.... are a thing of the past, for a reason. Yes, obsolescent technology still
abounds. Yes, it is possible under some circumstances to imagine
the re-development of certain technologies.
Yes, this appeals to the nostalgia of some among us for the good ol' days.
But there are reasons these things have went the way of the dodo. They aren't
light. They aren't easily portable. And they demand fluid, which isn't light
or portable. And the truth is, the capabilities they offer are generally not
required.
As has been illustrated by others, the fast, sustained fire is not usually a
tremendous advantage when fighting a modern enemy force. They tend not to
attack in human waves and by clacking away, you'll most likely mark yourself
out as a target. And your piddly few thousand feet of theoretical range won't
mean much to someone with a missile launcher lurking near the horizon. Kaboom,
no more Mr.Machine Gun.
Mobility is, in large part, key to survival. Fortifications are nice, but they
have historically had drawbacks which still pertain (psychological ones to the
force occupying them) and they have distinct drawbacks versus support such as
artillery and air, which can crack bunkers like walnuts. And bunkers don't
dodge too well.
Water cooled systems exist on some larger combat systems for sea use probably
because water is something easily access. Some large land combat systems may
use them, but precious few.
And for the infantry, they are pretty much unheard of in modern usage. Why? If
I'm going to carry 15 lbs. of water, a tripod, and my HMG (even with some
helpers), that's a lot of weight. If I plan to use it for continous fire,
that's a huge amount of ammo (in fact, one example of overuse of ammunition is
quite visible in the
new Bruce Willis film Tears of the Sun - we must
have missed the off screen supply drop - but
it's a movie so we suspend disbelief). All of that weighs. And as a poor
gropos, you're already carrying possibly NBC gear, body armour, basic
combat load, etc. - You're already moving like
you've got a monkey on your shoulders, and the enemies' bullets haven't got
noticeably slower.
Most modern squad weapons (and even the support det's MGs) tend to fire in
bursts at targets of opportunity or to suppress rather
than fully automatic versus a non-existent
human wave. If we want to apply indirect fire, we use mortars. If we want to
destroy something we really don't like, we use a grenade launchers, recoilless
rifle, IAVR or an ATGM. Or we call for support.
If a human wave does come, a combination of rapid fire from rifles and
elevated fire rates from support weapons is probably in order, but so too is
artillery, grenades (rifle and hand) and
most especially, the old favorite - the Claymore
mine. And since we're carrying all of this stuff around (because it *does*
stuff the MG does not), adding extra weight to no real gain wouldn't make much
sense.
Adding water cooled weapons systems would mean an increased demand for
logistics (more bits than the air cooled versions). Assuming we
were doing this to let them fire faster/longer,
we'd eat up more ammo we'd have to carry around. We'd also have to hump the
coolant and recirculation gear. Extra weight very bad.
Where might it make sense to investigate modern fluid cooling systems, perhaps
using water and microtubes or perhaps using something like liquid nitrogen?
1) If we had a rugged enough system. Radiators tend not to be too rugged. 2)
If we could get good cooling efficiencies (might work well if using things
other than water). 3) If we could do it in a way that didn't bulk up the
weapons. 4) If it was someplace the advantage the weapon gained was useful
(say installed in the aforementioned targets.... I mean fixed defenses). It
might make sense to support something like this in a Starship Troopers world
with swarms of bugs, but I don't think you could actually carry enough ammo to
win those fights... 5. On a vehicle where the added
complexity/logistics might not matter.
6. PA is debatable. You'll need some water for your soldier, but you can't use
that. He can't drink heated water and water he's drank can't be used to cool
the weapon. Water he sweats out, if you could somehow catch it all, is
probably near body temperature. And you aren't planning to recirc water from
the blazing hot gunbarrel around inside the suit near the wearer were you? I
think not. And the weight you spend on this cuts down armour, electronics,
ammunition, sensor systems, or movement speed and increases ground pressure
(an important issue if you don't want to get stuck). And of course, the whole
point of doing this is to be able to fire more.... which kind of suggests more
ammo yet, also robbing your design of further other capabilities. You might
put something like this on a dedicates fire support PA suit, but even that is
doubtful.
For most cases, there is just little modern justification for this kind of
technology for infantry arms. For vehicles, it is a debatable point, but there
could be uses. For PA, in restricted cases, perhaps. But by en large, this is
a thing of the past an should be relegated into the same bin of fantasy as
steam powered tanks or gas powered PA.;)
(Which is to say, if it floats your boat, do it.... but don't worry too hard
about trying to justify it on a reality basis.....)
Tomb.
> Where might it make sense to investigate
Liquid nitrogen is a crygenic. It would be complicated to keep get the cooling
cycle right to keep from damaging the barrel to by cooling it down too
quickly. The there is also problem with brittleness of a frozen barrel. It
would really bite to drop your weapon and have the barrel break...
> 1) If we had a rugged enough system.
Screw threads are rugged radiators, and the Steyr AUG already has them. Now if
you combined screw threaded barrels on a gatling gun, you've got radiators
with forced air circulation. A three, screw threaded, barreled gatling gun set
for 50 round bursts could be just the ticket for PA
use...
Tomb, what the hell.
I suggest that Water cooled barrels in the context of Power armor could be a
viable solution because of the following:
The need for sustained fire vs high volume bursts.
The need for minimal difficult to acquire consumables off of high tech worlds
where super concentrated buckeyball cooling fluid isn't really available.
The need for enhancing barrel length in excess of what you get with air cooled
weapons in any materials science context.
The possibility that you'd actually have to go up against waves of attackers
(I'll bet planners didn't expect Human Waves in Korea) especially in far away,
out of the way places where you can't get
your high-tech buckeyball lined barrels in mass quantities to replace.
The fact that water is universal, troops need it, IC engines need it, it's
easy to make, it's easy to find unless you're on Dune and generally available
where humans are. Water purification is fairly easy. Rather than needed some
superduper glycol based coolant, use
water with a bit of anti-freeze added.
I'm not talking about a Vickers (1) with the bloody tripod strapped on to some
PA troopers arm. I'm talking about a sleek barrel with a small, armored jacket
or even set of tubes running down it's length that would have a return and
supply line running to the back mounted Power and environmental unit on the
PA. Run the cooling circuits in parallel, one air circulator slightly larger
for the increased airflow.
Your barrels will last much longer if they stay a lower temperature. You won't
have to change barrels nearly as often and given realistic supply lines,
you'll be able to source a more basic type of ammo from a variety of sources
vs relying on your super supply chain all the
way back to high tech worlds where they make your super buckey-ball
materials.
With any super high rate of fire concept (multiple barrels) you're going to
still have to replace those barrels after sustained fire use (air does not
conduct heat nearly as well as water, even if your barrels are spinning
around) and you're going to run out of ammo long before. A lower, more
sustained rate with better barrel cooling seems the way to go for me. Suppose
that doctrine use two different methods at the same time (Horrors! two
different ideas in concurrent use...Can you say FW190 and BF109????!!?).
1. From a primitive world standpoint, one very well could run up against local
troops with such weapons based on the previously mentioned local technology
limits. Supply of such weapons would be simple as would the technology needed
to support such weapons. A water cooled weapon doesn't have all that much more
parts than an air cooled weapon and it's likely to have lower temperature
ranges given certain conditions.
G'day Tom,
> advantage when fighting a modern enemy
What about waves of aliens like the guys have talked about in the John Ringo
(?) books?
> For most cases, there is just little modern
I was looking sci-fi not modern ;)
> But by en large, this
I'm in between these two extremes, I want some semi-sensible
justifications (as wooden space ships don't do anything for me, but steam
powered tanks
do), but am not a necessarily super hard near sci-fi kinda person.
Thanks for the info.
Cheers
> At 1:34 PM +1100 3/12/03, Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
No, you're suppose to wave your hands about and talk about how that never
happens. Plus if it did, you'd call on the support dudes in the rear with
their mortars and stuff. Oh, you say, they got munched on the assault
landing?? BOHICA then.
> I suggest that Water cooled barrels in the context of Power armor
You really need both, and electric gattling guns deliever both.
> The need for minimal difficult to acquire consumables off of high
Then how are you going to maintain the PA?
> The need for enhancing barrel length in excess of what you get with
Most of the material in a barrel isn't to keep the pressure in. It's to keep
the barrel from drooping and to act as a heat sink.
> The possibility that you'd actually have to go up against waves of
Then again, how are you going to maintain the PA? If you can't get the
small parts to replace on the mini-gun, how are you going to get the
large parts to replace worn out components on the PA?
> The fact that water is universal, troops need it, IC engines need it,
Just don't try using it on Hoth...
> I'm not talking about a Vickers (1) with the bloody tripod strapped
Some how I suspect that the power jack built into the mounting point for a
mini-gun would be much less sensative shrapnel damage...
> Your barrels will last much longer if they stay a lower temperature.
Yet again, how are you going to maintain the PA? I wouldn't be to quick on the
ammo sourcing. Higher tech ammo opperates at higher pressure. This means that
unless your gun is externally powered, it won't cycle the weapon reliable, if
at all. So now you have both coolent lines and a power jack if
you want a reliable weapon. Why not just go with a mini-gun and get rid
of the coolent lines?
> With any super high rate of fire concept (multiple barrels) you're
Electric gattling guns both provide high rate of fire bursts AND slow
sustained rate of fire. The six barreled GE XM214 5.56 mini-gun is
typically NOT set at its maximum rate of fire of 10,000 rpm. Typically it is
set at between 400 and 4,000 rpm. That means the typical settings for a
three barreled 5.56 mini-gun would be between 200 and 5,000 rpm.
> 1. From a primitive world standpoint, one very well could run up
I still say that if you can maintian PA, you can maintain electric gattling
guns...
From: "Ryan Gill" <rmgill@mindspring.com>
> With any super high rate of fire concept (multiple barrels) you're
Hi folks,
This argument is getting a wee bit silly.
One one hand we're talking about *powered armour*, and on the other
debating whether it makes sense to use twentieth-century technology
water
or air cooled weapons. What about space/asteriod/moon surface/vacuum
use?
What about a Hoth -type ice world? What about the hot side of Venus?
Water cooled machineguns on a moon? I don't think so. And ideally you'd want
one weapon that suits *all* environments, right?
It seems to me that if you accept the idea of powered armour, then you have to
look at it in either one of two contexts:
Either it is technologically complex and requires a great deal of maintenance,
spare parts (X hundred items on the check list to break it out of stores,
etc...) in which case you're supporting it with a logistics system designed
for that level of complexity, and carting around weapons
with changable/disposable barrels coated with unobtainium buckyballs or
mechanical multiple barrels or whatever is a non-issue from a logistics
view (much more complex support for PA is already required).
OR
It is technologically complex but the technology is so clever that it requires
very little maintenance, in which case why not postulate materials technology
capable of providing barrels made with unobtanium buckyballs that never need
changing, never overheat, etc etc. Like they're gauss weapons, or uberbeamers,
or whatever...
If you're going to stretch the imagination to accept powered armour, it's
reasonable, I think, to stretch the imagination to accept that weapons
technology will develop at a similar pace, and provide better materials tech,
etc etc and allow weapons suited to the armour, and *not* which require
something as archaic as water cooling when we have unobtainium buckyballs
going for $2.50 a kilo, brewed up fresh in your friendly
Alarishi nano-foundry...........
***************************************