121–130 of 148 posts
Maybe it is time to reinvent the wheel? Put the heaviest/extra loads on a fat bike or a wheelbarrow or 1-2 wheel trolley to be dragged in turns. You are unlikely to go slower than with +50kg backpack.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ammo is really heavy Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more ener…
>Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? Welcome to 1944. This is exactly why full power rifle cartridges were replaced with intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39 and 5.56x45. Kinetic energy is only loosely associated with effectiveness, terminal ballistics matters just as much if not more. In the real world intermediate calibers kill people dead enough reliably enou…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ammo is really heavy Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more ener…
Compare the cost of a traditional round to the manufacturing cost of a self-propelled bullet. And that's ignoring R&D entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always felt bad for you weapons guys. We had a guy in our company that barely met the height requirement. He was like, 5'3" and 95lbs soaking wet. He was a machine gunner and he humped his heart out but it was painful to watch.
I just read Rob O'Neill's [1] book [2] and in it recounts an anecdote about when they were preparing to attack a building. They fired a couple of rockets at it, and were readying to attack when the guy responsible for carrying the ammo (who was also on the smaller side) asked if they could fire another one so he would have less ammo to carry back to base. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_J._O'Neill_(U.S._Navy…
"Okay, so who made entry on this building?" "Carl Gustav"
I’ve also led and conducted Lean StartUp focused sprints to work this specific problem, internal to defence
Weight carried by soldiers is a critical problem.
I’ve carried in excess of 50kg on Operations, verified.
During my Infantry Platoon Commander’s Course we carried in excess of 50kg for weeks, verified.
I’m 78kg and carry 25kg for 50-70km per week(in 10-20km increments, done for over 1 year) on the beach for fitness.
My own long term personal experience mimics the article linked Project Payne.
Carrying 1/3 body weight is easily trainable and sustainable.
Carrying 2/3 body weight, especially over undulating or complex terrain is a recipe for long-term joint/orthopaedic disaster.
I have peers in their 30’s who have had hip replacements due to injuries sustained from sustained carriage of too much weight in training.
The article mentions 2 things:
1)“Soldiers carry 100 pounds of the lightest kit possible”
2)UK Army Project Payne, too much weight carried “just in case”
New capabilities particularly around communication networks carried by all subunits(dismounted section/squid level) are increasing weight significantly. The “weight carried” modelling has been done, and their is no current solution.
In my experience, the ever increasing weight carried by dismounted Infantry is not risk aversion as stated in the article, but risk shift.
While it’s not a tortoise versus hare binary choice, it is a continuum of weight carried.
Turning dismounted Infantry soldiers into armoured tortoises not only shifts the risk towards increased long-term orthopedic/muscular/skeletal health risk of soldiers, but increased risk in lower operational capacity/capability due to reduced speed/range of operation.
In light of politicised efforts to nudge induction of more women in combat arms, the increased average weight carried combined with decreasing average stature and fitness levels of soldiers is a guarantee of increased long-term health consequences.
But the risk of crippling 100 soldiers tomorrow is viewed as acceptable over 1 soldier killed on Operations today.
I would suggest a machine learning system to log and analyze weight carried both in training and on operations that incorporates all known environmental and operational factors to recommend what is carried and what is left behind, to reduce the “just in case” factor, but I believe culture would have to change as well or risk a Patrol/Section/Platoon NCO filling the void again.
Personally, I’m for starting from scratch again and looking towards the highly effective RLI of the 1970’s, at least in terms of counter insurgency.
Rifle, 5 magazines, two water bottles, two grenades, wearing shorts and high top sneakers.
More hare, less tortoise. Much like current modern special operations direct action doctrine applied to conventional forces.
But as we shift from counter-insurgency focus back towards peer or near peer combined arms capable threats, this is not going to happen.
We will continue to carry more weight unless senior leadership, unit command, and subunit NCOs we can trust rapid “just in time” battlefield logistics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ammo is really heavy Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more ener…
IIRC, self propelled bullets were tried before, and they found that the amount of propellant that can be held in the bullet is so low that it severely limits the velocity of the rounds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounds like you never got to use the original SAW barrel. We got issued those stubby paratrooper barrels while in Iraq, which are nice for maneuverability, but it was at the cost of accuracy. The M249 was always a piece of junk when it came to reliability, which is why weapons guys are there with 240s. So long as the tempo is kept up for flanking maneuvers, and everybody doesn't try to establish a fixing base of f…
The irony is that the Minimi ( M249 ) was originally developed by FN as a Baby MAG ( M240 ) to bring GPMG firepower to the squad. It was originally chambered in 7.62x51 It was rechambered in 6x45 and then 5.56x45 for the US SAW competition. It never seemed to adapt well to the smaller rounds, less power for the mechanism.
I think it was a poor idea in the first place to push a beltfed machinegun down to the fireteam level. People generally have a misconception about what machineguns are for - while volume of fire certainly figures into effective suppression, accuracy is more important. An effectively employed machinegun should be treated like some kind of sniper shotgun, where you can put 50% of your shots into a vehicle sized target a mile away. You aren't going to be doing that while playing the I'm-up-he-sees-me-I'm-down game.
Ah, an article I can comment on. I was an Infantry officer for 6 years and did all the normal schooling and a deployment. This is a pretty well done article. Here's some general ideas to keep in mind. - Most dismounted missions are run from trucks or an established forward operating base, so you don't carry a huge rucksack most of the time because you can just go back to your base. - Like the article states, even a d…
> Ammo is really heavy Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? One inherent limitation of firearms is that all the energy is released inside the weapon, which has, then, to dissipate the heat and remaining gases and particles. If bullets are self-propelled, a larger part of that output can be released outside the weapon, allowing it to be faster and impart more ener…
If bullets are self-propelled, they are slower and less stable in the initial portion of their flight, which makes them much less accurate and gives longer time of flight assuming same top speed (which, for a similar quantity of propellant, isn't reasonable anyway; having a gun barrel is an advantage here), rocket and rocket-assisted projectiles work well enough when you can afford less inherent ballistic accuracy because of large targets or self-guidance, but neither of those is really practical for infantry smallarms.
2014 top NHL draft pick can't do one pull-up https://www.nhl.com/news/no-pull-ups-no-problem-for-top-nhl-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Wouldn't it be possible to carry the same amount of kinetic energy with lighter ammunition? Welcome to 1944. This is exactly why full power rifle cartridges were replaced with intermediate cartridges like 7.62x39 and 5.56x45. Kinetic energy is only loosely associated with effectiveness, terminal ballistics matters just as much if not more. In the real world intermediate calibers kill people dead enough reliably enou…
Maybe a full power cartridge with a smaller/lighter bullet would be just as deadly as an intermediate cartridge with a heavier bullet. If you detonate the charge within the weapon and it produces a delayed detonation of a propulsion charge immediately after it leaves the barrel, it can effectively pack more energy than the equivalent cartridge with a lighter, faster bullet.
You are basically describing this[1][2][3] and it's not really that great at anything in particular (especially not military use) and are primarily used by people who want to shoot a trophy buck that's 400yd away. IMO they're kind of the hipster beer of the rifle world. They do little a boring old Bud won't do but they sure put a bigger hole in your wallet.
Read up on the history of intermediate cartridges[4] and assault rifles (not "assault weapons", the former is a technical term, the latter is anything but). Earlier intermediate cartridges (were a standard size .30-ish cal bullet on top of a 30-40mm case instead of a 50-70mm case of a traditional full power rifle round. Later intermediate cartridges such as 5.56x45 and 5.45x39 (the Russians stuck a smaller bullet on top of the 7.62x39 cartridge) stick an even smaller bullet on top of an intermediate size case because the smaller bullet going faster does the job just as well with less weight (I'm painting with a really broad brush here). These 2nd gen intermediate cartridges are what I think you're getting at but you're hung up on the rifle cartridge. For simply killing people 0-350yd away you don't need that much bang, it's actually detrimental because it's extra weight and makes the firearm harder to handle.
You also need thinking in terms of energy. All the energy in the world is useless if you can't transfer it to the target properly. It doesn't take much energy dissipated in a human torso to immediately incapacitate and kill. Better understanding of the needs of combat troops and nature of engagements and terminal ballistics is what led to the switch from intermediate cartridges starting in the 1940s.
Of course you have to remember that everything is still a trade-off in cartridge design and the nature of the engagements you expect still plays a large role in what the "best" tool for the job is and often the difference is only marginal at best.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Winchester_Short_Magnum
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.270_Weatherby_Magnum
[3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.223_Winchester_Super_Short_Ma...