Armas individuales y de escuadra

Ejércitos de tierra de todo el mundo y elementos que los componen

Moderadores: poliorcetes, Lepanto, Orel, Edu

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Jue Abr 06, 2017 2:26 pm

Lo estamos discutiendo en los foros de autogun y no tiene pinta de ser muy creíble o que se vaya a extender mucho. Los perjuicios superan a los beneficios en muchos escenarios
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor CVR el Vie Abr 07, 2017 8:20 am

A mi me parece que las razones en contra que dan en thefirearmblog son más que claras. El armar a todo el ejército con 7,62 NATO me parece difícil, el ir a un arma multi-calibre (SCAR), transformable según el tipo de operación, quizás.
Avatar de Usuario
CVR
 
Mensajes: 87
Registrado: Vie Feb 15, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Vie Abr 07, 2017 8:59 am

SCAR fue rechazado por un usuario con libertad de elección: USSOCOM. La ventaja aparente del multicalibre no era tal, dado que el arma era demasiado ligera para el SCAR H y el cambio, sin no recuerdo mal, era de upper entero. Además, el cañón era demasiado ligero y, en general, estimaron que las ventajas del L no justificaban que sustituyera al M4.

Por lo demás, una opción turca de retroceder al 7.62 es inaceptable: se carga con la mitad de disparos, se tarda más en entrenar para llegar a cierta capacidad y se dificulta el tiro rápido, al tiempo que se impide el tiro en ráfaga

Son tonterías que acabarán la década que viene con la versión final de la munición 6.5 CT

ENviado desde mi teléfono usando Tapatalk
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor CVR el Vie Abr 07, 2017 10:13 am

Son tonterías que acabarán la década que viene con la versión final de la munición 6.5 CT
Está claro que esa vía es la mejor, pero a veces te cogen con el paso cambiado, como pasó en el 39 con la transición a armas semiautomáticas o automáticas y al final la guerra se hizo en gran parte con armas diseñadas a fines del XIX y principios del XX.
Avatar de Usuario
CVR
 
Mensajes: 87
Registrado: Vie Feb 15, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Vie Abr 07, 2017 10:21 am

pero eso fue por conservadurismo intelectual... y porque el infante no importaba. Si importara, se le habría dado lo mejor que ofrecía la época. El infante no importaba porque había ametralladoras, carros de combate, artillería y aviación. Bien que importaba un siglo antes

Luego, en USA fue terrible el daño de Mc Arthur. No sólo por la estúpida pérdida de Filipinas, sino también porque forzó que se mantuviera el 30-06 en lugar de adoptar el .276 pedersen. Con el .276, quizás incluso no habría nacido el 7.62 y por supuesto el 5.56

Es posible que el camino esta vez sea correcto, después de más de medio siglo de traspiés. en el mismo blog que citas podemos seguir una entrevista tremenda de la responsable del programa CTSAS (antiguo LSAT) y parece evidente que el DoD apunta inequívocamente en esa dirección. El problema es el formato definitivo y el calendario, pero no creo que ya haya más opciones a medio plazo

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... -6-5mm-ct/

la duda es si van a seguir con esa barbaridad de 2900J en boca o van a bajar a 2500 como se hablaba antes. Veremos
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor Orel el Mié Abr 12, 2017 8:09 pm

El CLAEX subasta armas este mes. Por si os interesa:
http://www.ejercitodelaire.mde.es/ea/pa ... FE0036CA68

Enviado desde mi Aquaris_M4.5 mediante Tapatalk
- Sólo hay dos cosas infinitas: el Universo y la estupidez humana. Y del Universo no estoy seguro (Albert Einstein)
- No hay nada repartido de modo más equitativo en el mundo que la razón: todo el mundo está convencido de tener suficiente (René Descartes)
Avatar de Usuario
Orel
Moderador
 
Mensajes: 28489
Registrado: Sab Sep 24, 2005 11:33 am
Ubicación: España, cerca del bocho

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Vie Abr 21, 2017 2:33 pm

Notición si se confirma: el ministerio de defensa alemán abre concurso para sustituir los G36

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... ce-hk-g36/

The German Federal Office of Bundeswehr Equipment, Information Technology and In-Service Support (BAAINBw) has announced the long-awaited program to replace the Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifle in German Army service, reports the Polish gun magazine MilMag. According to the source, the BAAINBw released the tender for the new System Sturmgewehr Bundeswehr on April 19, with all submissions due by May 22, 2017. Selection is expected to occur sometime in 2018, and production of whichever rifle is selected is slated for April 1, 2019, to continue through 31 March 2026. The 7-year contract is expected to have a total value of 245 million Euros, (~ USD 260 million).

MilMag reports that the contract seeks a new standard infantry rifle available in two barrel lengths, Kurzrohr (short) and Langrohr (long), with ambidextrous controls and standard NATO mounting rails. Oddly, according to MilMag, the Bundeswehr did not specify caliber, allowing entrants to submit rifles in either 5.56x45mm NATO or 7.62x51mm NATO. The tender also specified rifle weight to not exceed 3.6 kilograms (even in 7.62mm), and a 30,000 round receiver/structure life plus 15,000 round barrel life with ball ammunition.

Entrants for the competition are reported to be, already, the Heckler & Koch HK433, Steyr-Rheinmetall RS556, and SIG Sauer MCX. MilMag also suggested the Beretta ARX-100/200 might also be submitted, although that is probably speculative.

As of yet, the tender does not appear to be available online.


Difícil me parecería que no ganara el HK433. Los alemanes no cometerán la tontería francesa o inglesa: no dejarán morir los restos de su industria de armamento individual militar
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor Orel el Vie Abr 21, 2017 3:30 pm

¿Es un buen fusil? Creo como tú que perder autonomía en fabricación de armas individuales es relevante.
- Sólo hay dos cosas infinitas: el Universo y la estupidez humana. Y del Universo no estoy seguro (Albert Einstein)
- No hay nada repartido de modo más equitativo en el mundo que la razón: todo el mundo está convencido de tener suficiente (René Descartes)
Avatar de Usuario
Orel
Moderador
 
Mensajes: 28489
Registrado: Sab Sep 24, 2005 11:33 am
Ubicación: España, cerca del bocho

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Vie Abr 21, 2017 5:17 pm

Orel escribió:¿Es un buen fusil? Creo como tú que perder autonomía en fabricación de armas individuales es relevante.


Dos páginas antes

viewtopic.php?p=217256#p217256

- Modular and light construction. Compact dimensions.
- Barrel length individually configurable. Simple end-user level barrel change.
- Completely ambidextrous manipulation for right and left handed shooters.
- Non reciprocating charging handle with integrated forward assist. Switchable w/o tools.
- Lower receiver with ambidextrous manipulation for G36 and HK416 users.
- Drop safe according to AC225/D14 with and w/o applied safety.
- Upper receiver with full length STANAG rail in 12 o'clock position. Hand guard with Hkey interface on 3 and 9 o'clock position. Picatinny rail on 6 o'clock position.
- Length adjustable folding stock with height adjustable cheek weld. Weapon also usable with stock folded.
- Optional receiver integrated maintenance free shot counter.
- Tool less disassembly / assembly of major components.
- Weapon can be set to safe in all loading conditions.
- Lots of accessories available.
- Made 100% in Germany
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Lun Abr 24, 2017 11:31 pm

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... per-rifle/

The United States Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is considering a caliber change for their future semiautomatic sniper weapons systems. Although traditionally these medium range precision weapons have been chambered for the 7.62x51mm caliber common to NATO, it seems SOCOM is looking to get a little more out of them by changing over to a new 6.5mm/0.264? caliber round. The Command is investigating two off-the-shelf options: The 6.5mm Creedmoor (6.5x49mm) and the .260 Remington (6.5x52mm). Both rounds are extremely similar, each being based on the .308 Winchester case (the Creedmoor by way of the all-but-forgotten .30 T/C) necked down. From Military Times:

Special Operations Command is exploring a new caliber for its semi-automatic sniper rifle needs and upgrading one of its bolt-action sniper rifle systems.

Maj. Aron Hauquitz told Military Times Tuesday that SOCOM is in the preliminary stages of exploring a sniper rifle chambered in the 6.5 mm caliber. The two commercially available rounds being evaluated are the .260 Remington and the 6.5 mm Creedmoor.

Research shows that both rounds will “stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,” SOCOM officials said.

Hauquitz said that the research is focused on the popularity and availability of the cartridge, and finding out the benefits and drawbacks of the different rounds.



He didn’t provide a specific date or timeline for when the new rifle would be in operators’ hands but said they would have a better idea regarding the caliber later this year.

“We’re purely in the exploratory phase,” Hauquitz said. “We’re trying to see if we can take a weapon that is 7.62 and give it greater range, accuracy and lethality.”

Hauquitz said the 6.5 mm exploration came out of preliminary results of the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study, which evaluates for the military commercially available ammunition, emerging ammunition capabilities, and ammunition technologies for conventional and non-conventional calibers.


The primary differences between the 6.5 Creedmoor and the .260 Remington are the slightly shorter case and slightly longer neck of the Creedmoor, and the more aggressive shoulder and slightly greater case taper of the .260 Remington. Other than those differences (which make the two decidedly non-interchangeable), both rounds are essentially the same, providing very similar levels of performance. Versus the 7.62mm, either 6.5mm offers a much flatter trajectory, greater wind resistance, and shorter flight time; in these respects the hotshot 6.5s more resemble the .300 Winchester Magnum which has been used in military sniper rifles than they do the 7.62mm. In addition, both rounds give greater striking velocity and energy at extended distances, adding penetration and possibly also fragmentation range versus 7.62.

The new caliber will apparently be sought for the semiautomatic sniper system, as well as the Advanced Sniper Rifle (ASR), and an M40A6 upgrade.
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor CVR el Lun May 01, 2017 12:47 pm

El 6,5 Creedmoor y el .260 Remington parecen demasiado potentes
Avatar de Usuario
CVR
 
Mensajes: 87
Registrado: Vie Feb 15, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Mar May 02, 2017 10:27 am

Es que ahora mismo hay un verdadero problema: los últimos pasos dados en el programa sucesor del LSAT apuntan a una energía en boca más cerca de los 3200 julios que de los 2500 estimados inicialmente. Recordemos que el 5.56 da 1500-1700


Enviado desde mi iPad utilizando Tapatalk
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Lun May 08, 2017 9:30 am

Cuando el río suena...

https://www.armytimes.com/articles/new- ... m4-and-556

New rifle, bigger bullets: Inside the Army's plan to ditch the M4 and 5.56
By: Todd South, May 7, 2017 (Photo Credit: Capt. Charlie Emmons/Army)
After carrying the M16 or one of its cousins across the globe for more than half a century, soldiers could get a peek at a new prototype assault rifle that fires a larger round by 2020.

Army researchers are testing half a dozen ammunition variants in “intermediate calibers,” which falls between the current 7.62 mm and 5.56 mm rounds, to create a new light machine gun and inform the next-generation individual assault rifle/round combo.

The weapon designs being tested will be “unconventional,” officials said, and likely not one that is currently commercially available.

Some intermediate calibers being tested include the .260 Remington, 6.5 Creedmoor, .264 USA as well as other non-commercial intermediate calibers, including cased telescoped ammo, Army officials said.

If selected by senior leaders, the weapon could resolve a close-quarters weapons debate about calibers that critics say dates to the 1920s and has influenced military small arms ever since.


If successful, the new rifle and round combination would give troops a weapon they can carry with about the same number of rounds as the current 5.56 mm but with greater range and accuracy in their firepower — with little change in weight.

The new rifle would likely replace the M16/M4 platform, which has been in the hands of troops since the 1960s and undergone multiple modifications and upgrades.

Maj. Jason Bohannon, lethality branch chief at the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Fort Benning, Georgia, and Matt Walker, deputy director of the branch and a retired command sergeant major, spoke recently to Army Times about broad efforts in small arms weapons research and development.

‘Better option’

Work on the new round began in recent years, Bohannon said, and much of the next steps in developing both the round and rifle will be driven by the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration study.

The study has been going on since at least 2014, according to the Army.

The study is expected to conclude in the next three months, Walker said.

Portions of that report and its findings will likely be made public, but other portions may be deemed sensitive, they said.

Multiple active and retired military arms advocates and industry experts have presented papers and data on the alleged “overmatch” that U.S. troops face on the battlefield with their current calibers.

One oft-noted recent study was authored by then-Army Maj. Thomas Ehrhart, who wrote a 2009 paper titled, “Increasing Small Arms Lethality in Afghanistan: Taking back the Infantry Half-Kilometer.”

The paper drew from soldiers’ experience in Afghanistan firefights.

Ehrhart wrote that half of the firefights infantry units in Afghanistan encountered were past 300 meters, and the 5.56 mm round had lessened lethality at longer distances.

He offered two solutions — a more effective 5.56 mm round, or the “better option” of adopting a caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm range.

The major then cited a 2006 study by the Joint Service Wound Ballistics–Integrated Product Team, which also named the ideal caliber in the 6.5 mm to 7 mm size.


Soldiers from 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Infantry Division, pull security during an exercise at the National Training Center, Fort Irwin, Calif. Army officials said they’re developing new weapons systems to give soldiers, especially at the squad and platoon levels, as much firepower as possible.
Photo Credit: Sgt. Eric M. Garland/Army

Decades-old debate

This isn’t the first time ammunition experts have reached that conclusion.

“There is a long-running debate, going back almost 100 years now, about the optimal, optimum small arm,” said retired Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, author of the 2016 book “Scales on War: The Future of America’s Military at Risk.”

Scales pointed to the development of the M1 rifle by John Garand in the 1920s.

At the time, Garand built both a .30 caliber and a .276 caliber version of the rifle.

But a surplus of .30 caliber ammunition from World War I, coupled later with the financial constraints of the Great Depression, led to senior defense officials and political leaders calling for a .30 caliber rifle.

The M1’s design eventually evolved into the M14. Both rifles share a 7.62 mm or .30 caliber bore. But the M14 was soon discarded when, in the 1960s, Air Force Gen. Curtis LeMay purchased the early version of the M16 for some Air Force units.

The M16 was then adopted across the branches and fielded for service in Vietnam, where troops reported frequent jamming and malfunctions in early versions of the weapon.

One case, detailed in the 2010 book “The Gun,” by former Marine and award-winning journalist C.J. Chivers, grabbed national attention during the Vietnam War when Marine 1st Lt. Michael Chervenak wrote an open letter that recounted his company’s experiences with the new rifle jamming in combat.

The letter led to hearings in Congress and, along with other incidents, contributed to decades of controversy, modifications and adaptations, which resulted in the current M4 variants, which continue to have their supporters and critics.

Maj. Thomas Campbell, a spokesman for Army Training and Doctrine Command, provided Army Times with the results of a nine-year, post-deployment survey of 9,000 soldiers conducted by the command.

The survey saw 80 percent of troops rate the M4 as “effective or better.”

The survey did not compare the M4 to other weapons, but instead asked the respondents to rate the overall effectiveness of the weapon in the performance of their duties while deployed, Campbell said.

Time to invest

The aging M16/M4 platform is nearing the end of its life cycle, Bohannon said.

“Right now the [M16/M4] platform we have is a workhorse and very effective in the hands of a trained soldier or Marine,” he said.

But, Walker at Maneuver Center added, the Army can’t continue to ask more of the weapon system that has been in service for so long.

“Our next investment will likely be in a new operating platform,” Bohannon said.


Spc. Timothy Squires, an infantryman assigned to 2nd Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, scans his sector of fire during squad-level training in Kosovo.
Photo Credit: Staff Sgt. Thomas Duval/Army

Critics of the M16/M4 and the 5.56 mm round say no matter what has been done to improve the M16 and its subsequent variations, the 5.56 mm round lacks the range and lethality needed in modern firefights.

Some of the concerns Scales said he believes are driving military leaders to finally look at an alternative to the 5.56 mm and the M16/M4 include:

— Improvements in adversaries’ body armor, which make the 5.56 mm less lethal.

— Current adversaries such as the Islamic State terror group and others using bigger rounds with more reach against U.S. troops, creating an overmatch.

— Jamming problems with M16/M4 variants that continue to plague the design.

At the 2016 National Defense Industrial Association Armament Systems Forum, retired Brig. Gen. Dave Grange and Jim Schatz, an Army veteran and weapons expert who has since passed away, each gave presentations calling for a new “intermediate caliber” in the 6.5 mm range.

They also referenced the Russian, Islamic State and al-Qaida advantages with longer-reaching and more lethal weapons, including reports of Russian work on their own 6.5 mm assault rifle.

But, Scales said, one of the problems that led to the .30 caliber being adopted over the 6.5 mm nearly a century ago still remains — an abundance of 5.56 mm ammunition stockpiled across U.S. military commands and NATO, whose nations fire the 5.56 mm and 7.62 mm as part of an ammunition standardization agreement made decades ago.

Other weapons work

Meanwhile, the Army’s Maneuver Center isn’t the only entity looking at new or existing small arms replacements.

Marine Corps Times, a sister publication of Army Times, recently reported the Marines are considering equipping nearly every Marine 0311 infantryman with the M27, which first hit the fleet in large quantities in 2010.

The M27 is seen by experts as superior to the M4 in reliability and increased range. But, at $3,000, it runs three times the cost of an M4 and is still chambered in 5.56 mm.


Marine Corps Times
The Corps' quest for the best rifle for infantrymen
U.S. Special Operations Command is currently testing a new commercially available sniper rifle using the .260 Remington and 6.5 mm Creedmoor rounds, which “stay supersonic longer, have less wind drift and better terminal performance than 7.62 mm ammunition,” said Maj. Aron Hauquitz.

SOCOM is also developing polymer ammunition in 6.5 mm to reduce the weight load.

Current research is showing polymer 6.5 mm reducing weight by one-third from 7.62 mm, reaching nearly the same weight as conventional brass 5.56 mm.

Both regular Army weapons researchers at the Maneuver Center and Marine Corps weapons experts are monitoring the SOCOM testing, officials said.


Military Times
Special Operations Command is looking at a new 6.5 mm round for its sniper rifle
Textron Systems, a private defense industry company, conducted a caliber study using a specially designed .264 caliber cartridge which they said resulted in “terminal effects greater than 7.62 mm NATO out to 1,200 meters” in both their carbine and machine gun.

Data provided by the company showed the machine gun is 7 pounds lighter than the 7.62 mm M240L with 800 rounds of their lightweight ammunition, lowering the combat load by 27 pounds.

The machine gun is also lighter than the M249 SAW, wrote Paul Shipley, chief engineer of light armaments for the company.

While SOCOM is looking at immediate fixes and off-the-shelf options, Bohannon said that the Maneuver Center and related entities working on weapons issues for the regular Army “invests in more revolutionary, long-term” solutions.

Bohannon said that his team has weekly meetings with officials involved with the Joint Service Small Arms Requirements Integration working group, which includes all the services and SOCOM.

While the Army continues to explore existing intermediate rifle/round combinations, their work is only to provide options for senior leadership to choose and then request funding, Bohannon said.

He did not provide cost estimates or a timeline for the potential replacement.

Army vet accused of shooting her service dog found dead
by The Associated Press and staff reports
North Carolina police say they're investigating the possible suicide of an Army veteran charged with…
On newsstands this week
The inside scoop on the Army's search for a rifle
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor CVR el Lun May 08, 2017 11:26 am

Más sobre el IAR, su adopción como fusil por el USMC y sus defectos.


edita poliorcetes: la dejo así por si vuelve a fallar http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... ine-corps/
Avatar de Usuario
CVR
 
Mensajes: 87
Registrado: Vie Feb 15, 2008 8:26 pm

Re: Armas individuales y de escuadra

Notapor poliorcetes el Lun May 08, 2017 12:09 pm

la URL no funciona :(
Nunca digas que éste es mi último sendero
Avatar de Usuario
poliorcetes
Site Admin
 
Mensajes: 9952
Registrado: Vie Abr 17, 2009 11:54 am

PrevioSiguiente

Volver a Ejércitos de tierra

¿Quién está conectado?

Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 5 invitados