This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.
Latest 17:09 by stancrist
Latest 15:19 by RovingPedant
Latest 28-Sep by gatnerd
Latest 28-Sep by graylion
Latest 28-Sep by graylion
Latest 25-Sep by stancrist
Latest 16-Sep by schnuersi
Latest 3-Sep by Farmplinker
Latest 1-Sep by schnuersi
I think that the amount of HE in a fire team would really depend upon the amount of body armor of the opponent. If a fire team carrying mainly M4's goes up against an opponent with enough body armor to reduce the M4's effectiveness, having a greater number of HE rounds would prove useful. Although it is possible to use an M4 and 5.56x45 in "target saturation" mode, the ammo won't hold out for very long.
Rather than Gustav, maybe I should have put heavy, or Gustav/Javelin/Stinger. As for the Gustav and 40mm combo, Gus for armored targets, 40 for un/lightly armored. Shoot the Gustav at the bunker, use the 40 for the guys in the treeline. Just my $.02.
Hmm. That picture makes me wonder -- if this were 500 BC, would schnuersi be arguing that infantry soldiers should not carry a sword as a secondary weapon?
No I would not...
but I would argue about the optimum size of the sword and length of the spear/pike. And the ratio of line breakers to pikemen.
The more things change, the more they keep the same
Especially if you went down to a 10.5-12.5 inch barrel.
And what advantage would such a short barreled rifle offer over a PDW with similar barrel length but an even more compact design?
I think there is a point of dimishing returns.
The idea behind a rifle is accurate fire at ranges in the 300-500 m bracket. For this a certain size and power is needed. Shrinking a rifle down so it doesn't deliver this anymore really puts the concept of a rifle in question.
Why? Seems somewhat redundant. Also, 84mm HE > 40mm HE.
Because 84 mm are awefully large and heavy. The firing signature is excessive. Such power is not allways needed.
40 mm needs smaller weapons and a larger number can be carried. There are several scenarios in which launching salvos of 40 mm will be more effective than a single 84 mm.
IF a HE based squad structure would become reality IMHO it makes much sense to actually develope optimised weapons for this. Not to rely on legacy designs originally intended for a different purpose.
People have been suggesting just this - more HE, less KE - for some time now.
It also has been more or less a reality in the past.
While most soldiers carried rifles in the past their contribution to a firefight often was rather low. The decicive weapons have been the MG and the HE lobbers. Regardless if in the form of rifle grenades, grenade launchers or light mortars.
During WW2 the main weapons of the German infantry have been the MG, the rifle grenade, the mortar and the light infantry gun. Rifleman/SMgunners only really contributed in close combat situations. In most cases they only provided aditional eyes, ammo carrying capacity and replacement gunners/crews.
Again - the more things change...