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.

  • 3274
    MEMBERS
  • 185863
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

XM-25 here we go again...   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 9/11/20 by autogun; 15909 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

22/11/20

Red7272 said:

The endless search for super lightweight systems because troops are apparently too stupid to use a transport really needs to die.

What transport do the troops have available to them that they are too stupid to use?

stancrist

From: stancrist

22/11/20

gatnerd said:

I just don't see the US ever engaging armor with Carl Gustaf's. Really, any armor not destroyed from the air, or engaged by tanks and other armored vehicles, is likely to be hit by Javelins...

Concur.

gatnerd said:

Where the Gustaf actually is useful is as a dismounted squad / platoon anti structure / anti personell HE lobber.  At which point the lighter launcher + more ammo of the 66mm is likely to be advantageous.  (Assuming a 66mm actually did result in a meaningful reduction in launcher and shell weight - not a given.)

Well, the M136 weighs ~15 lbs vs ~6 lbs for the M72, so it seems to me that a substantial weight reduction could be had with 66mm.

IMO, the real question is how effective would a 66mm recoilless rifle be?  For instance, how much would HE casualty radius reduce?

Red7272

From: Red7272

22/11/20

stancrist said:

What transport do the troops have available to them that they are too stupid to use?

You mean real armies or the US army? The list of NATO members that have not entirely mechanised their infantry is a whole one. 

And yes it was a throwaway insult at the US military hierarchy rather than the troops themselves. 

  • Edited 22 November 2020 23:37  by  Red7272
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

23/11/20

stancrist said:

IMO, the real question is how effective would a 66mm recoilless rifle be?  For instance, how much would HE casualty radius reduce

I don't really know much about how warhead design changes between rocket propelled grenades and recoilless rifles. 

But the fragmentation warhead for the 66mm LAW looks extremely effective - 4000 tungsten BB's, with a real 15m lethal radius (ie fragments penetrating 12" in ballistic gel at 15m.) 

If the Carl Gustaf 'M66' could replicate that, but with a more accurate launcher and lighter shell (~5.5lb M66 shell vs 10lb LAW) that would seem pretty handy. 

stancrist

From: stancrist

23/11/20

Red7272 said:

...it was a throwaway insult at the US military hierarchy rather than the troops themselves.

Kindly don't call the troops stupid, if you mean to insult the leadership.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

23/11/20

Has the UK withdrawn from NATO then? Canada? Czech Republic? France? The Netherlands?

Or are you making stuff up in order to create your "throwaway insult"?

renatohm

From: renatohm

23/11/20

66 is 78.6% of 84 - linearly. In terms of volume it's 48.5%.

It doesn't necessarily mean that stuff will be half the weight, but it does mean that available volume for HE fill will be that much smaller, if not more - you can't cut wall thickness below a certain amount.

Take 23 mm vs 30 mm autocannon ammunition as an example. The linear fraction is about 78%, and the volume fraction is 45%, so it's about the same ballpark.

Going by Tony's tables, the heaviest 23 mm shell weighed 204 g while the heaviest 30 mm shell weighed 430 g, which is much closer to 45% than to 78%.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

23/11/20

Thank you, thats very helpful. 

Do you know, is there any reason to think that a Gustav 66mm warhead would be smaller then 66mm HE warhead on the LAW? 

Msg 7758.95 and the next 1 deleted
TOP