nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?  I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?

Using full-auto fire to chew up ceramic armor so that "eventually" one or more bullets penetrate will work, but only at extremely close range.

It would also require that the target cooperate by remaining stationary and exposed long enough for the bullet hose to saturate the ceramic.  

     https://youtu.be/YE4E4ISv6EA?t=12

     https://youtu.be/HFm9uoYyzh8?t=57

     https://youtu.be/18kXkuoA014?t=45

stancrist said...

Using full-auto fire to chew up ceramic armor so that "eventually" one or more bullets penetrate will work, but only at extremely close range.

 

I was thinking more along the lines that some rounds would penetrate a less protected area, like the arms, legs, neck or face.  The mental image that I have is from the television series "StarGate", where the good guys used P90's on full auto against various alien badguys. 

nincomp said:

I was thinking more along the lines that some rounds would penetrate a less protected area, like the arms, legs, neck or face.

Ah.  When you said that "eventually one will penetrate a weak area" it sounded like you meant an area of the armor that had been weakened by multiple hits.

Yes, the "bullet hose" method could be used to hit extremities and other parts of the body not protected by armor, but that approach has its own drawbacks.

For one, it would necessitate a revolutionary change in training and doctrine, to switch from the current SOP of semi-auto fire, to using long bursts of full-auto.

Also, in my opinion, the great increase in ammo expenditure would pretty much require that the squad's mag-fed rifles be replaced by belt-fed machine guns.

I think a very high cyclic rate would be needed to get as many hits as possible, as quickly as possible.  Like this, but faster:  https://youtu.be/R1zQuWpsYZY?t=56

FYI:

     https://youtu.be/1HlAUsWaahU?t=215  (3:35-4:00)

     https://youtu.be/MtxG4DkBizE?t=5

     https://youtu.be/0Vp9IGsaFmw?t=5

nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?

Depends what your exact requirements are. NGSW has a whole host of requirements that are very ambitious and directly resulted in the configuration they have now.
 

nincomp said:

I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?  At some point, the only thing that will work is HE, autocannon rounds or shaped-charge warheads.

What I suggest is that everyone calm down, let NGSW play out, and, if you have any stake in this industry, get ready for the "second go 'round" when people inevitably decide that NGSW actually created some pretty significant capability gaps that need to be filled.

The change to doctrine would still use semi-automatic fire; "Aim for the other head".

After all, plates tend to be mounted on the upper, not lower, torso. A low body aim point could hit the lower torso or upper thighs.

Farmplinker said:

The change to doctrine would still use semi-automatic fire; "Aim for the other head". 

Cute.   

However, nincomp specified a "bullet hose" -- meaning full-auto (and presumably still aiming for center of mass).

nincomp said:

Do you think that it is reasonable to try to defeat chest-plate levels of body armor with an infantry rifle?  I have my doubts.  What would you suggest then?   Possibly bullet-hose weapons to provide enough hits to ensure that eventually one will penetrate a weak area?  At some point, the only thing that will work is HE, autocannon rounds or shaped-charge warheads.

Watch what the Russians and Chinese do. When it is an issue they will find a solution. Currently it seems no but the US one actually cares.

I wonder how many rounds would need to be fired with the "bullet hose" concept in order to get at least one hit on an unprotected body part, at any distance beyond CQB range.  https://youtu.be/Vy4Nw08Jf_U?t=14

A "bullet hose" would certainly be most effective at close range.  Operators would probably be taught to move the weapon in small circles while firing (not unlike the movement I was taught to use when fighting a fire with a firehose).  

The difficulty in hitting an under-protected area is why I have expressed some doubts about infantry rifles being effective against opponents with good body armor.  I just don't know how realistic it is to attempt to defeat modern (and future) chest armor with an infantry rifle that resembles what we use now.  It would seem that relatively large explosive rounds with proximity fuses might be needed to assure enough shrapnel for disabling hits.  At this point, the HE effect may be more important.

I am reminded of a film critic's comment about the 1997 movie "Starship Troopers" in which human infantry fights insectoid aliens: "...it's inefficient to try to kill them with machinegun bullets when all it takes is a grenade and you can blow them right up real good." https://youtu.be/R6RV64Y2Ggs?t=140

I know that there have been a number of discussions on this site about having a "golf bag" of different weapons available for different circumstances, but it seems that the weapons needed to fight well armored opponents are different that those needed for more traditional infantry battles.