tiny_tanker

I think your right now that you mention it, but it was also due to it getting out in the press too. I was working with the Brits at the time and they seemed to welcome the idea of him coming.

He deployed to Iraq last year too when his unit went to Basrah, working in a forward observation post if i remember right.

They could just have it pull a trailer mounted generator run air conditioner unit

That would be he crackling sound you hear in the video then, all the rounds self detonating. This would be great for places like Balad AB, where they get attacked pretty much everyday, theres no built up areas near the base so the slim chance of collateral damage is mitigated.

Peter, I think the rounds self detonate at preset altitudes, not fool proof of course but it should limit collateral damage and its a fair sight better than our troops getting hit. Does anyone know how dangerous returning AAA fire is? Maybe some figures from WW2?

What will stop an EFP? They should go through the side of an M1 pretty well to if I'm not mistaken. But an M1117 would at least provide better protection and be easier to upgrade.

Maybe we should invest in more M1117's they seem beefy enough to take on the punishment and are made to add armor too, also they have the V shaped hull for mines and IED's.

Speaking of the suspension, I saw an up-armored HMMWV lose the front suspension while going about 50mph on a convoy, surprised us all the see it veer off the road towards some trees! I don't think the occupants enjoyed the ride much either. This makes me wonder if the added weight combined with constant operation isn't taking its toll, and might cause an increase in accidents in the near feature.

Why adapt the M-16/M-4 to a new round? It would probably be more cost ant time effective to create a new weapon, since you'd be replacing all of the significant pieces on the others anyway. Why not get a more reliable weapon out of the deal. I don't really see that happening though, as its been said before, why go for small gains in performance when your weapons still effective. It won't be until there is a significant increase in body armor effectiveness that any changes come about, and then we might see a completely new round come into existence. On that Barret .416 round, you have to keep in mind that would mean replacing thousands of weapons not the hundreds of thousands you would for a combat rifle. So its more feasible for that to happen. Another thing to consider is its penetration capabilities as compared to .50cal since it is supposed to be an anti-material weapon. It would be nice to see some technical data on this. EDIT: Ok I should stop being lazy... Without doing to much research, I see that our current Barret .50cal's could easily be switched to the .416 with a simple barrel swap. Though it looks like you loose some of your weight but get better muzzle velocity. [ November 28, 2007, 01:37 AM: Message edited by: tiny_tanker ]

Aren't troops only issued level 3 sapi plates? I've seen that Dragunov video before, its amazing what adding a few more inches to an AK-47 barrel will do to muzzle velocity, add some AP rounds to the equation and your in a world of hurt. Though I think a few rounds from a 7.62, or 30-06 rifle would destroy a sapi plate.

Because the 5.56 doesn't have the penetration power of the 7.62. You also don't use a SMAW or 40mm to defeat a soldier in body armor. Theres also the fact that 7.62 ammo is easily and readily mass produced and there are quite a few weapons already designed to use it that are very modern.

Well if Sci-fi writers are correct we'll see soldiers carrying around .50cal assault rifles some day soon. In the mean time I think luderbamsen is right, well transition back to the 7.62.

They are so heavy everywhere (bottom sides) that it counter acts the top weight... unless you drive into a ditch or something crazy like that.

The Marines have been using the Cougar for a while, so it should be added with them. These are the HMMWV of the future after all.

Here's an interesting article from china-defense.com about there RPG-7 variant. It shows there HE-incendiary warhead that looks alot like the one in MikeyD's picture. Sounds like a nasty round, it uses the ring on the front to bounce up on impact before detonating and shooting out hundreds of tiny steel balls. But the original HE warhead would be effective in killing exposed personnel and shattering armor and maybe even destroying the slat armor so a HEAT round could rip right through (if they could hit anywhere near the same spot that is).

I've seen that style of warhead before, I thought they might be some sort of HE. A bouncing RPG round would be nasty beyond belief. What are those things at the very top of the picture? Tandem warheads or something?

Actually dima I never said I served in Iraq you made that assumption on your own, and you know what they say about those. But enough of that, back to the topic on hand. It would make sense that they would try to utilize tandem warhead versions whenever able, not just to defeat slat armor but also the reactive armor on Bradley's. I'm not real familiar with them (they aren't prevalent in Iraq or Afghanistan so I never spent time on them) is it just a replacement for the the original fuze, in other words can you add it to any existing setup?

I actually do know a thing or two about RPG-7 and how it is designed (that includes original russian docs). I am sorry to inform you - there are no wires to crush. First, because there are no real wires on that grenade that run from fuse to detonator. Secondly the way this counter-measure works is by shorting the whole circuit so that the current produced by the fuse doesn't effectively reach the end detonator, not by breaking the circuit (there is a difference). Actually this is exactly what it says on page 19 of the doc than Flamingknives refered to. For more info, please check that document and diagram on how PG-7V or PG-7VM round is constructed. A lot of people (not just on this board) get their information from sources that are just as uninformed. And then they think they are experts on the subject and continue to preach incorrect information. As a result we get threads here by so-called "professionals" telling developers how things should really be made. Ironic, isn't it </font>

LOL! Where do you get your info from? "Crushing it" ? That's how that fuse activates to begin with. </font>

The slat armor should defeat pretty much any RPG-7 from what I've been able to tell, it exploits the odd fuze placement in the warhead by crushing it, I don't think theres a work around since the fuze is internal.

If the driver got killed do you think anyone would actually want to or be able to take over? Seems a bit strange to me since thats a very well protected position on the Stryker and that portion of the vehicle would probably be pretty torn up.

Well a tank is designed to shoot the cannon at other tanks, if the person that loads the cannon is dead you can't really do that.... so yeah to the "mission" of a tank the loader is less expendable since the gunner can call his own targets if he needed to. Now having said that, you really don't want to lose anyone on a tank crew, which is why they put all of those safety measures into place. Now I'm not a tanker like M1A1 (he might be able to put it into better words then me), but I know a few of them.

This raises the other point of, is the reactive armor factored into the game even if its not show? I'd imagine it gives a boost to protection if its not being considered.

There was a loooooong discussion on this a while back, where some good info for both sides was brought up. From what I remember the temperature issue was related to glue failure, which was resolved by using wire I think. I don't foresee anything good happening for DS with the army, since they are clearly vested in Interceptor. On a side note, the Air Force is still testing DS, and they are actually using Paracleete (sp?) armor right now. I haven't heard any complaints about it.

But maybe Global Hawkes could work as a recon before battle so you can see the rough intelligence in briefing? </font>