CV90 with non penetrating RWS could hold 2+11 or 3+10

Refleks said:

CV90 with non penetrating RWS could hold 2+11 or 3+10

Sadly not. The Armadillo seats 3+8 https://www.military-today.com/apc/cv90_armadillo.htm

No idea whether that is whith shock resistant seats or not.

graylion said:

The Armadillo seats 3+8

Looks like it's 3 + 7.  Armadillo CV90 light tracked armoured vehicle personnel carrier BAE Systems.flv - YouTube

graylion said:

No idea whether that is whith shock resistant seats or not.

Fairly good view of the seats here:  https://youtu.be/sP79YZvaRdQ?t=140

No, there is definitely enough room for my assertion, you can see a scale cutaway and seating arrangement / turret basket here.

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/cv9040a-and-b/

The interior dimensions are larger than that of an M-113. The armadillo's seating arrangement obviously places the commander and gunner into the hull taking up just as much swept floor area as the turret basket did (you can even see the circular outline of where the turret would have been in the digital cutaway) or even more since you're losing a seat. 

This is probably more ergonomic for them but its self evidently not the most efficient use of space if you wanted to maximize dismounts, which they have no incentive to offer because 10-11 man squads are unusual rather than the norm. 

Refleks said:

No, there is definitely enough room for my assertion...

The armadillo's seating arrangement obviously places the commander and gunner into the hull taking up just as much swept floor area as the turret basket did (you can even see the circular outline of where the turret would have been in the digital cutaway)...

In the second video I linked, the commander and gunner seats appear to be further forward than shown in the digital cutaway, placing the commander right up against the front wall, but still with insufficient space to add another passenger seat behind him.

It looks to me like your assertion is iffy at best.  Your conclusion is based on a simplified line drawing that does not show every detail.  The video of the actual vehicle interior makes it appear somewhat doubtful that it is practical to install another passenger seat.

RovingPedant said:

Most concept/new AFVs usually mount quite a few,

Concept and prototype do.
There are few in service.
The question also is why are they sticking cameras on everything in large numbers? Not because it is usefull or improves anything. Its cheap. It also appears high tech and fancy.

RovingPedant said:

Things change and you have to revisit concepts with an open mind once in a while to find out if the reason is still valid

True but its also not an end to itself. The miniguns is a bad concept to start with. Has been back in the day when it was developed and still is. Now arguing to not use what the gun has been intended for and doesn't do very well to do something it has not been developed for and as a result does only very bad is not revisiting. Its trying to shohorn a bad solution into another problem in an attempt to... to do what really?
If the manufacturer had suggested it I would get it. They want to sell more stuff. Sobody with no affiliation?

RovingPedant said:

Isn't the barrel change procedure for the MG34 to pivot the receiver about a pivot parallel to bore axis and withdraw the barrel directly backwards, while the MG42 requires space alongside the barrel shroud since the barrel comes out sideways, pivoting somewhere about the muzzle device?

Yes.

RovingPedant said:

Surely this means that the MG34 could be mounted further through an armour plate,

The barrel shroud of the MG42 has a bigger diameter compared to the MG34. Without redesign they will not fit trough the same opening anyways.
 

The space you need to change the barrel of an MG34 or MG42 is more or less the same. But in different places. As you say the MG34 if mounted pivots the receiver out of the way and the barrel goes straight back. But the receiver needs to pivot somewhere. This includes the firing group, pristol grip, belt feed and gets a fiddly if there still is a belt connected to the feeding.
The MG42 has the side port. There is not really a pivot point. The barrel is moved to the side so the locking block clears the gun and is then pulled allmost straight back in paralel to the gun. So basically on the right side you need enough space for the barrel to get out of the gun and a little more for a hand to grab it. That is a far more efficient arangement than that of the MG34. Generally speaking and especially if used from bipod.

RovingPedant said:

particularly for bow gunner positions.

irrelevant since I am argung for coax use and allmost no modern vehicle has such a mount or anything similar.
In the case of the MG42 the ball mounts would have had to be redesigned too. The continued use of MG34 in AFV especially tanks is because they did not want to redesign, the gun offered specific advantages the way it was used and it worked good enough.
BTW the coax version of the MG34 had a special modified barrel sleeve. It was not the same as the GPMG version.

RovingPedant said:

One case that shows that one of the main objections for the use of miniguns no longer exists.

One case that shows a specific group of people (or even only one persone) does so.
BTW what would be the main objection? The main objections are that a minigun is an inefficient design and as a result to large and heavy, its inaccurate and needs electrical power. None of these would be adressed by changing the ROF. As mentioned quite the oposit. Since the only pro a minigun has is the ROF the only reason to use such a gun at all would disappear.

RovingPedant said:

If you need to change the barrel, then overheating is an issue that needs to be addressed in one way or another.

Yes. But there are far better, more efficient ways to do so instead of using a minigun.

RovingPedant said:

That RLS even prototyped the 3-barrel auto-change thing suggests that weapon overheating is a concern.

No necessarily. It only shows that they predicted that it could be a concern and wanted a product to offer should this happen.
The thing is the RWS GPMGs overheating had been a problem caused by the specific conditions. Mostly the absense of more powerfull guns and fire support options. Once .50, 40 mm AGL and 20 mm ACs had been fielded as well as 155 mm indirect fire support made available the need to use GPMGs as main and only asset dissapeared. The time length of typical engagements went down significantly as well. All of a sudden overheating ceased to be an issue. More or less the same as it happened with the G36.
The problem was not overheating guns and it could not have been solved by making the guns withstand more heat. The issue had been desisions made at higher levels and the lack of appropiate weapons. MGs that would have endured longer would not have solved anything.

RovingPedant said:

Few if any RWS feature protection for the gun,

That is not coax use.
But I would still argue that a low ROF minigun is a bad choice.
 

RovingPedant said:

If we're considering auto-change barrels on an MG3 or various exotic calibres, why not?

So the argument is: if only bad and outright stupid suggestions are on the table, why not thing about a low ROF minigun as well?
Not the way I think about solutions but now I get it. Good and effective solutions are out and only the rest is to be concidered. In this case a low ROF minigun fits very well.

Refleks said:

No, there is definitely enough room for my assertion, you can see a scale cutaway and seating arrangement / turret basket here.

You have to be terribly carefull in the case of the CV90.
There different version differ quite a bit. The original Swedish version with 8 seats for dismounts do not have modern blast protection. As a matter of fact few CV90 do have these. This simply has not been a thing when the CV90 had been developed. If they are uprgaded and equiped to higher standarts the number of seats goes down. The improved Swedish versions loose one seat. The Mk IV is a substancial improvement but still not on the same level as more modern vehicles. There is a limit to what can be achieved with a given size and weight.
This is why they came up with the Armadillo version of the APC version. As a COIN/LIC vehicle with full scale modern protection at the expense of firepower. This is why the Armadillo "only" seats 7+2.
What a lot of people forget is that blast protection doesn't only mean portected seating a spall liners. It also means each and every bit of gear has to be stowed in a way it can not be ripped loose and becomes a danger. This means you need space for the equipment and personel gear as well. This eats up a lot of volume. Its visible on the Armadillo drawing for example. The "gaps" are not empty in reality. This is storage space.

The question is kind of vehicle does Elbonia need. If COIN and LIC is off the table this increases the number of options. As does if they don't care for their soldiers to the same degree as other nations do.

There also is the question if its a good idea to cram many soldiers into one vehicle. 10 allready is an awefull lot.

Original CV90 , was armored less than BMP2 , was real low budget IFV with minimal features CV90 was back then probably inferior to all major IFVs used in NATO. Todays CV90 MK III & MK IV have very little in common with the original 

is a simplified line drawing but it's also from hagglunds and is accurate. I've seen the turret basket and ammunition stowage underneath and there is definitely room for 2 more seats on each side (facing inwards, not facing forward) if the turret and ammunition storage were not present, which should not be surprising considering the swept area of the turret basket takes up a good volume and there are two people already inside, meaning minus turret you can only fit two additional people. This is not iffy, it's entirely reasonable.

Recall the discussion went like this
1. I said you could fit more in a CV90 without turret (so if someone was scratching their heads about squad sizes and dismounts that there were some other potential options possible)

2. Someone responded you couldn't because Armadillo can't therefore it's not possible

3. A variety of reasons were presented as to why Armadillo cannot; ie, if it had individual shock mitigating seating, and because two of the seats are oriented forwards rather than inwards

That doesn't mean my assertion is incorrect - if you didn't have shock mitigating seating and if the seats were oriented inwards you could fit more inside. I'm not saying we ought to go that direction, I was just saying it's a possibility.

schnuersi said...

irrelevant since I am argung for coax use and allmost no modern vehicle has such a mount or anything similar.

I'm building the case that vehicle mounted single barrel MGs usually have provision to change the barrel, presumably because you need to change the barrel

schnuersi said...

BTW what would be the main objection? The main objections are that a minigun is an inefficient design and as a result to large and heavy, its inaccurate and needs electrical power. None of these would be adressed by changing the ROF. As mentioned quite the oposit. Since the only pro a minigun has is the ROF the only reason to use such a gun at all would disappear.

A minigun weighs 26kg*. The (electrically powered) L94A1 chaingun weighs 18kg plus a spare barrel. The barrel change RMG 7.62mm weighed 35kg.** Fire control requires electrical power.

If you need a weapon that is located somewhere that you cannot manually change the barrel and the barrel change RMG is a consideration, then the externally powered gatling that is the minigun is an alternative because it spreads the heating out over six barrels so you can fire at the same rate without having to change a barrel for heating concerns.

schnuersi said...

If the manufacturer had suggested it I would get it. They want to sell more stuff. Sobody with no affiliation?

The manufacturer is selling their gun on their RWS for land vehicle use. I kind of like the concept for a remote gun and the only show-stopper I can see is the increased dispersion and cost.  

schnuersi said...

Yes. But there are far better, more efficient ways to do so instead of using a minigun.

Such as?

* 32kg with the gun control unit, but that doesn't need to be in the same place as the gun.

** https://s3.ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/uat.2dm.digital/rheinmetall/attachments/2021/5/1621391598695Rheinmetall%20Machine%20Gun%20RMG%207.62.pdf