"Power Armor and IFVs" Topic

So I had this thought today and thought I would post it and see what others thought of the idea.

Once power armor reached the battlefield, we will see some interesting reorganizing.

One of the thoughts I had was the roll of IFVs and PAs. IFV will still be in high demand because the ability to quickly and safely move troops isn't going to change. However, PA will be slower the IFV and I find it unlikely that the guys on the ground would want to sacrifice the support for speed.

That lead me to the thought that you could modify the IFV roll and add a station in the back for the PA trooper to "dock". He can now provide fire support for the IFV and having another set of eyes in the open isn't a bad thing. He can use the IFV's power plant to recharge and use it as limited protection if repairs are needed.

I'm kinda picturing a stryker with an extra platform and side armor on the back behind the ramp. The PA steps into that platform and is locked into place. He still stands tall enough above the rear section to use shoulder fired weapons and possibly arm mounted. You could also mount him backwards to provide rear support and compliment the forward remote turret. The IFV pulls up and he steps off allowing the rear door to drop and the troops pour out using the PA as additional cover.

It would also be interesting to see a PAFV that didn't carry ground troops but just had 4 or 5 slots for PA to dock in and get a fast ride across town.

One of the Posleen books (by Jonh Ringo) had a platoon of PA troops in transport on a commandeered school bus.

Depending on the roll of the PA (infantry support, or PA only assault unit), they might have their own dedicated transport.

IFV will still be in high demand because the ability to quickly and safely move troops isn't going to change. However, PA will be slower the IFV

But if the PA docks to the IFV the extra weight will now make the IFV slower and a juicier target won't it?
Thus making the IFV and the PA less distinct in their own roles?

i always liked the ogre/GEV gevpersonal carrier , a large open GEV which allowed the troops to use their jumps packs off of

Only if the IFV isn't designed to take the extra load. There would be compromises. For instance, the IFV would probably loose some seats for infantry. It might only carry 5 guys and a PA instead of 9 or 10.

Your IFV might not do 60 anymore. Maybe 45 or 50 mph. Still significant speed increase for the PA. Top speed of a PA would be like 20mph.

It would also solve some early power issues. A PA might only be able to operate for an hour without the need to recharge. The IFV makes sure the PA is only used when its needed and not spending all it's fuel/power getting places.

I designed an APC for emu2020 (a fellow TMPer) that was designed to provide fast transport for six PA-slash-infantry walkers. The thing was essentially a flatbed with a spine running down the center; when they PA sat down against the spine, they would automatically hook up to recharging stations to top off their power, oxygen, etc. They were facing outward, so they could use their own weaponry to defend the vehicle until it was time to dismount and fight on foot.

I'd personally opt for a compromise design between CorSecEng's and Javelin's – and it would be 'easy'.

Take an IFV design, and add running boards and clamps along each side.

This allows the center section and aft ramp to be used for non-suited infantry.

Of course, the PA troops might not like serving as stand-off armor for the IFV, but it's a compromise.

It makes sense, if you suppose that level of differentiation in speed between the IFVs and the PA. I don't necessarily buy it, but then I like Heinlein style PA that can jump.

Doug

What about IFVs that have an open compartment (like a pickup truck) at the back with a turret just rear of the driving compartment.

That way, the troops can get on/off quickly, add supporting fire, gain the speed of the IFV and still be armoured (due to the powered armour).

Either that or just armour plate the cab of a tipper truck :)

One of the other assumptions would come from deployment range, not just deployment speed.

for example, Abrams tanks have about 10 hours of operation time before they're out of fuel. That's an out&back range of (potentially) 200 miles (with ~30min of combat, assuming 4x consumption in combat). If your powered armor has about the same endurance, it doesn't necessarily need a transport. Besides, tanks can't outrun their logistics columns. However, note that even tanks are generally transported by truck or train outside of combat.

If your powered armor can more or less keep up with tanks without assistance, why bother with anything fancier than a couple trucks to haul the non-combat supplies (food, tents, etc). Just have the power armor ride on the bed of the HEMTT!

There was an anime called Blue Gender. It was fairly mediocre, but they had a nifty set of transports for their power armor. Pop in a DVD from netflix and hit mute. the eyecandy is pretty good

An Abrams has a BIG gas tank. Were do you put that much fuel in a PA suit? If they were supporting armor then they could just ride on the tanks. Kinda like B-tech elementals riding on omni-mechs.

I just don't see PA supporting armor a lot. I'm kinda thinking of a setup like this.

2 x IFV with 9-10 troops each
1 x IFV (PA Carrier) with 5-6 troops (possibly command element)
1 x PA

This setup would let you cruise down city streets quickly and respond to hot spots. If the infantry have AT weapons then it could even hold it's own against some armored elements.

PA would bring a lot of extra options to the table as support. They could carry mortars, AT assets, and heavy mgs. The infantry will be doing what they do best. Holding positions and clearing buildings. The IFVs and PAs will be the perimeter security and provide quick transport.

Maybe some heavier assault teams that are PA only or advanced elements that are dropped into a hot zone to secure an LZ or something. The rest of the company is dropped in and they switch back to support rolls.

Would like to point out that PA that is worn is pretty much limited to near human speeds due to physical limitations of the human operating it.

I have pondered this question as well. And the real question of what a PA capable IFV looks like is really dependent on the TO&E. Meaning how are you deploying your AP equipped troops with lighter troops. The specifics will stem from that.

Again, depends on your underlying assumptions about your power armor. A landmate, or an Infinity TAG, or one of Zandris4's power suits, should be capable of running at close to 15mph for most of a day (2x military double-time, and I could double-time for 8 hours when I was in shape), and if your trooper is a marathon runner, more like 25mph for a couple hours at the cost of a 'blown' trooper.

Some of the 'extender' exoskeletons are capable of 3-minute miles with user-exertion levels on par with a 7-minute mile (I could do those for almost an hour *before I started to slow down*). Those 'extenders' add ~4" of height to the wearer, basically for a super-high-efficiency spring to do the work of the Achilles tendon.

One of those flight-capable Landmates is a whole different story, and a jump-capable suit like Heinleins could be capable of higher speeds yet.

Some of the 'extender' exoskeletons are capable of 3-minute miles with user-exertion levels on par with a 7-minute mile (I could do those for almost an hour *before I started to slow down*). Those 'extenders' add ~4" of height to the wearer, basically for a super-high-efficiency spring to do the work of the Achilles tendon.

This explains the battle heels on Infinity females.

Larger PA would simply be Mechs – like the TAGs in Infinity. The Robotech / Mospeada series also had an interesting take on PA – the bike transformed into a PA.

Why would PA not support armor? IFV is armor, just an infantry version of it. If they are not with the heavys, then they are not with IFV either. Most of the time IFV is very high on a tanks target list. So they will go where the IFV can go.

If you have a power source that can make PA go, then you can scale it up to make tanks go. Same thing with weapons. If it makes sense on a pA suit, then a big version make sense on a Tank.

Other than in very special circumstances, combined arms is going to trash one trick ponys every time. Unless you are in some odd scifi thng and the writer wants it that way. Hard scify, they are going to cooperate, works better that way, Scifantisy, do what you want.

owen

I think tank/vehicle support as a main duty for PA troops, like tank riders but better equipped to survive. The flipside is anti-armour roles, at the moment I'm modifying a Zandris pendekar suit with a large shoulder mounted railgun for just this role. As for transport I see them riding or being dropped into battle, rather than walking as even if the operator could just strap in for the ride it would still be jarring (assuming his legs slide into the leg armour) and impact combat performance (like a forced march in an ancients battle) finding a model big enough to fit more than a couple suits is tricky another project is to convert an Old Crow transport vtol, no module just winches to "fast rope" on to the battle field.

If I was facing them, I'd invest in a load of few thousand dollar semi-auto anti-material rifles or Boys' anti-tank rifles firing a few dollar AP rounds and watch those million-dollar powersuits fall as I picked them off the sides of the vehicles.

Depends on how tough your powersuits are. When modern body armor can stop .338 Lapua or .416 Barrett, I would expect powered armor to be able to stop .50BMG, maybe even 14.5mm.

Now you need to hit them with serious gunfire, because the suits are immune to small arms.

@Lardie the Great: One of the Airfix 1/48 projects looked useful for 28mm purposes, the Supacat HMT600 Coyote.

PA tank riders, Red Army style. Otherwise a big tracked transporter that packs a autocannon or pulse plazer in a remote turret, and a front mounted assault gun or rocket mortar. Kinda like the evil love child of a Marder IFV and an ISU-152. In open country, a large ACV flatbed with some defensive/ fire support armament…Much like the vehicles from Dragon's Heaven's "Thousand Year War".

There are advantages to an unarmored PA suit, like better load capacity. But, I am not convinced that it would be cost effective. Without armor they are just a very much more expensive infantryman.

In war everything is a trade off. Sure transport can move you faster, but you are more easily spotted. And the group of you in the vehicle is more easily hit. PA can carry more, but that piuts more assets in on package. Better to aamor it to get better and longer use out of what you ahve. I love Scifi powerarmor, but am not sure how it will play out in the real world.

Owen

"I love Scifi powerarmor, but am not sure how it will play out in the real world."

You might get an idea of how it would play out by…wargaming. :)

Lion, that's a great suggestion for a vehicle, I could build an enclosed cabin upfront for crew comfort. Another possible use for PA is behind the lines raiding, like the original SAS raids e.g small group of suits shooting up an airfield.

Artraccoon, not how it would work tacticaly, but how it would work if at all as a peice of equipment. I can postulate a set of Powered armor that is as resistant to tank main gun rounds as the tank it self. Seen that done in scifi before. But that does not mean it is actualy really possible. In fact I am quite sure it is impossible. So I see PA as a sort of super infantry rather than as tiny but super powerful vehicles.

And yes, I do actualy wargame from time to time, odd past time for somebody on TMP. At the moment though i am waiting for TooFatLardies new scifi set to come out. So colleting a bit and arguing a lot.

Owen

Knowing if the tech will work or be practical can be kinda hard to predict. At the dawn of the tank, lots of military experts were sceptical of both the tech and battlefield usefulness. With that in mind, what would they have thought if you told them about an M-1A2 Abrams?

"Poppycock!!" "Outlandish!!" "Stop reading Mr. Wells'stories!!"

On the other side of the coin, sometimes the new tech doesn't live up to the hype. For example, Sagger and TOW ATGMs were supposed to make tanks extinct decades ago. Then back in the 1980's attack helicopters were supposed to be the end of tanks. Tanks are still here and continue to evolve, and ATGMs & attack helicopters have become just additions to the weapons inventory & tactical options.

What timeframe of powersuit/PA are we talking about? 20years? 100years? Today tech makes a PA impractical, but 50 years down the road it might be very easy…or considered very stupid because of some other un-foreseen weapon system development. Development of tech and/or doctrine may rush the idea forward or push it back centuries, or even never. DaVinci came up with the idea of an AFV, but a marginally practical AFV wasn't around until about the time of the Boer War. More than a decade after the Boer War and it's armored traction engines, track laying AFVs were still a questionable enterprise, but we still got "Mother". I figure that PA development( or even if they will be developed) will follow the general path that the tanks took. We are still in the early days of walking vehicles with things like "Big Dog" robots, legged lumber harvesters, and all the toys that DARPA is playing with. But the way things are going we may yet see the current "soldier load enhancement frames", start getting some protection, then built in weapons, enclosed NBC systems, and so on until we end up with SF's power armor.

I personally love PAs, and many different versions. But my fave types are the SF3D(MaK), Maddox, Appleseed,& Starship Trooper(I love the Japanese version of the suit)PAs. But in my book they are just another weapon system, like tanks, attack VTOLS, artillery, mecha, etc…and are such fun to add to the tabletop battlefield.

That's the problem with forecasts I seem to remember the Abrams A1 being the last American MBT due to the tank becoming obsolete, but guess what tanks still have a future. I could imagine a battlesuit being viable in 50 years, looking how fast tech moves, possibly quicker if you had a real reason to chuck cash at it, remember the B-1 was declared to be too expensive and not only did they build it but also the even costlier (and cooler) B2 stealth bomber. If you told a WW2 pilot you'd have a highspeed, long range and radar "invisible" plane and they'd think it was more flash gordon than practical, or a gunner that mobile artilery could have 3 shots in flight timed to strike at the same time with 10 feet of the target and have the vehicle on the move and do it all in around 90 seconds.

My favorite Scifi picture from the 1950s shows a space pirate climbing about a ship, laser pistol in hand, and slide rule between his teeth. I would say I am the only one on this thread who could sort of remember how to use a slide rule, only I know there are a lot more old farts on here.

I think power armor is very cool and wpuld really love to see it. not sure if it will work, but it might. What I dont expect to see are mecha. To complex, to amny moving parts with all those joints, and to much surface area to armor much at all. So they seem to have most of the disadvantages of a tank, plus being even taller adn so harder to hide. And other than being really cool, I dont see many advantages to them.

Well other than the cartoon advantages of never running out of ammo and never having a mechanical malfunction. But that is just part of the animation setting.

Yes the breakthrough could happen next week, but as you say that is very hard to predict. I also agree that they are just another weapons system. And the technologys that make them possible will probably be applied to other weapons systems at the same time. What I dont like is game systems that grant special powers to PA that seems not possible to be transfered top other systems. Sort of reminds me of a trend in fantasy role playing some years ago when Ninjas where all the rage in certain circles. magical all powerful creatures nothing could stand against. Sometimes some people grant those same powers to PA.

Anyway great discusion.

Owen

Power Armor, IFVs, APCs, MBTS … it's all good in my mind !

Over on another forum, there was a discussion about the power supply you'd need for a usable power armor in the 40k/Halo sense. Tony Stark had it right, you'd need an onboard micronuke.

The funny thing is, a landmate type extender suit can rather easily carry 200+hp motorcycle engines, which would make it 10x stronger than a human. Peak human muscle output is ~2.5hp in a sprint, the cube rule means that a landmate suit twice man-height will be 8x the weight, 2.5 x 8 = 20hp to have proportional strength to a human.

So I think we'd see a 10-12ft tall extender-type 'Landmate' suit long before we'd see Space Marines.

Now, further to that, because a Landmate is as big as it is, they're going to have the potential to be rather heavily armed. Say, 25-30mm cannons, with a couple Javelin or equivalent missiles on the side (250ish lbs of weapons and ammo!). Basically the same firepower that a single Bradley has, on each member of the squad.

One of the original starwars toys never seen in movies was a stormtrooper transport.Looked like a rectangular box with semi enclosed platforms running all the way around it for troopers to stand in…the running board and clamp idea.Add a support weapon suite and it would have been a perfect power armour infantry support vehicle.

Tanks are not likley to exist in the future battle fields.. micro-nisation of equipment etc means, a non PA trooper can carry a weapon costing $1,000 USD's of dollars, and kill a tank costing millions. Simply meaning, tanks have had their day unless someone can change the laws of physics. Even now, the shoulder launched AT4's and RPGs of the russian army are getting strong and stronger with each iteration and design improvement.

The Abrams is probably the last "tank" in the true sence of a tank. In the future, AFV will likley still exist, as simply a vehicle can more efficiently carry more ammo and bulk. A landmate/PA won't.

So I can see, specific support vehicles being supplied, but also being the weak point of the PA/landmates,a s their battle field duration will mean they don't dare risk the support AFV getting totalled, or they swiftly become combat ineffective.

So new tactics and new deployment methods are likley.

But the point is, still a Spacemarine type personal suit of armour is a long way off. We are morelikley to see Landmate styles of tall bulky suits first. Big targets and un-stable.

Two legs is not a good stable platform when explosives and high speed shells and concusion blasts are occuring. Meaning a big suit is a big target and if its instability, means it keeps getting knocked over, it will soon get swarmed over by non PA infantry and blown to pieces.

The manga world etc often over looks true physics in their productions, and the reality is, we are probably 30-40 years away before a workable, robust and durable PA system is ready for field trials.

AFV will probably still be around for some time … PA troops will still need to be moved unless they have jump packs. But PA and Jump Packs are way, way, way off … RPG, AT-4, LAWs, etc., etc. are deadly to AFVs if used correctly. But just as breach loading rapid fire artillery and machine guns signalled the end of horse cav, those devices didn't not end the use of infantry. Tactics evolve … in all cases. More anti-missile devices, (like in the Hammer's Slammers novels) are being designed to combat RPGs and such … Don't dismiss MBTs so quickly … technology evolves as well …

MBTs were thought to be redundant due to anti tank helicopters, but the trend in vehicles seem to be getting heavier, dut to IED's (who need's a weapon that costs 1000's?) but troops still need to move around the battlefield one way or another. PA suits offer a possible sci fi solution, as a high tech mounted infantry (the transport vehicle could be a MRAP the troopers travelling in their suits, dismount 5k out from target. Then you have 6 small armoured targets instead of 1 large one, add in the capabilities of a metalstorm type weapon (real world weapon, no moving parts, cyclic rate unlimited) as said its a sci fi solution, but most of todays weapons have been at somepoint. End of the day if they don't float your boat don't use them, I don't like large mecha or grav vehicles, can't get my head round the idea, but that's an old debate.

A quick swipe at Metalstorm. Looks great on paper, and is good in some uses. Terrible idea to isue to troops. For one thing, you cant reload it in the field. At least not yet, and likely not ever. Second, as the barrel length gets longer with each shot, you have a very hard time getting similar muzzzle velocitys, meaning poor shot grouping. And because you need to have a lot of barrels that are very long in order to get very any shots, it is very heavy.

but then is was not originaly conceaved as a portable weapon system. Ratehr it was a replacement for a mine, sort of like an aimable claymore with a lot more range. And n that configuration I think it has a lot of potential. But as for a weapon a grunt an use, no way. 30 seconds of very rapid fire, then go back to the semi and get another one for another 30 seconds.

Owen

Don't know much about metalstorm, I assumed the barrels would be plug and play, interesting point about the available barrel lengths changing the velocity, so in theory later shots are travelling faster with a flatter trajectory? So 2 possible solutions (course I know zip in reality!) anyhoo first idea would be if the barrels are mounted to the forearm, the on board computer would control the arm joint to vary the angle/trajectory, in the same way the latest generation of mobile field guns have multiple shots in the air hitting at the same time, or the simpler approach is since metalstorm uses mutli barrels, is to use a ripple fire effect, of course this is complete guesswork 'cos in the UK we can't be trusted with firearms anymore, we can only watch "Sons of guns" and dream, but I think it sounds reasonable (first step in sci fi)in the end I think a tight grouping MG wouldn't be that good.

The real problem with metalstorm is that instead of a lightweight brass or plastic case (or no case at all!), you have to have a steel barrel strong enough to handle the firing stresses.

It's like the difference in weight between the cylinder of a Webley revolver and the magazine of a Colt 1911. Cylinder is ~7 ounces, while the magazine is ~2 ounces.

TL;DR: Metalstorm is going to be heavier to resupply, and we're already pushing the limits on how much weight an individual grunt can carry.

As far as armor goes, we're already at the point where the individual infantryman is wearing armor tough enough to *stop* a .30-06 armor-piercing slug in it's tracks (and leave one hell of a bruise). You either need to hit an American soldier where he's not wearing armor, or hit him with a .50BMG.

Or in a place where he's not wearing the strongest plate of armor.

Or shoot him a few more times now that the armor is damaged.

I see near future PA being like that on its weaker areas (generally stops a anything less than a rifle, rifles generally just cause "knock down") and its stronger areas doing the same to .50.

Thats generally just one round though. Each bullet damages the armor, it must be remembered.

Also, none of this takes into account AP rounds and we can't forget that weapons may become more powerful.

I was amazed reading some of the recent war stories that soldiers were getting shot and just getting knocked over for a few seconds due to armor… wasn't that way only a decade or two ago!

Lardie sure you may work out a way to do it, but the question is why bother? After a certain point more rounds dows you no good. hit a target 3-4 times with a good enough bullet it is dead. hit it 15 times, it s still dead, just splashed a lot more.

It is sort of like strapping a claymore to the front of your helmet. Yes it will work, but it may have unintended side effects. Metalstorm is a area denial weapon. Any other use is pushing it beyond what it works well at.

It has been a while since I looked into this. But, the metalstorm with 500 rounds weighed more than a minigun with 1000. Plus the minigun is reloaded with belts, so just hook another one up and you are ready to go. metalstorm send it back to the depot. It is not just multiple barrels, they are set in a grid say a stack four barrels wide by six barrels high. Very hard to get to any of the interior barrels. And if you want to add more ammo, you have to add more barrels. Or make your esosting barrels longer. Both will require a change to the aiming mechanism. And make it much heavier and more awkward.

Mind you I like metalstorm, but as a big cousin to the claymore. More range, more penetrating power, and the ability to have it sweep back and forth over an area for a short amount of time makes it a great defensive weapon. Heavy weight means it will only be used at permenent camps. In very large caliber it might make a hell of a great ADA weapon as well, if you could swing it fast enough to get on the target.

As for tight grouping yes, you dont want your HMG to tightly grouped, you want some spread. The problem with metalstorm as far as that goes is twofold. First, and probably the biggest one is that the bullets are so close there is NO spread. When you open it up, the second bullet is only two inches behind the first, and so on down the line. So what you are getting is the bullets go throuhg the same hole. Towards the end of the barrel, they may be losing velocity, so they start to drop, and you get something like a zipper opening up the target. Cool in cartoons, in the real world you want to hit a bunch of guys not splash one specacularly.

One thing they can do, and maybe are already is increase the propellent load of follow on shots. Or decrease if that is what is required. Not sure of the interior ballistics of this thing. Because you are not just pushing one bullet, you are pushing the bullet and the propellent of the round or two or three infornt of the last one you fired. Sort of like a hose squirting water, it is all in the tube at the same time. that means that tube has to be much much thicker than a conventional barrel, again pushng up the weigt.

The ripple idea of yours would seem to help, as each barel would be clear before the next round went out that barrel. but the you are back to to much scatter, as the barrels are a couple feet apart on the opposite sides. Yes barresl side by side are somewhat close, but the whole rack is not.

However, that is not how it fires. I am sure there is some technical reason they shoot one barrel at a time, they just dont tell you what it is. The videos are more about way cool new gun watch this than about telling you how it works and the many drawbacks.

In a lot of ways it reminds me of the GammaGoat. When that thing first came out it was supposed to be a very cool advanced vehicle. I got to see an early demo of it swoimming. Worked really good to. They just didnt bother to tell you that if you ever once let down the tailgate it was no longer swim capable. Lots of other great little features like that. Very good on a limited test ground, less useful to a soldier full time in the field. Real peice of junk in my book, aND i HAD TO OPERATE ONE FOR TWO YEARS.

Look around the net if you really like metalstorm, there used to be several videos about it. i looked at them all when a frined of mine tol me it was going to make artillery opsoete because it can cover an area so well. Nice idea that totaly is wrong, unless you play a time out card and make the badguys stand around while you drive up and instal one that covers where they are.

Samething with it replacing a noral MG. It wont because to amny design features wont let it.

But the videos are cool.

owen

RTJEBADIA, if armor becomes more prevelent, then of course weapons will become more powerful. That is the nature of arms and armor. It is never static.

well maybe not more powerful, perhaps just better at penetrating. But sure right now it looks like the body armor guys are winning. Give it a few more years and the gun guys will come back with something new of thier own.

We humans alwaus seem to be at our most inventive when we are coming up with new ways to kill each other.

And yes, you can peck your way through any armor, it is just a question of how long does it take? A burst hitting all at once can shred a lot of armor. But if it is not a geeat shot and only a round or two hits, the guy getting hit shoots back.

It is sort of like the people that keep insisting that tanks are dead because they can be killed. well last time i looked, soldiers can be killed by just about every weapon out there. but they dont seem to be going away. Sure drones are getting better, but it is a long long way if ever that they will be repalceing all troops. Just face one opponent with a broad spectrum jammin capability and there go the drones. Of course there is a counter to that. and so on.

Probably part of the US drive to a 6.5 mm round is not just the greater range, but the better ability to punch through armor. Of course who know how long it will take to actualy do it, soldiers have only been complaining about the M16 and the 5.56 round for what? 50 years now? More or less.

owen

And we still keep killing "the Bad Guys" with 5.56 … the dead don't complain …

I thought it would've been lighter option than a minigun, course in my sci fi world the barrels would be lightweight ceramic……….. that said a minigun is a cooler design than a box o'barrels and much more baddass. I thought the trend now was for heavier calibers, with 7.62 in assault rifles and even the .45 Kriss smg, any thoughts or will we see "standard explosive 10mm AP caseless" come into reality?

The 6.5mm uses a bullet almost twice the weight of the 5.56, but the real advantage is that it's flatter shooting. You can get hits out to a longer range. Between 500 and 800m, the 6.5 actually carries more energy than a 7.62Nato!

With so much focus on WW3 in Europe, all weapons designs have focused on 'European engagement ranges', ie nothing over 300m.

That wasn't a big deal in the jungles of Vietnam, but it's become a big deal in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, I'm expecting some odd gyrations while the militaries of the world re-examine the assumptions of what conditions their military will be fighting in.

I don't expect to see 10mm basic infantry rifles, to be honest. That's a very heavy bullet, makes for less ammunition that each soldier can carry. 8mm to 10mm MGs and designated marksman's rifles, however…

The trend to heavier stuff is in response to heavier body armor and longer distance fighting. 5.56 work OK in close in jungle fighting, and urban fighting. Although my grunt buddys dont like its lack of penetration ability through much of anything thicker than cardboard.

I dont like 5.56 and never have. In most of the USA it is not legal to hunt Deer with it, it is to unlikely to make a clean kill. So while Legion 4 is correct we do kill a lot of people with them, lots are killed every year with .22 short rounds. Not what I want to fight with. But then the last thing I shot real people with was a 155mm cannon, so i am not the best person to discuss small bore calibers with.

Here is a way to figure out how many bullets and barrels a metalstorm has. Take a standard cartridge of your favorite caliber. How about 7.64? total it is about 2" long. Now in metalstorm you dont have the cartridge, but that is a disadvantage, because you do not have the bottleneck to help boost velocity, plus you need an amount of spacing beween each round to fit all that in. but I dont know how muh that all takes so to be easy, we will just go with 2" for now.

I think, but could well be wrong that a minigun has a 32 inch barrel. So per barrel you have a maximum of 16 bullets in it. But those at the fron with no barrel to accerate down are going to come out very very slow. So maybe you can actual only load 12 bullets a barrel. Compare to a six barrel minigun a same weight metalstorm only has 72 rounds. And to get more you have to add more barrels and more weight. Now yes the minigun has the drive mechanism, so you can about double the weight of the metalstorm to make up for that. Still only up to 144 rounds. Not ver much, particularly if you take advntage of the very rapid rate of fire.

As for your very cool lightweight ceramoc, it is no advantage to metalstorm, because we will use the same materiel to make the minigun. So again now weight gain.

I dont think we will see standard explosive rounds ever. Not just because of the legal ramifications, but because it is very hard to make expolsive and armor peircing. AP needs to be as dense as possible, and as thin as possible to achive good peneration. Explosive is hugely less dednse that metal, so that makes it less usefull. Plus, if you cant inclde very much of it in a narrow bullet body, it isnt worth shooting in the first place.

I play a lot of cyberpunk games, and am totaly sold on the idea of caseless ammo and bullpup rifles. In the real world there are problems with both. I have never fired a bullpup, but have been told they have a mushy trigger, which degrades the potential accuracy. I would think that is a solvable situation, but I am not a weapons engineer, although my father is a gunsmith. I am willing to be the US will go to a bullpup as soon as some old folks retire or die off. yea back in the mists of tme, the US did not adopt the FN-FAL rifle because it was solomnly stated that US soldier would never master fireing a riflw wiith a pistol grip. I suspect that is so much horse crap and we just wanted to go to 5.56 and the pistol grip thing was a convineeint smoke screen. very likely the bullpup trigger will be solved and we will go ahead with one of them of our own soon.

As for caseless ammo, it has been around for a long time. Several problems with it that I am aware of, possibley more I am not. First is the round itself. Brass is very good at keeping dirt and grease and water outside the round. Paper not so much. In fact you almost need to keep your caseless magazine plastic wrapped to keep them effective. not so convienient in a fire fight. next is ignition. electric works OK, only then you have to have a battery in your weapon, negating some of the weight gain, plus an extra thing to carry around that can run out, and has to be changed out as well. not to mention the problem of static cause premature ignition, like in you ammo puoches. Sure it can be grounded, but again that adds to weight, complexity and cost.

So if you use a traditional type primer, how to you eject the remains? If you have a chunk big enough to grab a hold of mechaniclaly, you are more or less back to a cartridge.

Then there is the sealing problem. In astandard rifle the brass expands when fired making a great seal so all the gasses are sent down the barrel. In the artillery we call that rearward obturation. not sure what it is in smallarms but it is the same thing. It is possible to to it in caseless, it is just difficult, and it is even more difficult at any kind of speed.

I am very familiar with this particular problem. In 105mm cannon we use a cartridge to load the gun. It is very quick and easy to use. The 155mm guns on the other hand are caselss, which means we have an additional set of parts we need to maintain to make the gun work right.And the rate of fire is much lower.

I suspect nobody has overcome those combined problems to a degree that makes caseless better than normal rounds. The germans did the G-11 decades ago, but I dont think it was ever very widely issued, msot liely due to the problems I have laid out.

Owen

G-11 died because .223 became the standard caliber and it was around 4mm, I think it continued with special ops doing "field trials" had a cyclic rate of 2000rpm (if memory serves) another weapon where the mag couldn't be topped up. The "standard explosive AP 10mm caseless" is a reference to the greatest sci fi assault rifle ever the M41A pulse rifle. Totally agree about bullpup design, especially in the light support role as we have it, wouldn't want to change position with that covering me!and you convinced me metalstorm is a non starter, suggested it 'cos I thought naively that it would be reliable (no moving parts) and lightweight but there you go, have to think about a plan B…………