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.

  • 3332
    MEMBERS
  • 189319
    MESSAGES
  • 5
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

NGSW Phase 2 Consolidation and info   Small Arms <20mm

Started 30/8/19 by gatnerd; 477515 views.
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

22-Jan

Yeah those mags are like 15-17”long so would have been a big hassle.

EmericD

From: EmericD

22-Jan

poliorcetes said:

The non-fixed chamber in both guns was also not sound or just the cartridges?

For me, the whole concept behind the G11 was a failure.

- A caseless ammo so you can carry more rounds for the same weight (remember the nice graph showing a G11 with 510 cartridges versus a M16 with 240 rounds?). The "reality check" shows that due to the magazine geometry, a soldier was unable to carry more rounds of 4.7 mm caseless than conventional cased ammo. The rifle was supposed to be carried with 3 magazines on the top of the rifle (all the weight was on the rifle), one inserted, and 2 waiting to be fired, so that's 3x45 = 135 rounds available. The soldier could reload his 3 magazines with stripper clips of 15 rounds, but that's not a very practical option on the battlefield. Needless to say, the "low to very low" cook-off limit of the caseless round would have made the "battle of Wanat" a common occurrence.

- A free recoiling barrel assembly so you could fire 3 rounds at very high rpm with great accuracy and increased hit probability. Again, the "reality check" showed that even at 2200 rpm on a free recoiling assembly, the shot-to-shot dispersion was too high to increase hit probability, best results were achieved using semi-auto fire.

- Simple care and maintenance. Yes it was, because the mechanism was so complex that soldiers were not allowed to clean anything inside. A failure to feed resulting in a broken round inside the gun? No problems, simply return the rifle to the armorer and he will clean the gun...

JPeelen

From: JPeelen

22-Jan

The permission to adopt the G11 was formally granted on 08 March 1992 although in 1990 the financing problems started due to the collapse of communism. 

The criticism against the G11 which I agree with is: the failure of the high-rate burst from a recoiling mechanism (lafettiertes System in German)  to achieve increased hit probability in the ACR test. It would be interesting to know the results from the tests in Germany, but they are kept under the covers. In patrticular I would like to learn the target distance distribution used in Germany. I hope to live long enough to be able to study those files after release. Having targets exclusively at exact(!) 100, 200, 300 etc. meters (corresponding to aiming marks) and none(!) at intermediate distances, as in the ACR test, is in my view not very realistic. 

The other criticisms, like untested technology, overcomplication and so on, have been similarly raised on the introduction of the Dreyse needle gun. Not to mention the problems with smokeless powder. Jet engines are another example of a new technology which began with more disadvantages than advantages. The criticism usually imply that we would still have the same design as in 1992. If the G11 had been adopted in 1992, the current rifle would be very different from it, like a Mauser 98 is from a Mauser-Norris of 1869. By the way, the latest G11 version carried three magazines (141 cartridges) side-by-side on the rifle. No problem with caseless. 

Regarding Afghanistan, it is a good thing we did not have the 4.9 mm cartridge of the G11. It was optimized for engagements within at most 300/400 m as was expected from cold war German Panzergrenadier tactics. Long range individual rifle engagements were not the plan in 1992. That is the ballistic consideration. On the other hand, when the rules of engagement make sure you can never win (mortar ROE for example), the rifle is of little consequence.  

Three decades later, technology may offer other ways to try something new. But I stay with my opinion that at the time it was the right thing to at least try something really new to solve the hit probability problem in the expected cold war infantry scenario.        

smg762

From: smg762

23-Jan

I disagree. The 4.9 had a higher BC than 556 and more range

smg762

From: smg762

23-Jan

Mags were 21 inch....as long as the barrel

EmericD

From: EmericD

23-Jan

smg762 said:

I disagree. The 4.9 had a higher BC than 556 and more range

A C7 of 0.161 and a MV of 920 m/s for the G11 ammo, versus a C7 of 0.168 and 930 m/s for the SS-109 (C7 of 0.158 for the M855 according to B. Litz).

That's not really "a higher BC and more range" for the G11 ammo.

smg762

From: smg762

23-Jan

It's a 56 grain 5mm versus a 62gr. Clearly the 5mm will have more BC but you are correct in that it has less power than a full. Length M16

EmericD

From: EmericD

23-Jan

smg762 said:

It's a 56 grain 5mm versus a 62gr. Clearly the 5mm will have more BC

The bullet weight was 3.4 g (52.5 gr) and 4.75 mm in diameter (0.187"), so the sectional density was 0.214 lbs/in². That's higher than the 0.177 lbs/in² of the SS-109, but the G11 bullet shape was not really impressive and the final C7 was only 0.161.

Even if that's better than the 5.56 mm M193 (0.124 C7), it was lower than the SS-109 (0.168 C7) and also the British XL1E1 (0.185 C7).

stancrist

From: stancrist

23-Jan

JPeelen said:

The criticism usually imply that we would still have the same design as in 1992. If the G11 had been adopted in 1992, the current rifle would be very different from it, like a Mauser 98 is from a Mauser-Norris of 1869.

Both the 1869 Mauser-Norris and the 1898 Mauser are manually-operated, bolt-actions.  The only fundamental difference between them is that the former is a single-shot rifle, whereas the latter is a 5-shot repeater.

I see no reason to think that the current version of the G11 would be any more different from the 1992 version, than the latest version of the M4 carbine is from the M4 of 1992.

JPeelen said:

Regarding Afghanistan, it is a good thing we did not have the 4.9 mm cartridge of the G11. It was optimized for engagements within at most 300/400 m as was expected from cold war German Panzergrenadier tactics. Long range individual rifle engagements were not the plan in 1992. That is the ballistic consideration. On the other hand, when the rules of engagement make sure you can never win (mortar ROE for example), the rifle is of little consequence.

What mortar ROE "make sure you can never win"?

  • Edited 23 January 2022 17:02  by  stancrist
JPeelen

From: JPeelen

23-Jan

I used the Mauser-Norris versus Mauser 98 as an example of a large number of changes that go into any design over years of accumulating experience in making and using it. The G11 being a totally new, more complex design would in my view have undergone rather significant changes. As a matter of fact, I am convinced we would now have a 2nd or even 3rd generation caseless rifle if the G11 had been issued 30 years ago.   

It is of course possible that the G11 would have been no success at all. But we will never know, because we never really tried hard, in my opinion. 

Isn't your example overlooking that the M4 of 1992 is rather quite different from Eugene Stoner's AR-15 of the 1960s?  No design changes leading up to the M4 of 1992?

The mortar ROE, if you read what I wrote, was an example(!) for Afghanistan ROE generally. I mentioned mortars, because I know from a mortar platoon leader how he was forced by ROE to idly look on in an incident, about which I will not go into detail.       

         

  • Edited 23 January 2022 16:07  by  JPeelen
TOP