Full Version: Thermographic Questions
Apparently with 9000 ready rounds. I'd say a Mk 19 provides quite a bit more firepower, but I guess for the work they're currently mostly engaging in it also tends to cause a bit too much collateral damage.
Initially I would agree with you, but a 40mm grenade doesn't have that much penetration, and will self destruct before it goes too far.
On the other hand a stream of 7.62mm FMJ ammo will cut through a whole neighborhood of residential houses.
Now the mud brick construction of the homes in the middle east probobly attenuates that quite a bit though.
On the other hand a stream of 7.62mm FMJ ammo will cut through a whole neighborhood of residential houses.
Now the mud brick construction of the homes in the middle east probobly attenuates that quite a bit though.
The M549 is a self-destructing fuze? If so, that's more than 2km away, at which point most 7.62mm ricochets are pretty harmless as well. 
A single 40mm HEDP grenade penetrates about 60-75% as much of the most common exterior wall materials as a 7.62x51mm FMJ at close range (according to FM 90-10-1), and every one has a casualty producing radius of 15 meters. If I had to choose one weapon to fire at my residential building for 30 seconds, I'd absolutely take the M134.
A single 40mm HEDP grenade penetrates about 60-75% as much of the most common exterior wall materials as a 7.62x51mm FMJ at close range (according to FM 90-10-1), and every one has a casualty producing radius of 15 meters. If I had to choose one weapon to fire at my residential building for 30 seconds, I'd absolutely take the M134.
| QUOTE (Austere Emancipator) |
| The M549 is a self-destructing fuze? If so, that's more than 2km away, at which point most 7.62mm ricochets are pretty harmless as well. A single 40mm HEDP grenade penetrates about 60-75% as much of the most common exterior wall materials as a 7.62x51mm FMJ at close range (according to FM 90-10-1), and every one has a casualty producing radius of 15 meters. If I had to choose one weapon to fire at my residential building for 30 seconds, I'd absolutely take the M134. |
I was under the impression it was, but I'll dig out my old field manual to check.
The big issue here is that your not dealing with typical US/Euro typ building materials. What forces in the sandbox are dealing with is primarily 1-3 foot thick sun-baked mudbrick walls that have turned out to be surprisingly resistant to ballistic impacts from small caliber weapons. A 40mm grenade will knock a nice hole in the wall, but you dont have to worry about it ending up in the neighbors house.
The minigun pumps out so much lead you almost have to treat it like the main gun on the SDF-1 (yeah Im a geek) because at the 4-6k rounds per minute these things pump out, their going to rapidly create a "tunnel-o-death" right through the neighborhood.
The other reason I think the MK-19 is better is controllabillity. I like being able to pinch off single shots.
On a side note, I am really impressed with the folks on these boards! This is a surptrising level of knowledge to run into, and I've already come across a load of ideas to enhance my campaign.
The M134s they have on the HMMWVs are fixed at 3000rpm, AFAICT. At 50 rounds per second you will see impacts close to each other, but they don't quite bore a straight tunnel through buildings.
You'd need to concentrate your fire on one spot for a second or so to get penetrations through 2 or 3 serious outer walls (you need dozens of hits before you get a large enough hole in the first hole to get the next bullets clear to the next one). In the same time the Mk 19 has fired 6 times, which will penetrate about as far assuming similar accuracy. Only difference is that people in the rooms the Mk 19 shot through are rather more likely to be dead.
You'd need to concentrate your fire on one spot for a second or so to get penetrations through 2 or 3 serious outer walls (you need dozens of hits before you get a large enough hole in the first hole to get the next bullets clear to the next one). In the same time the Mk 19 has fired 6 times, which will penetrate about as far assuming similar accuracy. Only difference is that people in the rooms the Mk 19 shot through are rather more likely to be dead.
Im really curious to see the performance of the new 25mm grenades used by that OICW monstosity the army is funding. Im guessing, based on their capacity, that the grenade launchers in SR lean more towards that form than our old 40mm bloop guns.
Theres also this nugget of fun Barrett has in the works:
http://www.barrettrifles.com/military/images/109b.jpg
More data at:
http://www.barrettrifles.com/
Im pretty sure that thing is the basis for SR's assault cannon!
Theres also this nugget of fun Barrett has in the works:
http://www.barrettrifles.com/military/images/109b.jpg
More data at:
http://www.barrettrifles.com/
Im pretty sure that thing is the basis for SR's assault cannon!
He who has not read Dumpshock is doomed to repeat it 
~J
~J
It isn't the basis: the whole SR Assault Cannon thing comes from the Cobra Assault Cannon in RoboCop, which was a Barrett M82 with crap tacked on. However, it absolutely is the closest and most logical RL match to the weapons as they are described in SR3 and SR4. This has been established in quite a few "Panther Assault Cannon, What Is It?" threads. 
| QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Aug 13 2006, 03:07 PM) |
| He who has not read Dumpshock is doomed to repeat it ~J |
???
Did I newb myself?
EDIT:
Simulposted. Thanks for the info!
I actually think we were supposed to change barrels after 150 shots with the MG3, but it's been a long time since I was in the army, I could well be wrong.
It should be said that for military purposes, being able to fire it from a standing position is hardly a requirement anyway. You fight from a prone position with few exceptions.
It should be said that for military purposes, being able to fire it from a standing position is hardly a requirement anyway. You fight from a prone position with few exceptions.
In the long term, barrel damage will probably start to occur in the (very) low hundreds of rapid fire with most LMGs and GPMGs, which explains the rather low suggested amount of rounds changing barrels. If you don't mind shortening the barrel life significantly you can keep going much further. I would not be surprised if an MG3 could keep it up for a full minute before critical failure (e.g. barrel blow out), since an M60E4 can (sometimes) manage 850 rounds cyclical.
Those Echo4 mods on the M60 are pretty sweet, but I hear the barrels are insanely expensive due to the materials. They use some crazy alloy that wont begin warping until well after cook-off tempatures are passed.
My personal feeling on the matter is that a minigun has no place as an infantry-mounted weapon. I believe the additional rounds on target compared to a more conventional LMG is neglegible compared to the weight of the weapon and the wasted ammo to gain those extra hits.
When you talk about vehicle mounted miniguns, I am still a little hesitant, but I am at least willing to listen.
My feeling on the matter is that miniguns are really only called for for either air-to-air combat, air-to-ground, or surface to air.
When you talk about vehicle mounted miniguns, I am still a little hesitant, but I am at least willing to listen.
My feeling on the matter is that miniguns are really only called for for either air-to-air combat, air-to-ground, or surface to air.
I agree with you for the most part.
A good example of machinegun design is the differences between the German MG-34 and MG-42 light MG's. The MG-34, while more complicated to produce and having a slower rate of fire, was a devastatingly accurate weapon. The MG-42, if you overlook it's morale destroying muzzle blast noise, was an inferior weapon in every way other than ease of manufacturing and rate of fire.
A good example of machinegun design is the differences between the German MG-34 and MG-42 light MG's. The MG-34, while more complicated to produce and having a slower rate of fire, was a devastatingly accurate weapon. The MG-42, if you overlook it's morale destroying muzzle blast noise, was an inferior weapon in every way other than ease of manufacturing and rate of fire.
| QUOTE (Smokeskin) |
| At 1700 rpm, with a heavier weapon and the centripetal stabilation effect from the rotation barrels, recoil would be even less. If you added a hipbrace, I should think you could easily go double that. |
How wide is the barrel assembly on the M134? And how much does it weigh of the M134's 18.8 kg? If some one can give me a better estimates on weight and power use, I'll readjust my calculations accordingly. I'm using the 4KWt number and weigh from the guns.ru page.
Torque:
4000 Watts = Torque * 2pi *2000 RPM
1/pi = Torque
1/pi = r X F = r*F*sin(theta) Sin(theta) can be assumed for 90 degrees in this so
1/pi = r*F
I'm guessing from those pics that the M134 has maybe a 6 inch diameter cluster of barrels? so r = 0.0762 m (= 3 inches radius)
1/pi/0.0762 = F = 4.2 n = 0.94419756102 Lb force, which is pretty much nothing.
Centripetal force:
Assuming 75% of the mass of the M134 is barrels (it looks all barrels to me at least).
F=m*r*w^2=18.8*.75*0.0762*(2pi*2000)^2
F=1.07442 * (4000pi)^2 = 169665605 n = 170000000 n = 170 Mega newtons
And finally, Angular Momentum: (which should be the force which gyro stabilizes the gun)
L = I*w
I = 1/2*m*r^2 (assuming a solid cylinder, the closest approximation for me to use)
I = 1/2*18.8*0.75*0.0762^2 = .040935402
L = .40935402 * 2pi * 2000 rpm = 514.4... = 514 J*s = 514 N*m*s
err, now that I read this over, this is all really just me being bored. So I hope that the results interest some one here as much as the work kept me interested. And I hope my math isn't off.
Another example of action movies getting stuff wrong:
Just saw Superman Returns last night (I strongly recommend everyone to stay clear of it btw, not even rental quality) and there was a minigun that you saw firing in slow motion - the bullets where about 1 meters apart. So if we assume 700 m/s muzzle velocity (about 2300 fps) the puts us at 700 rounds per second or 42,000 rpm.
Converserly it could be doing just 6000 rpm, but that puts the muzzle velocity at 100 m/s.
They had the minigun mounted on a crane though
Just saw Superman Returns last night (I strongly recommend everyone to stay clear of it btw, not even rental quality) and there was a minigun that you saw firing in slow motion - the bullets where about 1 meters apart. So if we assume 700 m/s muzzle velocity (about 2300 fps) the puts us at 700 rounds per second or 42,000 rpm.
Converserly it could be doing just 6000 rpm, but that puts the muzzle velocity at 100 m/s.
They had the minigun mounted on a crane though
And just rememer: even Superman ducks a thrown minigun.
I dunno, this guy shot him in the eye from point blank range and superman didn't even blink. The eye didn't even move in the socket, no head jerk, nothing. Must be really hard for him to consciously have to respond when people bump into or touch him in daily life, otherwise it'd be like running into a lamp post. Man of steel?
| QUOTE (Ed_209a) |
| My personal feeling on the matter is that a minigun has no place as an infantry-mounted weapon. I believe the additional rounds on target compared to a more conventional LMG is neglegible compared to the weight of the weapon and the wasted ammo to gain those extra hits. |
We used MG3's with a cyclic rate of 1200 rpm, and I got so tight groupings with 3-5 round bursts that I'd much rather have a 600 rpm weapon. Normally you could cover the grouping from 1 burst with your fist at 200 meters, most of that is just wasted ammo. Going 2000 rpm or more is downright silly, the only reason you would want that was if you wanted to completely hose down an area really quickly (with an ordinary LMG you could just take 3 times as long and get the same effect after all). Even if weight and recoil wasn't an issue, miniguns just doesn't meet any practical demand for infantry fighting.
For cutting down a target sprinting diagonally, 600 rpm leaves some chance for the target to make it through though. But that's not a very common combat situation imo.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.