BF2S Forums Technology Development in Small Arms

nlsme1 wrote:

pace51 wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?

Without sarcasm this time, we have intelligence which greatly helps. So the infantry combat isn't exactly the same.

Had already said it in a way that did not involve sarcasm. Some times sarcasm can help make a point.

I meant, I used sarcasm, not you, sorry. But you're point is correct, as is my non-sarcastic intelligence point.

Wow. Sometimes, I even offend myself.

JohnG@lt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Advance to contact, set up firing position, flank, or call in artillery. Exactly the same as in WWII.

Well, we have sattelites telling us where stuff is and UAV's and all those nice things that supreme command has... that they show everyone but the infantry that would benefit from receving the intelligence data.

No way. The guy on the ground does not need more information than he's currently getting. Wtf would an image from a UAV do for him? He needs to be scanning his immediate front and listening to orders from above, not staring at a computer screen.

"Hi infantry man... we have a UAV BUT WILL NOT TELL YOU ANYTHING ABOUT ENEMY POSITIONS! YAY! FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOURSELF!

Without a UAV and intelligence, orders from above would be incorrect.

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

Well, we have sattelites telling us where stuff is and UAV's and all those nice things that supreme command has... that they show everyone but the infantry that would benefit from receving the intelligence data.

No way. The guy on the ground does not need more information than he's currently getting. Wtf would an image from a UAV do for him? He needs to be scanning his immediate front and listening to orders from above, not staring at a computer screen.

Not every man needs control of the UAV. The image would tell him exactly where the threat is, instead of having to "scan" for a threat.

And while he's sitting there staring at a computer screen he gets shot in the back or the face. Have you been in combat? You do understand that an aerial view looks completely different than a ground view right? How can you differentiate which building is which by looking at it's roof?

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-06-01 11:06:43)

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

No way. The guy on the ground does not need more information than he's currently getting. Wtf would an image from a UAV do for him? He needs to be scanning his immediate front and listening to orders from above, not staring at a computer screen.

Not every man needs control of the UAV. The image would tell him exactly where the threat is, instead of having to "scan" for a threat.

And while he's sitting there staring at a computer screen he gets shot in the back or the face. Have you been in combat? You do understand that an aerial view looks completely different than a ground view right? How can you differentiate which building is which by looking at it's roof?

John... high command uses the uav, gives the squad the details. There. No soldier flies it. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN COMBAT? Maybe. But then, did you see ur buddies flying a uav? no

pace51 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

Not every man needs control of the UAV. The image would tell him exactly where the threat is, instead of having to "scan" for a threat.

And while he's sitting there staring at a computer screen he gets shot in the back or the face. Have you been in combat? You do understand that an aerial view looks completely different than a ground view right? How can you differentiate which building is which by looking at it's roof?

John... high command uses the uav, gives the squad the details. There. No soldier flies it. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN COMBAT? Maybe. But then, did you see ur buddies flying a uav? no

Umm, so how is that any different than the current setup? The information from UAVs is relayed to ground troops, the ground troops themselves rarely look at the live feed. What exactly is your point?

eleven bravo wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

the way infantry fight today is essentially the same as it was 70 years ago.

That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?

if the forces we were facing were the same size and had the same logistical capablities as enemies we have faced before, then absolutely we would see the same amount of casualties.  there is only so much technology would allow to accomplish before one has to resort to basic combat tactics.  yes, we would see a lot more dead if we were facing armies in the hundreds of thousands with the same elements of support we use.  absolutely.



in order for you to maybe better understand this concept, you have to realize the vast majority of casualties that we see today are from the use of very low tech weaponry.  IED's are not that sophisticated, they can be, but the majority deployed by the enemy arent.

This is a good point. Our battles are smaller now. Although Iraq didn't exactly have a "small" millitary. Maybe what I am getting at is this. Your right in what you are saying. A "grunts" job has not changed much in the last seventy years. I even said it hasn't changed much since the civil war. However, the tools to keep that man alive have changed. From his weapon, to the vehicles. From the medical equipmant, to our surgical techniques. Intel, to gps. Cruise missiles, and smart bombs. All of this combines together to make the grunts job easier. Easier in a sense is change. The simple concept of "infrantry" has NOT changed, the battlefield laid before them has.



Disclaimer: This post was not meant to belittle the efforts of ANY persons.

nlsme1 wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

That explains the fact that 70 yrs ago we would lose as many infantry in one battle, as we have in 2 wars that have spanned the better part of a decade?

if the forces we were facing were the same size and had the same logistical capablities as enemies we have faced before, then absolutely we would see the same amount of casualties.  there is only so much technology would allow to accomplish before one has to resort to basic combat tactics.  yes, we would see a lot more dead if we were facing armies in the hundreds of thousands with the same elements of support we use.  absolutely.



in order for you to maybe better understand this concept, you have to realize the vast majority of casualties that we see today are from the use of very low tech weaponry.  IED's are not that sophisticated, they can be, but the majority deployed by the enemy arent.

This is a good point. Our battles are smaller now. Although Iraq didn't exactly have a "small" millitary. Maybe what I am getting at is this. Your right in what you are saying. A "grunts" job has not changed much in the last seventy years. I even said it hasn't changed much since the civil war. However, the tools to keep that man alive have changed. From his weapon, to the vehicles. From the medical equipmant, to our surgical techniques. Intel, to gps. Cruise missiles, and smart bombs. All of this combines together to make the grunts job easier. Easier in a sense is change. The simple concept of "infrantry" has NOT changed, the battlefield laid before them has.



Disclaimer: This post was not meant to belittle the efforts of ANY persons.

I cant argue with that.   Beyond the chaotic harmony of kinetic energy being exchanged between two groups of people, a lot has changed to give an advantage to one side over the other before, during and after that exchange

Last edited by eleven bravo (2010-06-01 11:19:11)

Current small arms technology is in an evolutionary stage, rather than a revolutionary stage.

Revolutionary was WW-II era, when small arms like the Stg-42, MG-42, M-1 Garand, and Thompson SMG were fielded.
All truly game-changing in their relative portability, rate of fire, and accuracy/volume of fire.

Evolutionary is the current state;

• Bullet technology is generally a lead or steel core wrapped in a copper-based jacket, with periodic refinements in aerodynamic shape (Berger's recent 'hybrid VLD Secant/Tangent ogive bullet) or minor tweaks to materials (bullets, shot, etc).
• Powder technology is generally stagnant, with minor improvements in composition (burn rate retardants, consistency of powder lot improvements, consistency in varying environmental temperatures, powder shape tweaks, double-base versus single-base
• Casing technology - Lapua and Norma, in particular, have done an incredible job of making the simple brass cartridge into a remarkably strong, consistent, and durable item.  Neat trick too, because a cartridge needs to be very hard at the rear and relatively soft at the front (neck/shoulder). There are also steel cases (Russian, and Wolf Russian imported), non-reloadable Aluminum (Aluminium) cases, or the odd experimental polymer cased or caseless ammo.
• Polymer frames - M-16 is the first major weapon system to make significant use of polymers for major components.  As polymer technology increases, more structurally critical components can be made of polymers.  As an example, the original M-16 used aluminum for the upper and lower receiver - today, with current polymers, that aluminum structure could potentially be replaced with a high-strength polymer, that wasn't available in the 1960's.
• Front case ejection - (FN F-2000, for one);  Anyone that's had the guy firing to the right of them sending hot brass at their neck and down their shirt can tell you this is a welcome improvement.
• Ergonomics - There is comfort in the feel of the familiar, but the familiar can be improved on.  The FN SCAR takes the general control layout of the familiar M-16/M-4 - then improves stock adjustable length, adjustable cheek weld, charging handle location (ala MP-5), and accessory mounting flexibility.
• Refinement of caliber - 5.56 volume-of-fire versus 7.62 power-per-round on the assault rifle side, with a fringe of intermediate potential rounds like the 6.5 Grendel, 6.5x47 Lapua, etc.  (Personally, I think the 6.5x47 Lapua is the best of both worlds - bullet is 71% of the weight of the 7.62 round but has better ballistics and energy retention at range, casing is outwardly similar enough to the 7.62x51 to use the same magazines, and pressure curve is similar enough that gas-operated weapons could be converted from 7.62x51 to 6.5x47 with little more than a barrel change).  Again, for a military assault rifle & light/medium machine gun caliber, it's (as usual) a dance between 'light enough to carry a bunch' and 'powerful enough per individual round'.
• Portability versus power - a man portable .50 cal sniper rifle?  Haven't seen this much power in a sniper rifle since WW-I (when they had anti-tank rifles).  Let that sink in a moment..  anti-tank RIFLE.  For an intermediate round, the .338 Lapua is a good balance between the monstrous .50 cal and the anemic (for a sniper round) 7.62x51

Could go on for quite a few more points, listing the little refinements and tweaks to small arms design.

But, if you want a peek at what the next revolutionary small arms technology is going to be, read a few of the US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory reports of the last 20 years.  There are a Crap-tonne° of research papers on rail gun technology.  As soon as there's a breakthrough in energy storage technology and propulsion coil efficiency, rail guns will be here.

° - crap-tonne.  Combination unit, like foot-pound,  derivative of the basic unit shit load.  (144 shit-load = 1 ass-load)

pace51 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

John... high command uses the uav, gives the squad the details. There. No soldier flies it. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN COMBAT? Maybe. But then, did you see ur buddies flying a uav? no

Umm, so how is that any different than the current setup? The information from UAVs is relayed to ground troops, the ground troops themselves rarely look at the live feed. What exactly is your point?

You said we don't need UAV's...
Or intelligence... and I thought you meant that intelligence has no impact on how infantry battles have changed. Sorry if I misunderstood.

He was saying that infantry don't need direct acess to UAV's. I say the more info available to the soldier the better.

SEREMAKER wrote:

i see a push on exo suits ..... a framed suit that takes the weight off the indivual

Throw some armor on that puppy, some integrated C3I electronics, NBC filtration, and .. oh, why not.. a scaled-up M-249 firing the good old .50 cal round.

Just don't give it to the Airborne units.  Might be a bit heavy to jump with.

JohnG@lt wrote:

A powered suit is still way off in the future when batteries can make it viable.

Or, a compact efficient generator. 
Much research in that direction lately.
Honda Hybrid engine, or something in that direction.


[note:  take the above with a sense of humor.  real easy to get carried away with what looks easy to do on paper.  "devil is in the details" and there is a world of difference between a lab prototype, and a machine that is Marine-proof in a combat environment.]

Last edited by rdx-fx (2010-06-01 11:34:04)

JohnG@lt wrote:

pace51 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Umm, so how is that any different than the current setup? The information from UAVs is relayed to ground troops, the ground troops themselves rarely look at the live feed. What exactly is your point?

You said we don't need UAV's...
Or intelligence... and I thought you meant that intelligence has no impact on how infantry battles have changed. Sorry if I misunderstood.

When did I ever say any of that? I said the average private doesn't need a laptop or any other silly crap that will weigh him down in combat. His job is to scan his surroundings, take orders, and shoot. I don't know if it's because you play too many video games or what, but there are no one man armies, there are not and will never be a little map in the corner of his sights with little red dots on it and he sure as hell will break anything 'by accident' that weights him down and has limited usefulness. Information overload on a battlefield will get you killed more quickly than anything else. Keep it simple.

I am sure their are researchers working on what you say will never happen.
As far as information, pertinent information is key. I would say having a live feed of a differant vantage point would be pertinent. I'm not saying give every infantry control of their own laptop. I am not even saying give them control, I am saying give them a feed. I get live video on my cellphone. Rugged, good resolution, light, and pretty cheap to produce.

JohnG@lt wrote:

nlsme1 wrote:

pace51 wrote:

You said we don't need UAV's...
Or intelligence... and I thought you meant that intelligence has no impact on how infantry battles have changed. Sorry if I misunderstood.

He was saying that infantry don't need direct acess to UAV's. I say the more info available to the soldier the better.

You've obviously never been in combat.

No, I was in the Army though. I was a cop too. Point still stands.

JohnG@lt wrote:

SEREMAKER wrote:

i see a push on exo suits ..... a framed suit that takes the weight off the indivual

Starship Troopers style would be awesome They have designed clothing that's pliable until 'shocked' with an impact that can do this quite well but I assume that it's quite heavy to wear and not breathable. A powered suit is still way off in the future when batteries can make it viable.

If its the one I think you're talk about, they soak it in Magnetorheological Fluid so it hardens up when needed and softens when not.