Re: Metal Storm
From: Ryan Gill <rmgill@m...>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 11:48:57 -0500
Subject: Re: Metal Storm
At 7:53 AM +0100 1/18/02, K.H.Ranitzsch wrote:
>
>You mean a Metal-storm gun is not sutable for use under armour ? Why
not ?
>As long as the muzzle is outside the fighting compartment to avoid gas
>inside, I don't see a basic problem. Very long barrels may be awkward
to
>handle perhaps.
Think of this. A coax MG under armor has a single barrel protruding
through the mantlet. A metal storm mount would have say, 20 rounds
per barrel. If you only have one fragile barrel protruding through
the mantlet, then you have 20 rounds on tap. That coax 7.62 MG has
50. The loader can clip another can of 250 rounds of 7.62 link on to
the end of that belt in a very confined space. Having to slide the
barrel out (compromising the NBC integrity of the fighting
compartment btw) and slide a new barrel in after 20 rounds.
I couldn't even think to slide a barrel out of the turret on my
ferret unless I turned the turret around, elevated the gun and banged
the driver (usually me, but in this case it'd have to be someone
else) in the back of the head. Changing a can of 7.62 (or 30.06 in
the case of an M1919A4) is a heck of a lot easier. Also, I'd have a
hard time stowing 125 32" long barrels inside that vehicle. I can
carry 10 cans belt of link rather easily in that very confined
fighting compartment. If in combat, I'd take a conventional MG any
day.
Note rocket artillery performs in a similar manner to Metal Storm.
High volume low dwell. However, tube type artillery is still kicking
and getting very advanced. TOT strikes are getting to be in the realm
of 10 rounds on the target at the same time per tube. If 6 tubes are
in the fire mission, then you get 60 rounds on that strike in about 2
seconds, not a heck of a lot of time for the bad guys to take cover
or get under armor.
--
Ryan Gill | | rmgill@mindspring.com
| |
| O--=- |
|_/|o|_\_|
/ 00DA61 \
_w/|=_[__]_= \w_
|: O(4) == O :|
|---\________/---|
||\ /||
||=\______/=||
|| ||