Full Version: The OICW Rises Again!
Figured some people here would find this pretty amusing. Guess the Aussies couldn't let us hog all the stupid.
metal storm gl. that's the first time i've ever seen the metal storm thing actually sound cool. now if only they'd make an automatic gl with that...
hmm, i dont think a full auto gl is a good idea as i would think you risk cooking of the grenade after some rounds have been fired.
allso, i could have sworn that this is present in the latest ghost recon addon for xbox, under the lone wolf package
allso, i could have sworn that this is present in the latest ghost recon addon for xbox, under the lone wolf package
Appears also on the front page of MetalStorm Limited.
It seems nearly all 40mm MetalStorm applications are limited to 3 or 4 shots per barrel. Those four shots can be fired inside one thousandth of a second, though. Overheating is not a problem at that point.
There are several very good reasons why automatic GLs ŕ la Mk 19 aren't done with this technology, and I'm assuming mfb was kidding.
It seems nearly all 40mm MetalStorm applications are limited to 3 or 4 shots per barrel. Those four shots can be fired inside one thousandth of a second, though. Overheating is not a problem at that point.
There are several very good reasons why automatic GLs ŕ la Mk 19 aren't done with this technology, and I'm assuming mfb was kidding.
It doesn't look quite as ridiculous as the OICW, but it is still pretty ugly and just seems too bulky to make a good issued weapon. I really can't see soldiers lugging this thing around...even if they can put a grenade up a flea's butt from around a corner. 
multishot grenade launchers have a bad habbit of becoming bulky.
trying to stuff a heat or low light camera on top of that dont help...
trying to stuff a heat or low light camera on top of that dont help...
i don't think the gl on the AICW is intended to be multi-shot, i think it's intended to spray a burst of grenades. i could be wrong.
and, yeah, when i said 'automatic gl', i basically meant the mk-19.
and, yeah, when i said 'automatic gl', i basically meant the mk-19.
I hope you're wrong, or some poor Aussie's going to need a shoulder transplant sometime soon.
MetalStorm 40mm grenades....
That's a jumbo-sized can of whoop ass goin' downrange, there.
That's a jumbo-sized can of whoop ass goin' downrange, there.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| I hope you're wrong, or some poor Aussie's going to need a shoulder transplant sometime soon. |
No problems mate, just have them brace it against their forehead.
didn't someone say once that the AK-47 was useless as an infantry weapon because of the size? I'm suprised that they went with the 5.56x45. its been proven to have limited effectiveness, and the weight of the GL should mean that full auto fire in 7.62x51 would be managable. besided that GL can't have much more recoil than a dangerous game caliber rifle, and I hear you don't feel the recoil at all when you need to be fireing.
what are they currently using in their rifles?
im willing to bet its 5.56 as i think that they are using the steyr aug right now:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
therefor it makes sense to keep using that in any future rifle so that they dont have drag two types of ammo into the field.
this was allso why it was bad that USA picked 5.56 while the rest of nato at the time picked 7.62 or something like that. now everyone is changing over to 5.56 so that the whole of nato can share one ammo type again.
im willing to bet its 5.56 as i think that they are using the steyr aug right now:
http://world.guns.ru/assault/as20-e.htm
therefor it makes sense to keep using that in any future rifle so that they dont have drag two types of ammo into the field.
this was allso why it was bad that USA picked 5.56 while the rest of nato at the time picked 7.62 or something like that. now everyone is changing over to 5.56 so that the whole of nato can share one ammo type again.
| QUOTE |
The AK-47 was useless as an infantry weapon? |
-Siege
| QUOTE (Krazy) |
| didn't someone say once that the AK-47 was useless as an infantry weapon because of the size? I'm suprised that they went with the 5.56x45. its been proven to have limited effectiveness, and the weight of the GL should mean that full auto fire in 7.62x51 would be managable. besided that GL can't have much more recoil than a dangerous game caliber rifle, and I hear you don't feel the recoil at all when you need to be fireing. |
El, oh el.
the idea that the 47 was usless came from somewhere else. NATO and the USA have both used 5.56 and 7.62, one light one heavy. under Geneva, I think the 5.56 and 7.62 are ruled as acceptable but others are not, same why US troops carry 9mm instead of .45. the brits used only one type during ww2 the .303 brit, the idea being that infantry could salvage ammo from downed planes and broken tanks. it worked well, but that is becase the .303 is accruate and powerful compared to the 5.56. I've talked to a few guys and they agree that 5.56 is too small. I'm just wondering that with the US army swiching calibers why any new weapons are in the pipline that are outdated, I mean is sounds like something the canadian army would do
| QUOTE (Krazy) |
| the weight of the GL should mean that full auto fire in 7.62x51 would be managable. |
There's not many reasons a rifleman is ever going to be firing full-automatic, so in that respect, the round isn't really relevant.
While I somewhat prefer the larger round myself, the problems with the 5.56 are a little overblown IMO. Nothing is ever going to work with 100% effectiveness 100% of the time. In the meantime, the 5.56 has been used with relative success for what? 40 years now?
As I said, I somewhat prefer the 7.62, but when you consider that most nations already using 5.56 have (in some cases literally) billions of rounds already in supply, the decision to go with it makes sense.
Oh, for the love of mike, don't let Raygun wander into this thread.
-Siege
-Siege
| QUOTE (Siege) |
| Oh, for the love of mike, don't let Raygun wander into this thread. -Siege |
Hell, I can't wait
He's always got some tidbit of info I didn't know before.
| QUOTE (Krazy) |
| under Geneva, I think the 5.56 and 7.62 are ruled as acceptable but others are not, same why US troops carry 9mm instead of .45. |
No. Read. Be enlightened.
If you aren't patient enough to read through them, then suffice it to say that the Geneva Conventions don't say a damn thing about ammunition for small arms. If someone claims otherwise, that's proof they are full of shit and you can ignore everything else they're saying too.
Why is everyone assuming that the GL has to fire in fully automatic mode? I'd assume that the GL would normally be rigged for single shot, with metalstorm replacing the need for a box magazine holding 40mm rounds.
The Broohaha about the 5.56mm is due to the 5.56mm M855 round IMO. It is a semi armor piercing round that is used for everything.
I wish there were two rounds in common NATO issue, a real AP round and a real antipersonnel round. Something like a soft lead bullet with a thin jacket. In standard issue, soldiers may get 5 mags of anti personell ammo and 2 mags of AP...
The M855 is extremely stable when fired from the M16a2. Too stable. It has a high velocity for it's tumble threshhold. Below that velocity, it makes a neat hole through and through instead of tumbling and fragmenting.
I wish there were two rounds in common NATO issue, a real AP round and a real antipersonnel round. Something like a soft lead bullet with a thin jacket. In standard issue, soldiers may get 5 mags of anti personell ammo and 2 mags of AP...
The M855 is extremely stable when fired from the M16a2. Too stable. It has a high velocity for it's tumble threshhold. Below that velocity, it makes a neat hole through and through instead of tumbling and fragmenting.
Personally, I have never seen the point of using metal storm for any weapon, since you need to replace the whole barrel instead of just a small clip, and wee, we get 1 million rounds per second.. point being what ?
Metal storm as a one shot weapon never to be used again it may have some merit, but other than that I fail to see any use..
Metal storm as a one shot weapon never to be used again it may have some merit, but other than that I fail to see any use..
Metalstorm would make an excellent CWIS platform. It would be good for any situation where the weapon would be rarely fired.
I also like the variable response area denial munition shown on the Metalstorm website. Other than that, I don't much like the idea of changing the barrel every time you change the magazine.
Perhaps if you only changed the part of the barrel with the rounds in them, but then you have to have a way to seal the gap.
I also like the variable response area denial munition shown on the Metalstorm website. Other than that, I don't much like the idea of changing the barrel every time you change the magazine.
Perhaps if you only changed the part of the barrel with the rounds in them, but then you have to have a way to seal the gap.
| QUOTE (Siege) |
| Oh, for the love of mike, don't let Raygun wander into this thread. -Siege |
that would require ritual magic far beyond our capabilities.
or immense firepower, for a more permanent approach.
The 5.56mm has been performing adequately in its intended role - and one important advantage it has over 7,62mm NATO is that, given the same weight of ammo you can carry, IIRC, ~2.5 times more 5.56 rounds than you could of 7.62.
| QUOTE (Ed_209a) |
| I wish there were two rounds in common NATO issue, a real AP round and a real antipersonnel round. Something like a soft lead bullet with a thin jacket. |
Problem is, then it would be clear to anyone that Declaration IV 3 of the Final Act of the International Peace Conference of Hague of 1899 (and the almost identical later declarations, treaties and whathaveyou) would be broken, instead of the current situation where we kinda acknowledge that it's being broken but we can't be bothered to do anything about it. I don't know if the US really wants all militaries, and all the people who get their gear from militaries, to start using deforming ammunition.
| QUOTE (Fix-it) | ||
that would require ritual magic far beyond our capabilities. or immense firepower, for a more permanent approach. |
I'm hoping his head didn't implode halfway through this thread.
-Siege
With every modern military quickly adopting body armor, it seems a bit silly to issue rounds that would be stopped more easily by them.
Plus, in modern warfare the general idea is NOT to kill the enemy soldiers. You want to wound them so they place a larger strain on their combat effectiveness (takes soldiers to carry the wounded off the field, transportation assets to move them around, medical assets to care for them, and money to keep paying them and logistical assets to feed them).
Plus, in modern warfare the general idea is NOT to kill the enemy soldiers. You want to wound them so they place a larger strain on their combat effectiveness (takes soldiers to carry the wounded off the field, transportation assets to move them around, medical assets to care for them, and money to keep paying them and logistical assets to feed them).
| QUOTE (Siege) | ||||
I'm hoping his head didn't implode halfway through this thread. -Siege |
I don't know about him, but mine very nearly has.
| QUOTE (Tzeentch) |
| With every modern military quickly adopting body armor, it seems a bit silly to issue rounds that would be stopped more easily by them. Plus, in modern warfare the general idea is NOT to kill the enemy soldiers. You want to wound them so they place a larger strain on their combat effectiveness (takes soldiers to carry the wounded off the field, transportation assets to move them around, medical assets to care for them, and money to keep paying them and logistical assets to feed them). |
or the opposing side have orderd all troops to kill their fellow soldier if they become to much of a train. as in, if it isnt helped with a field dressing, put a bullet in his brain.
thing is, what happens if it gets out that this is the policy?
Never mind it getting out, it's bad for morale in the first place. If everyone the opposition has fielded can do that without thinking twice, you're fucked anyway.
~J
~J
If that is the opposition's policy then I suspect that very few opposing soldiers will actually show up.
If that's the opposition's policy, our policy then becomes one of carpet-bombing with AP submunition weaponry. 
"You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, atomize it, pulverize it and wipe it clean of life— but if you desire to defend it, protect it, and keep it for civilization, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions did, by putting your young men into the mud."
Well, yeah. At least until we can put our young men in air conditioned rooms and put the combat drones they're rigging into the mud.
| QUOTE (Tzeentch) |
| Plus, in modern warfare the general idea is NOT to kill the enemy soldiers. You want to wound them so they place a larger strain on their combat effectiveness (takes soldiers to carry the wounded off the field, transportation assets to move them around, medical assets to care for them, and money to keep paying them and logistical assets to feed them). |
Whoa, Nelly!
Now that's an uninformed opinion if I've ever seen one. I'm sorry, but usually, the reason the average soldier is going to want to shoot somebody in the first place is to kill them. In most tactical situations, the object is going to be to kill the opposing soldier. If you're just shooting to wound, well, you probably shouldn't be shooting at them in the first place.
You can not generalize modern warfare. The forces acting within the war and the forces effecting it from without are going to be different in every situation. Sometimes this difference will be huge, while at times, one conflict may closely resemble a previous or future one.
Now true, there are situations where the scenario you described may be an effective means of combat, such as an outnumbered "guerilla" force conducting hit-and-run operations. However, your statement is correct only in the narrow context in which it was originally stated god-knows-how-long-ago.
It's generally a good idea to hurt the enemy soldiers. Fatally or not, it's generally a good idea to do him harm.
| QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Oct 11 2005, 05:43 PM) |
| It's generally a good idea to hurt the enemy soldiers. Fatally or not, it's generally a good idea to do him harm. |
A lot of mines and sub-munition type weapons now a days are made to maim rather than kill. This way the enemy has to care for their wounded, slowing them down and causing a logistical drain. But when it comes down to using a gun, eyeball to eyeball with the enemy no one, soldiers or cops, are trained to shoot to wound. It's you or the other guy, no in-betweens.
*Cough*Snipers and sharpshooters*cough*.
Then again, depending on your definition of "eyeball to eyeball" they may already be excepted.
~J
Then again, depending on your definition of "eyeball to eyeball" they may already be excepted.
~J
Frosty, I think he's talking about part of the logic that went using the 5.56 round over the heavier 7.62.
As for the rest, yes - I heard an MP swear that while manning a .50 cal machine gun that, while the Geneva Convention prohibits him from aiming at soft targets, he was going to do his damndest to hit the hostile's rifle.
True story.
-Siege
As for the rest, yes - I heard an MP swear that while manning a .50 cal machine gun that, while the Geneva Convention prohibits him from aiming at soft targets, he was going to do his damndest to hit the hostile's rifle.
True story.
-Siege
Yeah, I heard those stories. Or his uniform. Or his canteen. Or any other thing that qualified as 'equipment' (which Ma Dues' was allowed to be aimed at,) that could be worn, or held.
Frankly, good for him. And fuck the geneva convention. If I have a .50 cal and Charlie's comming at me, or Iraqis or WHOEVER, I'm going to mow the modderpockers down like it's harvest time.
Frankly, good for him. And fuck the geneva convention. If I have a .50 cal and Charlie's comming at me, or Iraqis or WHOEVER, I'm going to mow the modderpockers down like it's harvest time.
And I would enjoy watching you take the heat for it, if there were anything about .50 cal vs. soft targets in the convention. There isn't, however, so I don't get the pleasure.
~J
~J
I think it's because of the round the big .50 used.
Anyway, Geneva, or some other convention, we're big on those. I know it happened.
Anyway, Geneva, or some other convention, we're big on those. I know it happened.
For fuck's sake, the Geneva convention defines the treatment of prisoners of war by signatory nations.
And a 5.56 bullet will do more dmg than a 7.56 bullet anyway..
| QUOTE (mmu1) |
| The 5.56mm has been performing adequately in its intended role - and one important advantage it has over 7,62mm NATO is that, given the same weight of ammo you can carry, IIRC, ~2.5 times more 5.56 rounds than you could of 7.62. |
the counter-arguement to this, is how much damage 2.5 times as many rounds of 5.56 will do as opposed to an equivalent weight in 7.62.
if it takes a three round burst of 5.56 to drop a man, you're not getting greater efficiency there, in fact you have less than half the firepower per magazine.
/thinks we should go back to garands firing 30.06.
/me thinks we should go back to M-14s firing thirty-ought-six at full auto.
The garand is a great gun, but it was designed for long distance engagements, and the modern theatre of operation rarely if ever gives a soldier that kind of firefight anymore.
The garand is a great gun, but it was designed for long distance engagements, and the modern theatre of operation rarely if ever gives a soldier that kind of firefight anymore.
what we need to do is develop a weapons system where you can change the effective range by switching ammo types.
think we could fit a shotgun load in a 30-06 package?
think we could fit a shotgun load in a 30-06 package?
Sure, we could. We could also be ruining barrels every time we did, if not blowing the barrels clean off the gun, and potentially into the gunner's face.
| QUOTE (Arethusa) |
| For fuck's sake, the Geneva convention defines the treatment of prisoners of war by signatory nations. |
There are 4 Geneva Conventions. Only the third concerns prisioners of war. The first two concern battlefield casualties and the fourth concerns civilians. There is also a Geneva Protocol which prohibits the use of poision gas and bacteria.
The Hague Convention prohibits ammunition that "expands or flattens easily in the human body" I'm not sure about the use of .50 ammunition, however there are so many different protocols and conventions as to make navigating them fairly difficullt. For example, in addition to the 1899 and 1907 Hague conventions that is also a 1954 Hague convention that prohibits attacks against "cultural property."
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.