EmericD said:

Depending on the perimeter, you need between 4 and 11 countries to sign the document in order to make it a STANAG.

True.

But its usually very easy to find the required signatures especially if they do NOT intend to introduce the piece of kit any time soon themself.
If they do want to get onboard things get complicated quickly.

EmericD said:

For each weapon system I have in charge, I need to justify the maximum number of rounds one can shoot in a closed space before reaching the maximum NOx / CO / CO2 concentration allowed by the various regulations.

That is one thing. IMHO this, while certainly a nuisance, makes some sense for training in enclosed shooting ranges. Its also one thing to know the data but another thing to start regulating and enforcing because of this.

As mentioned the German MoD went pretty far in the HSE. They think this makes them a more modern and attractive employer.
Now AFV crews have to put on NBC protection if they go onto a shooting range for life fire excercises. The NOx and CO concentration inside the AFV (designed more than 40 years ago) is way to high by modern HSE standards. Especially if women are involved. One of them could be pregnand wich means the maximum allowed concentration is basicaly zero. Since this can not be guaranteed, a female soldier could be pregnand without knowing it and most important of all because of inclusivity the current regulation is NBC protection for everyone.
They basically managed to ruin the best thing the armored corps had... days on the shooting range.

This is just one of the great improvements of the last decade... and the people in the MoD really don't understand why nobody wants to serve anymore.

Nobody in the industry cares so much about HSE. Especially not the workforce. Usually HSE is seen as a nuicanse that lowers efficiency, output and fun. The enforcement of HSW rules in the industry is mostly based on "plausible deniability". If the person in charge can plausibly declare he didn't know the rules where broken, he will not care to much. To achieve this everybody gets a lecture and training on HSE rules and signes off on them. Problem solved. Nobody runs around in a workshop or factory floor and stops people from doing their work. This is why the rather strict HSE rules work for the civillian sector. They are mostly ignored. Applying these rules to the military is allready pretty stupid. Enforcing them to the letter is close to sabotage and undermining the ability to defend.

schnuersi said:

Applying these rules to the military is allready pretty stupid. Enforcing them to the letter is close to sabotage and undermining the ability to defend.

100% agree.

PRM2 said:

How can anybody with half a brain and any practical experience dare to criticise a classic and successful design like the MG42/MG3

In fact you can and you must look critically at every design, be it successful or not, to learn from it. Because no design is ideal and every one has its failings and shortcomings. And without learning those you bound to repeat mistakes made by your predecessors, time after time

The desire to make new designs "different" and "modern" is a common plague, as creating improved versions of older designs is boring, and has little moral revard of seeing one's own ingenuity and creativeness. And it would take an extremely professional and knowledgeable management and client's side representattives (those who write requitements and accept resulting designs) to reign designers into the correct lane.

mpopenker said:

In fact you can and you must look critically at every design, be it successful or not, to learn from it. Because no design is ideal and every one has its failings and shortcomings. And without learning those you bound to repeat mistakes made by your predecessors, time after time

Absolutely true.
Just accepting what has been perceived as good in the past and concidering it the one sacred truth is as wrong as concidering everything done in the past as outdated and wrong. These are two oposit extremes of the same narrowminded thinking.

mpopenker said:

The desire to make new designs "different" and "modern" is a common plague, as creating improved versions of older designs is boring, and has little moral revard of seeing one's own ingenuity and creativeness. And it would take an extremely professional and knowledgeable management and client's side representattives (those who write requitements and accept resulting designs) to reign designers into the correct lane.

Also very true.

The ironic part is that the MG3 is coming back or going to stay. Depending at how you look at it.
Because the ingenious designers of the MG5 failed to test if their gun actually fits into every mounting the MG3 is used from it doesn't. In some cases it can't even be fixed by using adaptors or changing the mounting. The MG5 because of its different shape does not fit.
So the MG3 has to be kept in service until all the mountings and the AFV these are on are phased out of service. Which will take dekades.
As a result the MG3 has to stay. Since the old ones are worn out, spare parts are few and the attempts to buy spares and guns from abroad did not work out now brand new MG3 and spare parts are being build in Germany. The fun part is that these guns are not made from stamped steel parts but milled from aluminum with steel inserts. So basically the new MG3 are of the old design but manufactured with the latest technology. It will be very intresting to see how these new guns are received.

schnuersi said:

The fun part is that these guns are not made from stamped steel parts but milled from aluminum with steel inserts. So basically the new MG3 are of the old design but manufactured with the latest technology.

Are there any photos of these new MG-3 publicly available? I'd really like to see them.

I completely agree with your observations, all engineering is a balance between not re-inventing the wheel, learning from past experience and embracing innovation. I can't add to the detailed answer that schnuersi has given about the MG5 versus MG3 issue, and am equally fascinated by what can be achieved by enhancing well proven designs using modern fabrication techniques.

It is difficult to see where rifle design using cartridges can progress beyond perfecting either AR or AK platforms. Both are definately in the 'good enough' category, especially when paired with enhanced soldier proof aiming aids and improved bullet and cartridge case design.

A future development may be to use high strength additive manufacture to produce complex items in a cost effective manner, without the need for dedicated tooling and machining, except perhaps for the barrel. This could also be a way to rectify the weight issue with the current SIG NGSW candidate.

mpopenker said:

Are there any photos of these new MG-3 publicly available?

Not yet.

At least not that I am aware of.

EmericD said:

       stancrist said: I think that is overstating the case.  While there would be significant logistical benefit to a "matched pair of weapons" that have a high degree of parts commonality, in my opinion the benefit to training is overrated, and is actually of little or no importance. 

And I know one guy who shot a team mate while clearing a M249 after returning from a patrol. He checked that there was no rounds into the chamber and "dry fire" the gun, just like what he was trained to do with his FAMAS.

Hmm.  Sounds like the French Army has extremely poor training if it trains soldiers to point weapons at team mates when clearing, and also trains them to not remove the ammunition container from the weapon before retracting the bolt to check the chamber and dry firing the weapon.

stancrist said:

Hmm.  Sounds like the French Army has extremely poor training if it trains soldiers to point weapons at team mates when clearing, and also trains them to not remove the ammunition container from the weapon before retracting the bolt to check the chamber and dry firing the weapon.

Well.

stancrist said:

 in my opinion the benefit to training is overrated, and is actually of little or no importance. 

Ok, so training is overrated, unless it isn't.