Next release: Nato-Modul!

[jeffsmith]

BTW

Not that anyone but me cares

Steve just made his 12,000th post

[Sequoia]

BTW

Not that anyone but me cares

Steve just made his 12,000th post

That still would be 9000 behind Dorosh.

[flamingknives]

The US armed forces calls their FN Minimis SAWs, with the associated nomenclature for their operators

The British forces call them light machine guns, carried and used by light machine gunners.

I see no reason why weapons like this shouldn't be termed LMGs. The complaint that a machine gun must fire "rifle bullets" makes no sense to me. An M16 is a rifle. An L85 is a rifle. A G36 is a rifle. Therefore 5.56mm is a rifle bullet. I do hope that we are not going to run off and fetishise over two point zero six millimeters again.

A machine gun would still be a machine gun if it were chambered for .22LR.

Comparing MG3 and MG4, what is the difference?

Both are belt-fed, both feature a quick-change barrel (and from what I can see, the MG4 has a better one), both have a bipod. How is the MG3 anymore a machine gun "In the true sense" than the MG4? What is "the true sense" anyway.

[Andrew H.]

You guys have *completely* misunderstood the revolutionary nature of the MG4.

The new German doctrine calls for every 3 MG4s to be accompanied by the KQLLS1 - the artificial spring barrel quenching system. In addition to cooling overheated MG4 barrels, the artificial spring also provides a source of drinking water for the platoon, a means of heating MREs (3 heated MG4 barrels simultaneously placed in the spring will bring it to the boiling point), and may be left behind to provide a source of water for the indigenous population, which assists in nation building.

[MARS42]

I hope we will see a german Sniper Team with the G82.

Barett with german optics!

And the G22, of course:

Maybe interesting: The german handheld-weapons!

http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLtzD0AMlB2AbO-pFw0aCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUAqzYpIA!!/delta/base64xml/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS80SVVFLzZfMTZfODFJ?yw_contentURL=%2FC1256F870054206E%2FW2693DPG635INFODE%2Fcontent.jsp

[Lethaface]

interesting, on the website deutschesheer.de the following thing about the gepard is written:

"Wegen seiner Panzerung und der Fähigkeit zur Selbstverteidigung wird er vorrangig zum Schutz gepanzerter Kampftruppen im beweglich geführten Gefecht eingesetzt." (1)

Now I can't understand if they mean that its good or bad in self defence and armour; but at least it should operate along the gepanzerter kampftruppen which means we could/should see them in the Module?

1. http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLt_AxAslB2AbO-pFw0aCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUAoqUmVw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzE2XzhBQw!!

[ASL Veteran]

interesting, on the website deutschesheer.de the following thing about the gepard is written:

"Wegen seiner Panzerung und der Fähigkeit zur Selbstverteidigung wird er vorrangig zum Schutz gepanzerter Kampftruppen im beweglich geführten Gefecht eingesetzt." (1)

Now I can't understand if they mean that its good or bad in self defence and armour; but at least it should operate along the gepanzerter kampftruppen which means we could/should see them in the Module?

1. http://www.deutschesheer.de/portal/a/heer/kcxml/04_Sj9SPykssy0xPLMnMz0vM0Y_QjzKLNzSLt_AxAslB2AbO-pFw0aCUVH1fj_zcVH1v_QD9gtyIckdHRUUAoqUmVw!!/delta/base64xml/L3dJdyEvd0ZNQUFzQUMvNElVRS82XzE2XzhBQw!!

Gepard Shmepard. If you want a real man's AAA weapon you've gotta go with this baby right here:

20mm of lovin' coming at you at 3,000 rounds per minute. The towed version - has better sound on this video

It's especially effective if you want to kill insurgents and leave no evidence

[akd]

Gepard Shmepard. If you want a real man's AAA weapon you've gotta go with this baby right here:

20mm of lovin' coming at you at 3,000 rounds per minute. The towed version - has better sound on this video

It's especially effective if you want to kill insurgents and leave no evidence

Hmm...Gepard delivers twice the weight of fire out to over 3 times the range in the same amount of time. Sure about that choice?

[ASL Veteran]

Hmm...Gepard delivers twice the weight of fire out to over 3 times the range in the same amount of time. Sure about that choice?

I'll give you the range. I'm not sure about the weight of fire in the same amount of time. The Vulcan is putting out at least three times as many rounds per second (or maybe six times if the 500 rpm figure is combined ROF for both guns on the Gepard) and the 20mm isn't all that small. Like all these types of vehicles though they are all basically obsolete now. No way can the turrets traverse fast enough to track a jet and a helicopter can take you out beyond your effective range anyway. Nice to keep around for looks though.

Besides, the Vulcan tracers look like a flame thrower. I'm a little biased though - I can't go against my boys

[Lethaface]

why they never built an GAU-8 AAA ?

GMC would have to make an even bigger ride, but heck thats what theyre good at right?

[akd]

I'll give you the range. I'm not sure about the weight of fire in the same amount of time. The Vulcan is putting out at least three times as many rounds per second (or maybe six times if the 500 rpm figure is combined ROF for both guns on the Gepard) and the 20mm isn't all that small. Like all these types of vehicles though they are all basically obsolete now. No way can the turrets traverse fast enough to track a jet and a helicopter can take you out beyond your effective range anyway. Nice to keep around for looks though.

Besides, the Vulcan tracers look like a flame thrower. I'm a little biased though - I can't go against my boys

Combined rate of fire for the Gepard is 1100 rpm. Projectile weight is 550g. 10,833 g/sec.

M168 rate of fire is 3,000 rpm. Projectile weight is 101g. 5,050 g/sec.

[Flanker15]

Combined rate of fire for the Gepard is 1100 rpm. Projectile weight is 550g. 10,833 g/sec.

M168 rate of fire is 3,000 rpm. Projectile weight is 101g. 5,050 g/sec.

Combined rate of fire for the Tunguska is 4000-5000 RPM. Projectile weight 389g. Up to 32,000 g/sec.

Does Russian doctrine call for a SPAA to be attached to the HQ unit of every tank battalian?

[Combatintman]

The deployment of all AD assets will depend on the threat, priorities and the assets available. As such high ticket items as the ZSU-23/4, Tunguska, SA-9, SA-13, Gepard et al are thin on the ground they will be focussed on the priority areas.

Off the top of my head I seem to recall that ZSU-23/4 and SA-9/SA-13 were regimental assets with 4 x ZSU-23/4 and 4 x SA-9/SA-13 in the Regimental Air Defence Battery. So given that the Regimental Commander has a problem to solve because he has 3 manoeuvre battalions to protect, his own HQ, his SP Artillery Battalion and his lines of communication and as you can see - the means to protect them are thin on the ground.

So are you going to see these things far forward? I suspect not and based on years of exercising against this threat the default was that if you identified ZSU-23/4, SA-9 or SA-13 then 9 times out of 10 you could confidently assess that the Regimental HQ or the Artillery Battalion were not too far away.

Luckily, after WW2 the MANPAD was invented and these were issued liberally with each rifle platoon likely to have one. This is the sort of the capability you are likely to see furthest forward.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

why they never built an GAU-8 AAA ?

GMC would have to make an even bigger ride, but heck thats what theyre good at right?

Well, the Dutch did use the GAU-8 for their shipborne Goalkeeper_CIWS

[Secondbrooks]

So are you going to see these things far forward? I suspect not and based on years of exercising against this threat the default was that if you identified ZSU-23/4, SA-9 or SA-13 then 9 times out of 10 you could confidently assess that the Regimental HQ or the Artillery Battalion were not too far away.

Or then they are just decoys. Ofcourse there are loads of other things which has potential to expose regimental HQ and similar. So identified AA-battery is preferably just one piece of intelligence material.

Granted i know about intelligence and counter-intelligence (if decoys can be put under that name) as much as pig understands about pearls and diamonds.

[ASL Veteran]

Combined rate of fire for the Gepard is 1100 rpm. Projectile weight is 550g. 10,833 g/sec.

M168 rate of fire is 3,000 rpm. Projectile weight is 101g. 5,050 g/sec.

Interesting. I'm not sure how relevant that is to how effective a weapon is in the anti aircraft role though. For example the Crusader 155mm artillery system apparently fired off 12 155mm rounds per minute at 43.88 kg per projectile before it was cancelled. So let's see if my math is right - 12 x 43.88 = 526.56 kg = 526,560 grams. Divide those grams by 60 and you get 8,776 grams per second. Wow, that's almost as good as the Gepard and substantially better than the Vulcan. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't think using the Crusader 155mm artillery system to shoot down fighter jets would be the most efficient use of that system

As long as your AAA system uses a projectile that is sufficiently powerful enough to destroy aircraft, then it's the rate of fire that's the most important factor. High rates of fire give the gunner a better chance of hitting the target. Fighter jets are difficult to hit and the lead time you have to give on a fighter jet flying at full sonic boom speed is pretty dramatic. If you miscalculate your aim point and you end up behind the jet you are never going to recover and lead it again. Your traverse simply isn't going to keep up. You are only going to get one 'shot' at it. Your only hope is to get a solid stream of 'projectiles' out in front of the jet and hope it flies into them. Not an easy task by any standards. So - I'm sticking with the Vulcan with it's superior rate of fire over the Gepard, although the longer range of the Gepard is nice. In the grand scheme of things the poster who mentioned the MANPADS is on target. Two men and a missile is the way to go these days. AAA has it's place, but it's not going to be your primary air defense asset.

[c3k]

Hmmm, traverse rate vs. aircraft speed. That's a straight out angular velocity issue. The whole problem revolves around the range. (Oh, how I love a subtle pun...)

Anyway, no aircraft goes much above 600 knots on the deck these days. (Mach 2+ is only possible in less dense air. At this point I could wax poetic about the capabilities, now lost, of the old F-105 on the deck, but that's neither here nor there.)

Approximate 1 nautical mile as 6,000 ft. Therefore, 600 knots ~ 1,000 feet/second.

If the aircraft is at a range of 1 mile (for simplicity, due to ground weapons using statute measurements, let's call it 5,000 feet.), the apparent angular velocity is about 78 degrees per second.

Hmmm, if the aircraft is much beyond 1 mile from the AAA site, the flight time of the shell would make a hit quite rare. An average shell velocity from muzzle to aircraft of about 1,000 fps means a time to impact on the order of 5 seconds...or more.

Any range less than 1 mile makes the angular velocity higher.

All presupposes that the aircraft streaks across at a right angle to the gun site and maintains its tangential vector. All this changes if the aircraft is approaching the site....

Ken

[Elmar Bijlsma]

It's m/s, not f/s for the muzzle velocity. At roughly 1100m/s I'd say that anyone getting within a mile of a tracking Gepard is in serious trouble.

Computers do the work and angles are less relevant to it then to us. It can calculate the path of rounds and aircraft easy enough. In the roughly 1.5 seconds from barrel to intercept point the aircraft isn't going to do any dodging worth mentioning.

MANPADS may be cheaper and more convenient, but don't underestimate the capability of Ye Olde Cannon.

[Lee]

Yes, quite right, 1100m/s is over 3,300 feet per second, that's moving right along even by rifle standards and far faster than the jet. The Gepard gunner would be tracking and leading the fire enough to bring the rounds into an intercept, any aircraft at that range is likely going to be eating lead. Also, as was pointed out, if the aircraft is somewhat approaching the Gepard, or has just flown nearby and is beginning to depart, it's in even more trouble.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

The only problem is that the radiating Gepard ate an ARM long before any aircraft came into range.

[Lee]

Gepard gunners are smart enough not to sit in open fields with their targeting radars continuously on waiting to draw attention from Russian Iron Hand pilots. They operate on stealth and ambush and target enemy aircraft in the vicinity from positions of concealment, with little chance for warning before they fire.

[Lethaface]

Well, the Dutch did use the GAU-8 for their shipborne Goalkeeper_CIWS

Ah!, great minds think alike

[dan/california]

The far bigger issue with gun based AA is it has a fairly serious altitude limitation. And you can drop most precision guided weapons from a lot higher than said limitation.

If your opponent can't afford PGMs they probably can't afford the zillion other wildly expensive things it takes to run a real air force and probably aren't a real threat anyway. Two of the most important expenses are fuel and maintenance support for sufficient training by the way.

[pascalywood]

I really hope that we will get to see some Canadian soldiers in the NATO module and that when you zoom on the infantry, you will hear them shout "Lets go tabarnac!"

[Lee]

dan/california: Yes, but in a high threat environment (which is what's being discussed at the moment) fighters looking to strike targets can't afford to just freely fly up high because that opens them up to all sorts of possible SAM fire, very dangerous. Instead they fly low and try to stay out of sight, which, of course, puts them in an ideal location to get shot down by the Gepard.