I Have to get one of these!

[troopie]

A 20mm rifle made by Denel's PMP division and Neopup. It has the recoil of 'an ordinary hunting rifle' and fires a 20 x 42mm cartridge. It's semi-auto and only has a six round clip, but anything you hit with it goes down and stays down.

http://commentary.co.za/archives/200...bo-would-love/

Anyone else want one?

troopie

[pdoktar]

Hopefully this light weapon won´t wear down quickly due to such powerful ammo. And especially the "innovative recoil system" springs to my mind as possible breaking point.

Kinda sounds too good to be true.. What next?

[RecruitMonty]

A gun Rambo would probably laugh his *** off about more like! WTF? It looks like a kid's toy, a really bad kid's toy. I know that is just the computer generated image of it but wtf? (A quick search on Google has indeed proved that it looks ridiculous). Don't they realise that a weapon with that sort of design would probably become unreliable in a desert, jungle or for that matter even a winter environment. Never mind about the obvious problems with mud etc. Also as the article clearly states the weapon is not exactly ideal.

What the hell is up with the modern Military? Why don't we just invent some kind of supper light plastic machine-pistol and just issue that to the troops instead! Stick a scope and a longer barrel on it for snipers and a grenade launcher, GPS device, Mobile phone, bottle-opener combo for assault.... I realise that is a stupid suggestion but that is what it looks like the arms manufacturers are doing at the moment.

Also why does every new weapon have to be supper light? In WWII the Germans (and I am fairly sure a lot of others too) had infantry weapons with ammunition much bigger (and therefore heavier) than the standard NATO rounds these days and yet there didn't seem to be such a problem with mobility or supply of ammo (outside of external influences like being cut off from supplies etc) then. Now I am not saying we should use antique weapons but why not just use the new "space age" materials to upgrade successful infantry weapons like the G3 rifle or the M16 or AK47 (74) instead of reinventing the wheel every time. Seriously this isn't progress this is just a money spinning exercise. More importantly it is a dangerous one when it comes to our own defence. Just ask the infantry if they want a light, fussy (difficult to maintain) weapon or a reliable, simple, deadly but heavy weapon. If your troops want the weapons that will kill the opposing troops well as opposed to the one that can do their taxes then give them that one. Then if you have to mess around with oil (something we have absolutely loads of as all the environmentalists and scientists love to remind us) and other such things that are really easy to get hold of and are easily found all over Europe (we are after all just swimming in the stuff) then keep it on the back burner and file it under "Entwicklung".

I am willing to bet that if a full-scale shooting war were ever to come to the European continent (God forbid, for obvious reasons), in the sort of environments and time frames the Second World War was fought in, most of our so called "modern and improved" firearms would very quickly fall prey to all manner of wear and tear and prove themselves to be virtually useless Whereas the tried and tested traditional weapons would shine.

Another thing I don't understand is the seeming duplicity of our weapons developers and those who draw up the contracts with them. On the one hand we are pouring lots of money into developing new infantry weapons systems (the replacement for the G3 being a good example of this) and on the other hand our governments and the developers are cutting corners trying to find a "one size fits all" infantry weapon system that ends up being not quite fish or meat. Either you are after a new/better Assault rifle or you are after a new SMG, GPMG, Commando SMG, Grenade launcher combo not some crazy compromise between all these possibilities.

Why not just develop or even better improve upon a good solid assault rifle and then develop the other weapons to work along side it? Using appropriate designs not just variations on the same theme. An improved G3 and an improved MP5 would have functioned well as the staple of the German infantry and would have cost less to develop instead of scrapping them (thankfully they didn't do it with the MP5, yet) and replacing them with frankly disappointing weaponry. I mean we don't need every one of our troops to be a sniper do we? <--(Reference to the sights on the new G6).

Which brings me on to this. All this rubbish about "future warrior" systems is madness utter madness. It is based on the assumption that most combat in future will be small scale (like the sort of thing present day special forces engage in) and most likely asymmetrical hence the future warrior will need to be micromanaged (with the broadband or whatever uplink he has in his helmet) by HQ and be able to shoot like a sniper and provide his own fire support (with the five or six types of ammunition his strangely rectangular weapon produces). Did I mention he can also fire around corners using the cameras mounted to the weapon and his helmet and with the myriad of triggers and handles the weapon has he will never have to hold the weapon the same way twice in combat. Hell he doesn't even have to aim because the bullets are all are heat-seeking and/or remotely Pilate able. If he needs arty he can call on his trusty flying pig companion (which I hear the military is also developing). Some of this is clearly hyperbole but you get my point. We don't need lasers or weapons with 100 ammunition types as we aren't going to be fighting any Terminator Robots or anything like that anytime soon nor do we need our armies to be small special-ops like units. If we have money to burn (and we don't) then maybe we could even entertain spending all the money it takes to develop this crap for our special forces (the ones who would actually need it) but for heaven sakes don't think for one moment that just because everything is hunky-dory and small scale now it will be in the future.

As it becomes increasingly less sensible to use nukes etc, as counter strikes etc will and are being developed by pretty much everyone, conventional wars will once again become the order of the day and guess who will do better in those sorts of wars. Russia, China (and its African partners, who are being seduced by the Chinese offers of cooperation without change), India, Pakistan, the Arab States, Iran, North Korea etc. This list might seem a little far fetched, especially as a number of the countries I have mentioned are militarily the equivalent of retards at the moment, but they have one thing that we don't have and will have even less of in future. That is sheer numbers. Also just imagine what kind of social effects the "future-warrior" concept will have on our society (The Western one). Already we are less and less likely to support let alone join an army (and that is with conscription still as an option) but just imagine what will happen when the army decides it wants to down-size and focus on just training specialists. No one in Europe will want to do anything about defence then. Right now the West (Europe included) still has a great military advantage over our competitors (we do still have competitors) and we should maintain it and cultivate it. What we are doing now will destroy that advantage and prove once and for all that the West is full of pussies (there really is no other description for what we look like right now).
-----------------------------------------------------------
Also if you are going to have a standard tactical doctrine, ammunition size etc (like NATO) then why not just do the sensible thing and create a proper infantry weapon which all the NATO members can use. Right now it just looks like everyone wants to have their cake and eat it! If you want to produce your own special weapons designs then make the damn ammunition for them too, to whatever scale you need (a national standard is obviously a must and it has to fit the weapon).

[troopie]

This meant to be a one weapon per section arm. Use it to shoot through walls, take out light vehicles, take gun emplacements. The rest of the section will have assault rifles and the usual LMG. During WW2 and after, South African rifle sections often carried a big game rifle. Often to take out agressive Cape Buffalo (they like hunting you as much as you like hunting them) or other large animals, but often for combat purposes. This is a milspec elephant rifle, not much more. The problem may be cost. If it costs much more than an elephant rifle, the army will still use Holland and Hollands.

troopie

[thatguy96]

Isn't that the role that was previously filled by the Milkor MGL-MK1? Is this thing designed to replace that weapon? It does seem like it was designed with a similar role in mind.

[RecruitMonty]

My point is that this weapon represents this sort of fuzzy logic which I think is dangerous.

[Mobhack]

hmm - lots of weight for a specialist role that does not come up that often?.

i dont see anything in that thing that could justify the weight penalty - best to use that weight allowance for a few bullet-trap rifle grenades and/or disposable LAWS. (Apparently the 66mm M72 LAW is making a comeback as it is light, handy and efective for tasks not involving the killing of modern MBT).

Cheers
Andy

[thatguy96]

Yes, and its odd, because both the M72A7 and the M32 grenade launcher (Milkor MGL-140 IIRC) have been brought back by the USMC primarily (though the Army has also reissued the M72 on a very limited basis), who realize the need for such weapons, especially in an urban enviornment. This is all while the US Army is in the process of developing the XM25, which is very close to the South African weapon described here. I never understood why rifle grenades were not more popular.

They give the additional range desired, better terminal effects often, and don't require a specialist weapon, often at a far cheaper rate than developing on of these things.

[Mobhack]

maybe an institutional memory of the problems of having to fiddle about with blank rounds for firing r/gren, and not having troos use a live round by mistake?.

Bullet trap R/gren have been around since the mid 70s, for 5.56mm anyway, but it took the UK army till the late 90s to introduce RGGS. However this will now be replaced with the L17 UGL (40mm H&K) - which will also (possibly?) replace the 51mm platoon mortars. I think the UGL has the advantage of accuracy at the longer ranges, but primarily it has a round ready to go that is not interfering with the proper use of the rifle.

But neither really replace a section individual weapon, like the 20mm thingy would have to.

Andy