was to bring as much ammunition as possible, and then some more if you where still able to stand up, usually we'd be tasked with making some poor army company miserable as "terrorists" or the like when this sort of thing was on the menu, good fun tho.
>Having an assistantQuote:
Originally Posted by Liare
>2500 rounds on your ammo negro...
Wew lad, was he not carrying anything else?
i was the ammo negro m8, and that, full pack, M/95, 6 mags and 2 grenades. full kit is like 45kg all told with like 12-18kg in the combat pack, though you have to remember the guard is a force protection/guerilla style force so we're not going on patrols in all that junk, but even then the MG team was always the slowest of the pack, while regular riflemen would typically have additional MG ammo, Gustav ammo or 1 shot AT launcher (AT-4 basically) or be one of the poor sods with LSV's (L86 equivalents basically, we had 1 MG-3 and 2 LSV's per section back then)
MG's back then was a two man team, with everybody expected to chip in with additional belts, the new M60E6's are apparently being run as 1 man jobbies with just a ammo monkey handing over boxes as needed, with 3 per section, it sounds fucking wonderful tbh.
as i have written about before, our MG team was especially odd "my" gunner was a gal, about 160 cm high, so the MG held stock-on-the-ground on the ground almost reached her chin, the whole thing looking hillariously loopsided when out and about, she was/is very good shot with those things tho, it takes a bit of talent to be able to plunk targets past 700 meters with just iron sights and that rate of fire, on the flip side you get to guess who got to carry the lions share of the kit.
the company captain kept talking about "smallest person, biggest gun, it makes it harder to hit the gunner" but i suspect part of the arrangement was the comedic value of the whole thing, because she always seemed to end up with the tallest available assistants.