From: Kenneth Winland <kwinland@chass.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: M-16 Replacement (yet another Popular Mechanics article)
Comparing it to a basic M-16A2 is fallacy, but you could sort-of
compare it to an M-16A2 with all of the bells and whistles, and the
new
battle-rifle is STILL expensive. I have seen footage of the tests,
and while it works well in "demos", I have no doubt that this puppy is going
to have severe teething problems.
** Though, to be fair, they had a LOT of trouble developing the German
G-11 caseless rifle, but it is quite a piece of kit. 50 rounds in the
mag. Weight per round pretty decent - not carrying all that dead
weight of casings! Accurate. I'm told that with the autoburst, due to the
rotating breech and hideous cyclic, the weapon has actually fired several
rounds accurately before the burst recoil starts to take effect. On the
downside, ammo must be produced. And I still have no idea how often they clean
this baby or how they handle IAs... though with a caseless round you probably
get less problem as you have no casing to eject. Sealed action probably
protects it from a lot of environmental crud too. But I understand during
development, they started with a 4mm, then a 4.3mm, then a 4.7mm and finally a
4.9mm round as they couldn't get ballistic stability. And the gun itself had
teething problems. I'm sure the zoomy new OICW will have problems... esp this
prox fused trick to let you execute overhead attacks on prone targets.... but
it is the way things will go, and when they get it right it'll be scary
(just like the look-around-the-corner HUD sights for the rifles they
are developing). And mass production will drive down costs. Mind you, a
soldier these days costs more per pound than one in WWI.
> Brian Burger wrote:
Or the M1 - lots of people in the mid-80s were supposed to be slagging
the
thing every chance they got - now it's probably the best MBT
going...and it's expensive as hell, compared to, say, russian MBTs.
** Eh? Maybe second or third best. It's a great tank - don't get me
wrong - but I was under the impression that the armour on the
Challenger II was actually a bit better (though the tank was a tad
slower) and the multi-axis fire stabilization system on the Leopard II
was actually better than the American FC. Maybe I'm on drugs, but I don't
think the M1 (even the current variant) is the *best* tank in
the world - just the *best* one that we get to see in action very
often. (And the gun on it is pretty sweet!). Anyway, it is a good piece of
equipment. Sure beats a Leopard I.... (sigh.....)
> Kenneth Winland wrote:
It also has AFAIK a Thermal Imager/Sight inferior to that on the latest
version of the venerable M60A3(PI). Probably it's biggest drawback. Still a
good weapons system though.
Howdy!
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> ** Though, to be fair, they had a LOT of trouble developing the German
I love the G-11, but the germans never fully adopetd the thing.
When I last talked to some Bundeswehr types, the gun was only used by
rear-echelon forces, in like engineering units and other such groups.
> Accurate. I'm told that with the autoburst, due to the rotating
Yeah, it went through 3-4 different calibers in the '70s, but it
was sort of "finalized" in 1980 or so. The 3-round burst was especially
nice due to the lack of recoil/rotary bolt thing.
Ken
Howdy!
> On Sun, 18 Jul 1999, Thomas Barclay wrote:
> ** Eh? Maybe second or third best. It's a great tank - don't get me
Actually, with the M1A1HA is probably the best armoured in the world, but at a
few sacrifices. The suspension has some problems, as do the tracks. I've heard
horror stories from people who served in armoured units.
Ken
In a message dated 7/19/99 8:11:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
> aebrain@dynamite.com.au writes:
<<
It also has AFAIK a Thermal Imager/Sight inferior to that on the latest
version of the venerable M60A3(PI). Probably it's biggest drawback. Still a
good weapons system though.
> [quoted text omitted]
Not to mention there is no hatch to open in the bottom out of which to take a
leak! A serious drawback to any tanker laden to his last plimsoll marker. But
in a combat situation you'll probably live a lot longer in the Abrams than in
the Patton however (Product Improved) it might be.
> On Mon, 19 Jul 1999 ScottSaylo@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 7/19/99 8:11:21 PM Central Daylight Time,
surely there are some empty 120 mm shell cases lying about? improvise, man!
tom
In a message dated 7/21/99 5:11:33 PM Central Daylight Time,
> thomas.anderson@university-college.oxford.ac.uk writes:
<<
surely there are some empty 120 mm shell cases lying about? improvise, man!
tom
> [quoted text omitted]
When all else fails the commander or the loader could let loose down the
gunner's back. It's sweaty enough inside that he will probably not notice the
extra moisture.