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.

  • 3320
  • 188333
  • 27


20x102 mm cannons   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 22/10/21 by Guardsman26; 6030 views.

From: Farmplinker


The original desire was to produce more fragments for anti personnel and anti-air work. The ability to take out heavier armored vehicles is secondary.


From: roguetechie


So for me, there's several things I like about the ARAS concept but one of those is not the gun. (I've seen the patents for it and it's kinda a nightmare beast inside. And also them picking the wrong design from the scrap pile of old also ran designs)

I don't see the army going for a new 50 cal either, or a new autocannon design either for that matter, and that's going to be more and more of a problem going forward.

How many interesting worthwhile and economically advantageous do we abandon because they're not something you can do with an M2 mk19 or m230?

The thing I do love about the ARAS design is it's autoloader, it's particularly slick and boot straps in a very nice way off other work.

More or less if you want to be able to reload under armor with an M2 you're stuck going a route involving feed boosters, really long belts, and a bit of prayer that nothing goes fucky with your belts or etc. There's a south African company that is or was working on a low cost rws that should be m2 compatible. I'll post a picture of it for you. This is as close as you get go under armor reloading for an M2, and it's not particularly close/imposes some constraints that may make it suboptimal. I don't think it's a BAD IDEA, I just think that it nicely highlights one of the consequences of being ride or die for the M2.

I'm well aware that many of the things I seem so militant about seem arbitrary and not to have any real basis but that's more a cause of my inability to communicate effectively sometimes than this actually being the case. I do have solid reasons for my opinions, I just suck at explaining those reasons. LoL


From: roguetechie


One of the things I've thought about quite a bit Is the various ground vehicle 70mm "rocket pods" nominally meant for apkws. I tend to wonder if one solution isn't to just "volley" less capable munitions.

Like, what if you added just a bit more functionality to something like a 4 shot apkws pod and their rockets so that you have the first two rockets launch like half a second or less before the second two that also altered their flight paths to do an s curve out and then back in path towards one aps quadrant of the tank stripping the interceptors from one whole quadrant and then the other two doing a pop up and then dive maneuver to not only top attack but to blow through the area just temporarily stripped of APS interceptor coverage.

You could conceivably use big data to game out say 100 semi randomized launch and flight path programming strategies that your launcher's fcs picks between at the time of launch so that the APS makers can't just program the APS to recognize a single planned attack strategy.

With something like this you'd be launching like $100k worth of rockets per notional 4 rocket smart apkws barrages to guarantee at least one and more likely two pretty hard hits.

It's not necessarily an outright tank killer without doing some work on warheads etc but it's one way to all but guarantee a mission kill with a single engagement of a system you can mount on anything down to a Polaris razor ATV.

It's definitely not something you want to use to go out tank hunting with, but it's a possible short term strategy to make tanks wary of light forces and hold them at a distance for long enough to get better assets onto the problem AFV


From: smg762


Right. I heard peeople sayig that 30mm (even APFSDS ) Cannot defeat a modern APC

therefore in a first world conflict you would surely want 40 or 50mm on your bradley? How would modern soviey APCs cope with 30mm?


From: smg762


Rogue, what are your thoughts on the 14.5 as a 50 replacement...with those 1000grain bullets, is the ammo much heavier?


From: roguetechie


14.5 is substantially heavier and the guns are bigger and you could do way better in the modern era / the niche for 14.5 was partially treaty related having to do with the conventional forces Europe treaty warpac and NATO had to abide by which limited "autocannon" in theatre by number. 

Since that treaty is dead, there's no point not going to a real autocannon if you are going heavier than 50 cal.

My thought is, if you're going to replace the .50 / M2 that it occupies an important niche AND there's still literal BILLIONS of m8api projectiles in everybody's war stocks that get pulled from expired ammo and reloaded.

Functionally this means that whatever solution you go with probably still needs to have a way to sling M8 API bullets, just the physical bullet though not the entire legacy round.

So now we have some constraints to work with.

Inside those constraints I think I'd be tempted to just develop a "neckless" high pressure bmg essentially 


I'd do something more like a neckless 15-17 mm that used something like the FN BRG 15.5 polymer driving bands for a new raufoss style specialist round. Keep the high pressure keep the standard base diameter and just blow the "neckless neck" out to desired diameter and make a very minimalist sabot to load m8api and other common legacy rounds into. I'd also be tempted to look into the explosive driven version of PELE rounds called ALP rounds as a specialist urban weapon for obliterating Jersey barriers and stuff behind them and applications like that.

I'd wrap all this in a new link system that takes advantage of lightweight links etc while still making the entire new package work with existing feed chutes and shit. I'd also do an optimized ammo box for the "new high pressure 50"

The important thing in this is going to be your new gun which I have a few ideas on.

More or less though I'd optimize the gun design around how we actually use HMG's now including provisions for automated box changes etc


From: smg762


An improved HMG would benefit from being designed around a sheild or canopy for the user. 

Bullet weight makes a huge difference on these scales so to match 14.5 performance without the weight, you could have 500grain HVAP or fabrl bullets at 5000FPS

This would give the punch of a raufoss round at half the cost.

Another idea is a .50 which is purely designed around APDS...again, this lowers the bullet to 400grams which drastically lightens it


From: roguetechie


Couldn't disagree more on the "canopy idea", I honestly don't have any idea where that's coming from or why you think it should be a concern.

My reference to designing a new 50 around how we actually use them now was more about the fact that they're primarily on RWS and other remote mounts.

I was primarily talking about designing it to be easily mounted in a variety of applications (preferably with an outer housing that can be tailored to the application if necessary fairly easily) and able to be made compatible with automated reloading recharging and etc from under armor.

As far as "bullet weight making a huge difference on these scales", ok but not really though? / that doesn't address what I was talking about.

The biggest place you can actually save weight without losing capability Is by doing the lightweight high pressure cases I'm taking about along with the new links I also talked about. Trying to save weight on the projectile is just penny wise pound foolish.

What I was proposing would save weight over current M8api or raufoss loaded rounds loaded into current links while still letting you:

1. Sling m8api and other projectiles we have billions of in inventory by putting them in the sabots I was talking about for GP training use or etc.

2. Give you the ability to fire massively more capable "full caliber" raufoss or etc rounds specifically designed for the new Chambering and gun.

3. Give you the ability to run the ALP style specialist round I was referring to.

4. Give you any other "full caliber" or saboted options you choose to make.

What I didn't describe is what my replacement gun for these would look like.

Said gun would be lighter cheaper simpler in some ways more modular and conducive to modern use cases but still self powered with an increased rof.

It would also be dual selectable feed conducive to automated reload or extremely fast human reload (if you've ever seen combat footage of somebody reloading an M2 you know why this is a big deal)

There's some other fine details to what I'm specifically thinking of  but they're not super important to this conversation.

A note on the ALP specialist round I talked about, this would be useful for far more than just punching jersey barriers since it gives you essentially pocket autocannon performance without the overkill of true autocannon rounds.

It would be very good at smashing up sand bagged and fortified hidey holes, civilian vehicles (especially their engine compartments) and give you the ability to shoot through a cinder block wall at people on the other side letting you make the most of the new FWS CS gun sight and geolocation / cooperative engagement capabilities.

The idea is to give you the scalpel of heavy weapons.

In a lot of ways it's a way to give gatnerd what he was asking for when he brought up the mk108 cannon.

You'd have enough explosive blast and focused directional fragmentation  that's not as indiscriminate, dependent on high angle fire, and long time of flight as the 40x53 mk19 etc.


From: smg762


In hindsight i think size of ammo is more important on a vehicle gun....this would favour a CT round or caseless.

The biggest flaw with the M2 is hit probability because theres no major recoil buffer to keep bursts on target.

Sighting is also poor....a modern HMG needs an integrated optic and better single shot precision.

How viable would a supressor be on HMGs...

Could one reduce the size of .50 via compressed powder


From: roguetechie


I would say CT is the opposite of the way you want to go on a 50 bmg gun since the current bmg rounds are already VLD, and caseless is just always a terrible idea.

There's not just one biggest flaw with M2 and recoil isn't really one of the worst even since they put m2's in soft recoil cradles fairly regularly.

I do however agree on the sighting thing in a way and it's one of the things that would be addressed on the design I have in mind. That said though, you do know that the M2 can fire in closed bolt single shot right?

You do also know that Carlos Hathcock had a world record longest distance confirmed sniper kill using an M2 with a unertl scope attached that stood from the Vietnam era well into the war on terror right?

You can suppress m2's people already do it, and any replacement gun would likely get a can too.

As far as the compressed powder thing the answer is yes, what do you think I was suggesting doing for the lightweight case high pressure 50 replacement I outlined?

Finally, it has come to my attention from your last post that you basically have no idea what the M2 is, what current ones are capable of, and what the issues may be. You should fix that.

You just suggested that the m2's chief problem is lack of accuracy when it's common knowledge that  Carlos Hathcock held the world's longest confirmed kill sniper shot record with a bog standard one for multiple decades... That's a pretty glaring oversight.

You're trying to "fix" something you don't actually know anything about and that's always going to go poorly