FRES 2: The Revenge aka MIV

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
High rates of fire = miss with first and then empty mag/belt/drum into air.
Yes, multiple hits pushes up Pk, but multiple hits get harder as rate of fire increases.

225 spm is perfectly adequate for the ground role.

1200 for AA or in its traditional role as an aircraft weapon makes sense, but not so much for the ground role
 
Last edited:

TamH70

MIA
High rates of fire = miss with first and then empty mag/belt/drum into air.
Yes, multiple hits pushes up Pk, but multiple hits get harder as rate of fire increases.

Depends on recoil mitigation features. As an example, but on admittedly a much smaller scale, the AN-94 has a two-round burst mechanism that kicks 5.45 x 39MM ammunition out of the barrel at 1800 rounds per minute, meaning the second bullet has exited the muzzle before the recoil impulse from the first bullet has hit the firer's shoulder. And those two bullets will hit centre of mass at up to the effective range of the rifle.

That rate of fire, BTW, is several hundred more than the PapaSHa or Ingram Mac-10 ever managed.
 

Majorpain

War Hero
225 spm is perfectly adequaute for the ground role.

1200 for AA or in its traditional role as an aircraft weapon makes sense, but not so much for the ground role
1200RPM would empty an 100 Round magazine in 5 seconds, and go through warriors allocation of 225 30mm in 11.25 seconds.

Slight firepower upgrade that has zero chance of being abused by average squaddie!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Very high rates of fire made sense in an aerial dogfight because you needed maximum rounds off/volume of fire for the fleeting moments that the opposition danced through your sights.

Rather less useful in the ground role where it just chews through rounds.

The more I read, the more I think we had it about right with the BREN/LMG.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Very high rates of fire made sense in an aerial dogfight because you needed maximum rounds off/volume of fire for the fleeting moments that the opposition danced through your sights.

Rather less useful in the ground role where it just chews through rounds.

The more I read, the more I think we had it about right with the BREN/LMG.

Same with the Grand Old Lady, leisurely ROF that could keep going for days and days and days
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
meaning the second bullet has exited the muzzle before the recoil impulse from the first bullet has hit the firer's shoulder.
Seriously? Struggling to credit that and in any case jump (due to working parts movement) is unavoidable.

Reality of most battle shooting is that a quick near miss (resulting in suppression) is a good outcome.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
The more I read, the more I think we had it about right with the BREN/LMG.
Very confident that BREN / LMG is not the way to go (and we looked at this in detail when I was an OA bod for DERA). The nominal weight savings are not an attractive pay off for the loss of range and rate of fire.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
Take as long as you like...
I don't have that much time - there is no reason. No logic. No excuse.

Brilliantly our dismounted infantry chose to give themselves less firepower that they has in WW1. Quite how this was achieved eludes me and no-one ever admitted to it. Presumably no-one could spell Minimi.

I suspect these were the same guys who introduced the boot combat high, early versions of which gave 20% of the Army tendinitis.

LSW was in service when I was doing OA. It made any firepower enhancement look good.
 

TamH70

MIA
Seriously? Struggling to credit that and in any case jump (due to working parts movement) is unavoidable.

Reality of most battle shooting is that a quick near miss (resulting in suppression) is a good outcome.

Seriously.

Russian gats are an 'obby of mine.


The page describes how the thing works in very great detail.

Note the not-very-standard-looking-at-all muzzle device on the end of its barrel. That, combined with the working parts that are so complicated even Gun Jesus Himself found a bit excessively complicated, means it performs exactly as I said it does.

Larry Vickers fires it a bit on the indoor range as shown in the video on that page.

And here is the Forgotten Weapons video on the gat in question, showing much of the working parts of the rifle. (Note, not all - the one in the video is an actual factory deactivated firearm):

 
Seriously? Struggling to credit that and in any case jump (due to working parts movement) is unavoidable.

Reality of most battle shooting is that a quick near miss (resulting in suppression) is a good outcome.
The AN-94 is a special case in that the rifle essentially "floats" on a slide inside an outer shell of the rifle and can fire two shots before reaching end of travel. Thus the shooter is able to hold the rifle on target for two shot before recoil affects his aim significantly. In full auto though it's like any other automatic rifle.

In the case of the 30mm gun we are looking at above however, recoil control is achieved by the simple expedient of bolting it to a 30 or 40 ton vehicle.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Brilliantly our dismounted infantry chose to give themselves less firepower that they has in WW1. Quite how this was achieved eludes me and no-one ever admitted to it. Presumably no-one could spell Minimi.

I suspect these were the same guys who introduced the boot combat high, early versions of which gave 20% of the Army tendinitis.
I remember many a conversation with infantry types who cast covetous eyes at the Minimi. And then when we did finally buy it, we bought the wrong version.

Don't even talk to be about BCH. Not just tendonitis but hip displacements.

[/THREAD DRIFT]
 

TamH70

MIA
I remember many a conversation with infantry types who cast covetous eyes at the Minimi. And then when we did finally buy it, we bought the wrong version.

Don't even talk to be about BCH. Not just tendonitis but hip displacements.

[/THREAD DRIFT]

Yep.

I've never made a claim against Her Madge's Armed Forces for how bad my legs and feet are. I am starting to wonder why.
 

Cynical

LE
Book Reviewer
[/THREAD DRIFT]
This is a FRES related thread - drift is implicit in the title.

The moment I heard it (Future Rapid Effects System) I realised someone had won a PowerPoint VC for a program name that covered just about anything with absolutely no constraint on what that thing might be or when, if ever (as it turned out), it might deliver.

In terms of the demise of the British Army's intellectual capacity calling something FRES was the key indicator that it was doomed.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
This is a FRES related thread - drift is implicit in the title.

The moment I heard it (Future Rapid Effects System) I realised someone had won a PowerPoint VC for a program name that covered just about anything with absolutely no constraint on what that thing might be or when, if ever (as it turned out), it might deliver.

In terms of the demise of the British Army's intellectual capacity calling something FRES was the key indicator that it was doomed.
I thought - see many programmes passim - that inclusion of the word 'Future' was the guarantee of failure. Addition of the word 'Effects', however, absolutely meant that it was never going anywhere.
 

jrwlynch

LE
Book Reviewer
[Frowns, closes eyes, opens them again, types...]

Explain the LSW.

Paging @Gravelbelly, who's had to go through this a few times...

To steal a few of his sandwiches in the meantime, the aim of the LSW was to provide support (clue's in the name), while turning more rounds carried into effective results. A key issue was that while "getting rounds down" at the firing point might reassure, the results at the target end are what mattered.

The concept got a further push from the Falklands experience, where ammunition ran very short (fortunately the enemy not only used the same calibre as us, but their magazines could even be persuaded to fit an L1A1...) in some real-world assaults, where it turned out to be necessary to try to suppress the enemy, at range, for longer than four 20-round magazines and a length of link per man really allowed.

Properly used, a pair of LSW gave a section more firepower than a GPMG, for longer; the problems being that (a) LSW was usually taught and trained absolutely uselessly, and (b) during the L1A1/L85 switchover, the "new section tactics" were taught with fireteams each having three SLRs and one GPMG - so the LSW was seen as "trying to one-for-one replace the GPMG" which it couldn't do, rather than "two LSWs put more holes in the target, for less weight, than one GPMG".

Jim Storr ran an interesting field experiment which compared the relative effects of different weapons on instrumented targets, where there was more at stake than "dakka-dakka-get-some-rounds-down". The L110 Minimi did not emerge well from that: it was good at generating noise and empty cases, but rather less effective at putting rounds on, or very near, the target, enough to dissuade them from active hostilities.

But then, way back in 2003 it was being said how "Prior to crossing, we had the ITDU out to 'train the trainer' on the new kit. They were at pains to ensure that we didn't ditch the LSW. Just as well we didn't. The LSWs were excellent weapons which allowed engagements at much longer ranges."

Perish the thought that the British Army is actually pretty poor at basic infantry skill-at-arms...
 

Latest Threads

Top