gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3361
    MEMBERS
  • 191292
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 557620 views.
poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

20/4/22

But again, as Gatnerd said, either there is any undisclosed problem with TV technology, or simply it doesn't make sense to choose the bimetalic case over the polymer one. It just blows my mind, because both weight and cost savings are just a too high trade-off for choosing SIG cartridge

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

20/4/22

I have to concur. As sUAS get lower and lower in price and closer to the price of a 40mm HV grenade, they will become more and more the primary threat to both dismounted and light vehicle-mounted troops.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

20/4/22

poliorcetes said:

Where can I read about what actually happened with ACR

Our forum of course ;-)

https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages/7773/1

https://www.docdroid.net/ffL1XVy/s00440-pdf

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

20/4/22

poliorcetes said:

I have to concur. As sUAS get lower and lower in price and closer to the price of a 40mm HV grenade, they will become more and more the primary threat to both dismounted and light vehicle-mounted troops

Absolutely. Weapons like Stinger, as well as the new 'Drone Guns' that jam them, are going to be extremely important at the Squad level as drones proliferate:

Likewise, the capabilities offered by sUAS like Switchblade, as well as other 'Smart' man portable HE systems (CG with FCU, Spike-SR ATGM, Stinger, etc), will increasingly call into question having such a rifle-centric infantry vs making them more HE capable. 

Whats needed now is more a light carbine / PDW for some of the squad so they can focus on their primary HE asset, rather then a return to Battle Rifles. Especially in regard to a 'peer' threat. 

poliorcetes

From: poliorcetes

20/4/22

"drone rifles" are going to be quickly less and less useful. Defense against sUAS is already multilayered and it is going to be more and more focused on passive sensors and drones anti-drones

nincomp

From: nincomp

20/4/22

gatnerd said:

Which is all the more absurd given we've seen: -Russia is not a conventional peer / near peer threat -Most of their troops lack body armor; nearly all lack night vision and weapon optics  -The most important man portable infantry weapons have proven to be ATGMS/AT's/MANPADS, not small arms  -The Russians engaged with small arms seem to be getting yeeted just fine with 5.45 7n6 If anything watching whats happened in Ukraine would make the whole armor killing / long range premise of NGSW seem much less important.

I think that it is unreasonable to believe that the US will not be soon running into at least some foes who are able to wear the kind of protection that it has been using for a couple decades.  The price of effective body armor is falling every day and the current events are pointing out WHY it is worth getting.  As slowly as the US Military works, it is important to at least have something available to deal with even small groups of well armored adversaries.  The US may even learn something and (reasonably) quickly develop a better alternative.* 

We do not yet know how many soldiers on both sides have been killed or wounded with small arms, but if a significant number have been "yeeted" by 5.45 as you imply,  it means that small arms are indeed still important.  The long range premise of NGSW allows infantry to kill those with ATGMs etc from farther away and also to have some way to deal with opposing machine guns.   If anything, current events reinforce why accurate long-range weapons are useful.  It allow you to stay out of the effective range of opponents carrying 7.62x39 and 5.45x39.

Does anyone know if the old 7n6 is in fact what both sides are using?  Versions of 5.45 that are more effective against body armor have been around for decades now. 

*A hopelessly optimistic aspiration I know, but at least some of our allies might make use of the experience.

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/4/22

gatnerd said:

Russia is not a conventional peer / near peer threat

US military leadership seem to think otherwise.

gatnerd said:

The most important man portable infantry weapons have proven to be ATGMS/AT's/MANPADS, not small arms 

That's a specious argument.  Of course ATGMs are more important than small arms for engaging AFVs.  Ditto for MANPADs versus aircraft.

gatnerd said:

The Russians engaged with small arms seem to be getting yeeted just fine with 5.45 7n6

I don't know what "getting yeeted" means, but assuming from the context that it means getting shot, I think one would need a lot more info in order to draw a conclusion.

gatnerd said:

Most of their troops lack body armor

It would be unwise to count on that being true in a NATO versus Russia conflict.  Prudent military leaders typically consider "worst case" scenarios when planning.

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/4/22

poliorcetes said:

But again, as Gatnerd said, either there is any undisclosed problem with TV technology, or simply it doesn't make sense to choose the bimetalic case over the polymer one.

I disagree.  Yes, the TV ammo is technologically superior, but it cannot at present be fired in the SIG weapons.  Since it appears the Army wants to field NGSW ASAP, using SIG ammo in SIG guns makes far more sense than expending the time and money necessary to make SIG guns shoot TV ammo.

"Perfect is the enemy of good enough."

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/4/22

gatnerd said:

Weapons like Stinger, as well as the new 'Drone Guns' that jam them, are going to be extremely important at the Squad level...

Yikes!  I pity the poor grunt who has to carry that monstrosity.  grimacing

stancrist

From: stancrist

20/4/22

nincomp said:

I think that it is unreasonable to believe that the US will not be soon running into at least some foes who are able to wear the kind of protection that it has been using for a couple decades.  The price of effective body armor is falling every day and the current events are pointing out WHY it is worth getting.  As slowly as the US Military works, it is important to at least have something available to deal with even small groups of well armored adversaries.  The US may even learn something and (reasonably) quickly develop a better alternative.

Good points.  Quite logical.

nincomp said:

We do not yet know how many soldiers on both sides have been killed or wounded with small arms...

Precisely.  And in the context of the body armor debate, how many that were wearing armor, were killed or wounded with small arms?

Also, in the context of the PDW/HE squad concept, how many of those wearing armor were killed or wounded by handheld HE weapons?

TOP