05-15-2011, 03:00 AM
LR1955 Wrote:Tony:
If ammo weight is a requirement, you must state your requirements in priority.
If recoil forces are a requirement, state the requirement in terms of energy and then prioritize that requirement too.
You guys can't invent rules every time you are faced with reality. Where does ammo weight stand in terms of recoil? How about ammo weight in terms of overall cost? How about ammo weight in terms of penetration and lethality? First -- state your requirements. Second -- prioritize them.
As far as I'm concerned, the requirements list I stated in post #6 on this thread all have to be met for any new round to be successful. The requirements are stated in terms of comparisons with existing 7.62mm M80 and 5.56mm M855 in similar guns, as follows:
"compared with the M80, to reduce the weight to 80% (assuming similar materials) and to reduce the recoil energy in a similar rifle to 60%
compared with M855 ammunition, to limit the weight to 160% (assuming similar materials) and to limit the recoil energy in a similar rifle to 200%"
Quote:I will simply put ammunition weight lower on my priority as guys are used to carrying 7.62 and don't seem to be complaining about its value.
The British Army would disagree with you - they regard reducing the massive burden worn or borne by foot soldiers as a high priority.
Quote:You see, no one here can tell me -- the developer -- what you expect out of the ammunition. You guys state 'same vertex as M-80, same Ke at 1K meters' without even being able to state why 1K is required. You guys talk about 1K being some magical distance for M-80 ball. This is another example of someone blindly claiming a requirement because it sounds reasonable when in fact it is unnecessary. What small arms optic allows anyone to see and ID an enemy that far? Not the Elcan -- you may see mirage and blurs that far but you won't be able to tell if what you are seeing can be determined to be an enemy or not. An example of blindly following Cold War Europe requirements made up in the 50's and were based on myths gathered from from WWI and WWII.
Actually, not. The driver for the range requirement has been set by the recent experience of both the US and UK armies in Afghanistan, where at least half of all small arms engagements are reported to take place in the 300-900 metre range bracket - far more than would have been assumed from WW2 experience or Cold War expectations.
As Joe pointed out, the range requirement is currently mainly concerned with MGs first, DMRs second. However, the steady development of improved sights is making long-range shooting much easier for ordinary infantrymen. The 6x Elcan sight used by UK troops with the L129A1 is highly regarded, and much better things are on the way.
It is already possible to buy sights incorporating laser rangefinders and ballistic computers which will indicate the precise aiming mark required for the distance lased, taking into account weapon cant plus uphill and downhill shooting. These are mainly focused on grenade launchers at the moment, but clearly have rifle/MG applications. These will make a flat trajectory less significant than before.
The DARPA One-Shot programme aims to improve sights even further by incorporating a means of measuring wind drift and building that into the fire control solution. These are intended for snipers initially, and will of course be very bulky, heavy and expensive. But it's a very safe bet that once they are introduced into service, they will become steadily smaller, lighter and cheaper, and will find their way down; first to MGs, then to infantry rifles (just as scope sights have). With sights like these, any infantryman should be able to deliver effective fire to very long range in suitable conditions - provided that the ammo is capable of it.
Quote:Today you must positively ID the target as a threat before you shoot and you better not kill an innocent. You guys can't comprehend this or you would be stating accuracy requirements in terms of reducing risk as well as increasing lethality.
You don't seem to grasp what I comprehend, Gene. If you read my presentation on this subject here: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/The%20Ne...ration.htm you will find that the first two sentences are:
"The conflict in Afghanistan, with its emphasis on targeting specific enemy individuals while avoiding collateral damage, demands the use of weapons of high precision and limited destructive effect. As a result, infantry small arms have a much more prominent role than that expected in conventional high-intensity warfare and this is highlighting the performance of their ammunition to a greater extent than ever before."