SpudFiles

jsefcik wrote:me shooting me sig tell me what you think....

Did you record that using a dishwasher??? lol

No just my phone but camera man skills suck


But its better then nothing

Daltonultra wrote:The point of sniper teams is to be highly mobile and stealthy. You deploy two men, with three rifles (yes, three, the AMR for the shooter, a lighter DMR for the spotter, and a select-fire carbine for the shooter to use while on the move, as AMRs are a [female doggy] to use in close engagement). They deploy, get close, cover and conceal, make the shot, and amscray. Your automated system would take four guys just to carry the damned thing, and that's assuming you replace the massive control set-up with a smart-phone app. The guided round takes the round itself, an AMR, and a laser designator that can actually be mounted on the spotters rifle without adding more than a few ounces.

I don't see how having people on foot makes them "highly mobile", and as to stealth, I think that again you're missing the point of the potential of these rounds. Concealment is paramount for a sniper 700 yards from a target, but if you're 5km away,

Tanks are a direct-fire system, NOT indirect-fire artillery. They are a specialized unit intended ONLY for direct engagement. And in direct engagement, an M1A1 DOES NOT NEED laser guidance. It would offer them no advantage over current in-turret systems at line-of-sight distances. Further, you'd be taking up precious ammo storage to carry these rounds. Better to save this tech for artillery units, whose mission IS indirect-fire support, and aren't constrained by having extremely tight storage space.

We used to have interceptors, night fighters, escort fighters, fighter-bombers... now we just have a single all weather multi-role aircraft doing all the same jobs. The line between a pure tank and self propelled artillery has been blurred before, I see nothing wrong with such systems coming together. Wouldn't it be an advantage if your tank can offer supporting fire to infantry within a 30km radius instead of a 5km radius?

Also, firing at a high angle has the advantage of attacking the top part of a tank, which due to weight design constraints will always be poorly armoured compared to the front, and this means that targets that would otherwise be protected from direct attack are vulnerable.

Also it would allow the tank to engage targets that are not in its line of sight but can be seen by other assets. Both extremely worthwhile advantages over current systems.

As for the rest of your post: I really don't get it. You make my case for me about small/fast/dense penetrators, then turn around and go back to your argument for low-velocity systems. And you're proposing a solution for a problem that's already been thoroughly solved, as YOU point out with your own post...

Again, if they can make an AMR roughly the same size and weight as current systems using guided projectiles, brilliant, I've got nothing against that.

Seriously, you're all over the place, showing five different alternatives that STILL don't take the place of ONE simple rifle. None of your proposals are as effective or flexible as a two-man team with an AMR. And when you add that two-man team to a rifle squad, you've got the most effective squad-level ground force in the world.

What I am proposing doesn't need extra personnel, it would just replace the grenade launcher in the squad. It would be of similar size and weight (adding the laser designator of course, though again the designation could be done by a plethora of other systems) and would offer the benefits of a long range sniper rifle while still retaining the capability of firing explosive rounds against infantry etc.

It might not be able to take out a light armoured vehicle, but with most APCs these days protected against 14.5mm or 20mm fire, neither will your AMR if it's something that can be fired by an individual. This is where using a shaped charge warhead would come into its own, this would be effective against armour whether it is standing still or travelling fast, whereas the effectiveness of a kinetic projectile deteriorates with range.

If I had a choice, I know which system I would prefer. It will be interesting to see where development goes.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:No offence but I think you've seen way too many movies

When you start a sentence with the words "No offense", it should be a clue to you that what you're about to say IS offensive. Military history, strategy and tactics are a minor hobby of mine. And my hobby DOES NOT include watching the kind of Mark Wahlberg/Matt Damon/[insert random second-rate actor here] CRAP that you're obviously referring to.

POLAND_SPUD wrote:I mentioned that they can carry a laser designator and use laser guided mortar/artillery rounds - that's a PRACTICAL solution... snipers suck when fighting anything else than infantry

lol be realistic - a sniper team with an AMR rifle is marginally effective against lightly armoured vehicles... sure it can disable a truck, communication equipment and maybe even a hummer, but it stands no chance against anything heavier than that


if you've got a laser designator you can destroy your target with laser guided shells and it doesn't matter if the target is 1 or 4 km away... there is no need to carry around a heavy rifle that sucks against anything aroured

Right, and when you need to kill ONE PERSON in a group, artillery and mortars are so discriminating. And yes, there have been numerous missions where target discrimination, and not causing collateral casualties, was a HIGHER consideration than actually making the kill. I've already addressed that issue, if you read my posts.

YES, they can use the same laser-designator they use for the rifle to guide in mortars, artillery, missiles, or bombs. But they CAN NOT use a mortar, or artillery, or a missile, or a bomb, to take out ONE person in the middle of a group without causing collateral fatalities. And even at that, the laser designator only increases the accuracy and effectiveness of artillery/air support that a sniper team can ALREADY call in.


NOW, I've addressed every point using ONE PROVEN SYSTEM, while you guys have gone through at least five, none of which could accomplish all the tasks that two-man teams with AMRs HAVE DONE. This new round can only INCREASE their effectiveness and adaptability.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: I don't see how having people on foot makes them "highly mobile",

Ever tried getting a HUMMER up a mountain covered in sharp, broken rock? "Mobile" is not always the same thing as "fast".

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote: and as to stealth, I think that again you're missing the point of the potential of these rounds. Concealment is paramount for a sniper 700 yards from a target, but if you're 5km away,

From 5km away, can you tell one individual person from another? Can you guarantee that the enemy won't have active patrols at that distance? Do you think you can accomplish every mission from that distance?

You still have to put glass on your target. You still have missions that require positively identifying a single target. Some missions require much closer proximity than others. This round can't change that fact, nor can any other weapons system.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:We used to have interceptors, night fighters, escort fighters, fighter-bombers... now we just have a single all weather multi-role aircraft doing all the same jobs. The line between a pure tank and self propelled artillery has been blurred before, I see nothing wrong with such systems coming together. Wouldn't it be an advantage if your tank can offer supporting fire to infantry within a 30km radius instead of a 5km radius?

Ground combat isn't air combat. Tanks have very limited storage space and have to dedicate what they HAVE to their primary mission: Direct engagement of armor.

Mobile artillery units like the M-109 Paladin offer much greater range with larger guns, and with the Copperhead CLGP round, they already use laser-designation over much greater ranges than the 120mm smoothbore is capable of. And because the 155mm Howitzer in the Paladin is bag-loaded, it makes it possible to use tactics like Multiple Round, Simultaneous Impact barrages to fire rounds several seconds apart, at varying angles, to hit the target at the same instant. You can't do that with cartridge rounds like a tank uses.

Considering that U.S. tank units rarely if ever operate without the support of mobile artillery, the need to "blur the line" isn't really there.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Also, firing at a high angle has the advantage of attacking the top part of a tank, which due to weight design constraints will always be poorly armoured compared to the front, and this means that targets that would otherwise be protected from direct attack are vulnerable.

There isn't an armored unit in service with any country in the world that can't be knocked out with a single 120mm penetrator round, or HEAT round. High-angle attacks also have the severe disadvantage of taking TIME. Even if they are more accurate because of laser designation, you leave a LONG wait before that round hits. A long time in which that tank can be shooting BACK, or moving, probably fast enough to outstrip the ability of the round to correct, or to find concealment from the unit illuminating it with the laser.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:Again, if they can make an AMR roughly the same size and weight as current systems using guided projectiles, brilliant, I've got nothing against that.

They did. The bullet this conversation is about is smaller than the 20mm Hispano, which has been in service in with several armies continuously and requires a rifle not much larger than a current Barrett M82.

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:What I am proposing doesn't need extra personnel, it would just replace the grenade launcher in the squad.

Your system, as I said, would be an advantage over a conventional grenade launcher. But it still can't fulfill the range of missions that a sniper team with an AMR does, as I pointed out in my post above. Nor would it replace the role of the Designated Marksmen in a rifle squad. If it could be made to work in a current 40mm launcher, then there would be no need to have a man dedicated to the system, as they could simply use the existing M203. Which, BTW, is why they rarely use a dedicated grenade launcher. With the M203 in wide use, they only pull out the M32 if they have a specific mission in mind for it.

This discussion is getting way too on-topic for my liking. Finish it up by the end of page 191 at the latest*


*Assuming a different mod doesn't step in before then.

Your system, as I said, would be an advantage over a conventional grenade launcher. But it still can't fulfill the range of missions that a sniper team with an AMR does, as I pointed out.

I disagree on this point, if you allow for the provision of HE and HEAT rounds, I'm confident the weapon I proposed would fulfill the anti-materiel and anti-personnel role admirably, and would require significantly less training. It would also require a smaller and lighter launch platform with a significantly lower firing signature. One thing we haven't mentioned is that an AMR with an effective muzzle brake firing a projectile at several times the speed of sound makes a lot of noise, has a massive muzzle flash and kicks up a lot of dust, all convenient locating beacons which my proposed system would avoid.

hehe, right, "I'd like to draw together the threads in this debate and try to come to some conclusions.":

- Anti-materiel Rifles - AWESOME!

- Anti-materiel Rifles with precision guided bullets - EVEN MORE AWESOME!

- Anti-materiel Rifles with precision guided bullets the best use of miniaturised laser guided technology - opinion is divided

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:One thing we haven't mentioned is that an AMR with an effective muzzle brake firing a projectile at several times the speed of sound makes a lot of noise, has a massive muzzle flash and kicks up a lot of dust, all convenient locating beacons which my proposed system would avoid.

Actually, having fired several .50 AMRs, I can tell you from first-hand experience that the muzzle flash is smaller than most carbines and considerably smaller than most medium-caliber sniper rifles that don't use muzzle brakes. And the report of the shot isn't a very good indicator of direction at all, even in open terrain.

Dust is a more legitimate worry, but training for snipers also includes the use of camouflage mats and other material to reduce disturbance of the ground in dusty areas. And of course, the report from a large sub-sonic round will stir up about the same amount of dust as the report of a smaller supersonic round.

Unless someone is looking directly at the shooter when he fires, the chances of detecting his exact location are extremely low.

I hope to get us back off topic again, so here goes.


NOTE, IF YOU SEE IT DON'T SAY ANYTHING YET. WAIT FOR JSR TO SEE IT.


Jsr, see anything wrong with this picture?

(picture removed by warhead052)

As soon as you said JSR I knew what to look for

I hope you saw what I was aiming for jsr to see though.

Um... I think that's kinda, ya know, pushing it a little ^

I assure you, its not me. At least its off topic.

Hey guys, guys..

I've had an idea.

You know when they drop laser guided bombs right

Is the dude with the designator in the plane?

So, does the designator dude have to be with the sniper?

If the enemy capture the designator, they'll just think they were about to have the shit bombed out of them, the sniper dude being a few km away.

Oh dear god.

Feet are one thing, but...

damn...

Daltonultra wrote:Unless someone is looking directly at the shooter when he fires, the chances of detecting his exact location are extremely low.

... unless they havethis highly unlikely in Afghanistan, but surely there's an iphone app for that

So, does the designator dude have to be with the sniper?

He could be anywhere as long as he had line of sight to the target.