Tag Archives: commentary

On the Gewehr 36

Posted by

First, the news.

The German court in Koblenz has found in favor of HK that they are not at fault for the issues plaguing the G36. This was expected, at least by yours truly. HK asserted in its lawsuit that the German government never required their rifles pass the tests in question, therefore they couldn’t be held liable for said rifle failing to meet those requirements. And it is true that the Bundeswehr never had requirements regarding the failures in question. Nor indeed did they do the tests until the chorus from the troops became so loud that they could not be drowned out. A good, legalistic defense. And good news for HK.

And let me be clear. I’m not blaming them for failing to meet standards they weren’t tested for. You might be a trifle peeved at HK if you’re following the news, but how would you feel if you took a high school Algebra test and then your parents scolded you for failing to pass a calculus exam?

What were the problems? To put it mildly, the G36 sucks when exposed to heat. The barrel is mounted to the polymer receiver and the polymer sight assembly in such a way that heat will compromise the mount, causing accuracy issues. I am not sure if this is a question of structural engineering or polymer composition or both.

Here is a picture of the trunnion on the G36.

That area, of course, is right around the chamber of the rifle. It’s gonna get hot quick. Now, I’m no engineer, but that doesn’t seem all that sturdy of a mounting method. And I might be curious as to how hot that area gets. And I know no other rifle does things that way.

These issues can be found in as little as 90 rounds (three magazines) of automatic or reasonably quick semiautomatic fire. They are also significantly exacerbated by high temperatures. The kind you might find in the Middle East. You can imagine the shock and horror in the Bundeswehr when they finally went out to go kick some haji ass with their American (and French!) pals and discovered that their rifles couldn’t take the heat.

Now, Germany is a temperate place. But the Germans have been in warm places before. Where? Hmm. Well, there was that bit in Afrika back in the 40s, right?

NEIN!
DISCUSSION OF THE WAR IS STRENG VERBOTEN!!

Okay. So, maybe not. I imagined Rommel. But hey. When 90 or so shots make your targets look like you forgot how to shoot all of a sudden, there’s no trouble at all, right? We’re imagining things.

But don’t take my word for it. I’m just some Amerikaner. What do I know? What do the German special forces units use? They use the HK 416 as much as they can. Hmm. Aluminum receiver, eh? I think my police friends might call this a “clue”.

German troops deployed to Afghanistan always tried to acquire G3s or HK 416s in the field. Another clue!

Then there’s the XM8, which was a G36 with a fancy shell. Same construction. It was plagued by heat issues, which caused its weight to skyrocket. Huh. This is turning into Cluetown over here.

Other than the massive heat issues, the G36 isn’t a terrible design. It looks kinda space age. It has an ambidextrous charging handle and ambidextrous safeties. The mag release is a paddle (which is in the center, and therefore also ambidextrous), and the mags do not drop free. The paddle isn’t operable by the strong hand from its usual position on the firing grip. It’s not as nice as an AR-15 pattern weapon ergonomically. The gas piston system works well. The magazines are also a good feature of the weapon. They can be clipped together using lugs on the side. They are also made of a translucent polymer, so you can see how many rounds remain. Plus, they were designed from the start for thirty rounds, so they have a continuous curve, instead of the dogleg of the AR-15 magazine. The optics are kinda goofy, and they’re integral, so have fun with that. The compact G36C version would introduce a lower picatinny rail sight/carry handle. But not as low as on other not-G36 rifles, because the charging handle is right there under the carry handle.

Also, in case there was doubt, the HK 416 is basically HK’s take on the AR design, but with the G36 op rod system. So there’s that, and it’s way better. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. They’re clearly paying us Americans back for stealing the Mauser design for the Springfield 1903.

Overall, the G36 a meh rifle before we knew about the heat problems, and now I can’t imagine why you’d get one. Despite all of the fancy new-age polymers, the regular G36 rifle isn’t lighter than the M16A2 (or M16A1, which is lighter still). And the M16A2 won’t make your groups the size of a barn after 90 rounds.

HK 416 Wins in France!

Posted by

The French are not wasting any time in selecting a replacement for their worn-out FAMAS rifles. The HK 416 has been selected as the new French Service rifle, beating out the other downselected rifle, the FN SCAR 16.

Congratulations, HK!

I came to a similar conclusion while back in my own HK 416/SCAR 16 head-to-head. So I totally called it.

Let’s review salient points in the 416’s favor, in case you’re wondering why the French picked a gun from La Boche. I’ve got some more thoughts on the 416 itself, but those will wait. This is about France.

1.) The HK 416 has been chosen as a general issue rifle already, by Norway. The SCAR 16 has not. While both were developed by American special operations units, and both are in service with a number of special operations groups around the world, including some in France, there’s a lot you can learn from a rifle by giving it to a bunch of grunts to use and abuse. Grunts can break everything. And the Norwegians have found some minor issues, which HK has fixed. So that’s a bunch of bugs the French won’t find. Picking something someone else has already issued generally means you’ll find fewer problems.

2.) The HK 416 is going to be the G36 replacement. Only a matter of time. I’ll have more on the G36 later this week, but given the problems it has in the heat (even if no one in cold-ass Germany thought to test in the heat), the Germans will be ditching the G36. The winner is going to be German, because they’re still secretly nationalist. And that means it’s going to be the next service rifle of Germany.

Why does this matter for France? Well, France is trying to cooperate a lot more with Germany on military matters. They’ve got a bunch of projects in the works with Germany, including a new tank project. Even if I think multinational projects like that are a terrible idea, and no multinational tank project has ever actually delivered anything, they’re committed. So choosing a common service rifle is a no brainer.

3.) The HK 416 is very automatic-rifle-like. Remember, in its off the shelf form (ok, they nicely put USMC on the side), the 416 was selected as the Squad Automatic Rifle for the US Marine Corps, in sort of a modern-BAR type role. I’m not sure if this is important to you, but if it is, if you’re worried about battles like Wanat (and can’t just fix your officer corps), the 416 is the rifle for you. It is also heavy. If you like heavy, it’s the rifle for you.

So there you have it. That said, I’d still prefer a more traditional direct impingement M4, maybe from Colt, or maybe Colt Canada (they actually have a somewhat different catalog than regular Colt), or LMT.

Rampant speculation: why did the Falcon 9 blow up?

Posted by

I am not a rocket scientist, but I do like to think about engineering problems.

Here are the facts as we know them:

  • A Falcon 9 rocket blew up on the pad on September 1, 2016.
  • The rocket was undergoing a pre-launch static test, when it exploded.
  • According to SpaceX, the explosion originated in the second-stage liquid oxygen tank.
  • SpaceX uses a fancy super-cooled LOX mix, which allows more fuel in a given tank volume, which allows better performance.
  • Last summer, SpaceX had another rocket fail. The CRS-7 mission disintegrated in flight after the upper stage LOX tank burst. The internal helium tank (to maintain tank pressure) failed because of a faulty strut.

Now, for a rocket to fail during fueling, before engine firing—as the most recent Falcon failed—is very unusual. To my engineer’s mind, it suggests a materials problem in the LOX or liquid helium tanks, something failing in an unexpected way when deep-chilled. Crucially, the Falcon 9’s LOX tank experiences the coldest temperature (for a LOX tank) in the history of rocketry. Take that in combination with the failure on the CRS-7 mission: after their investigation, SpaceX switched to a new strut, which means new failure modes.

Mark my words (and feed them to me along with a heaping helping of crow, when I turn out to be wrong): this is another strut issue, be it faulty or just unsuited for the deep-cryo fuel in some other way.

French Carbine Downselect

Posted by

A bit of old news, but I’m finally getting around to it.

The French are looking into replacing their FAMAS carbines with something new, because the FAMAS rifles are about 40 years old. And, because the French small arms industry is basically nonexistent1, they have to look elsewhere for a new carbine. The manufacturer must be European though. Sorry Colt and LMT.

Anyway, seeing as the new design had to be European, five companies stepped up to the plate to bat for this contest:

Heckler & Koch (HK 416A5)
Fabrique Nationale (FN SCAR 16)
Beretta (ARX 160)
HS Produkt (VHS 2)
Swiss Arms (aka SiG; MCX)

Of note is that the only bullpup design was the VHS 2.

A brief comment on the MCX. It’s a super new design; another AR with some not-so-small changes. SiG put in a truncated bolt carrier and a gas tappet operating system. The return spring setup is straight off an AR-18. It’s very, very light, and but for the lame looking stock, I rather like the design concept. And light is generally good. That said, of late SiG doesn’t have the best QC reputation2, and being the newest design, it doesn’t have the testing/refinements of some of the other designs. And this one is a bit more complicated than just adding an op rod, excuse me, a tappet gas system David ‘Carbine’ Williams. Truncated bolt carriers have been done before, but never with all that much reliability. Still, I commend them for entering it.

And now we have the results of the downselect. Still in the contest are HK and FN. So we’ll be watching the SCAR 16 and the HK416 go head to head to battle it out. This should not come as a surprise; both of these rifles have been used by some French special forces units, and both have been quite well tested and abused already. Honestly, I think the favorite at this point is the HK416.3 I’m pretty sure it’s the better gun, and it’s already got a pretty big contract up in Norway.

But this is a good choice. Going with the proven guns was a no-brainer here.

Also, not being a fan of bullpups, I’m quite happy to see the French return to the conventional layout.

1.) This makes me very, very sad. Such a shame that the nation that first developed smokeless powder can’t make it’s own small arms anymore. On the bright side, Col. Nicholas Lebel is probably spinning in his grave so fast that you could hook up a generator and power half of Paris.
2.) And this is with classic, proven designs: the P226 and P229. Which were *fine* until some genius decided to start messing with the designs to squeeze some more profit out of the margins.
3.) The favorite to win is a rifle made by la Boche? Sacre Bleu! At this point M. Lebel is going to be able to power all of Paris with his spinning.

Mightiest Warship, May 1941 Edition

Posted by

It’s commonly thought that the Bismarck was the mightiest warship in May of 1941, when she sortied with Prinz Eugen, sunk the Hood, was crippled by Swordfish torpedo planes, and then sunk by a vengeful Royal Navy flotilla.

However, this is wrong. Wrong wrong WRONG!

Okay then.
“Magic mirror, on the wall, who’s the mightiest ship of all?”

Well now. The magic mirror would tell us the tale of the legendary Billy Mitchell, and that airpower is superior. Proven when he took out the Ostfriesland with bombs. The aircraft has more range and more effective antiship striking power. It is the carrier that is champion of types.

But which carrier? Well, she must be active, and therefore must be commissioned. And clearly the two navies that had carriers worth noting in the Second World War were the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy, so let’s look at those.

For the Imperial Japanese Navy, the mightiest flattop gal from the Far East is IJN Zuikaku1. Technically, the Kaga carries more planes, but both carry the same number of planes in ready, immediately flyable condition. No points for more stowed aircraft, which are disassembled. Plus Zuikaku has better anti-aircraft armament and thus better defense. She’s also faster, and speed helps generate wind over the flight deck, making takeoffs easier. Sorry Kaga.

For the US Navy, the mightiest flattop gal from the West is USS Enterprise2. The Big E. The Grey Ghost. One of three American carriers to be active at the start and survive the war. She had the biggest air wing in the USN in May of ’41.

Let’s get it on!

First, design compliment. Zuikaku was designed to carry 72 flyable aircraft, plus 12 disassembled spares. Enterprise was designed around a compliment of 90 flyable aircraft. The US Navy liked big air wings on its carriers, and to that end designed operations on using half the flight deck as a deck park, even during flight operations. So that’s points to the Enterprise.

A brief interlude. Many of you are no doubt wondering why I don’t compare the air wings themselves. The USN had the excellent SBD Dauntless dive bomber, the good F4F Wildcat fighter, and the outmoded TBD Devastator torpedo bomber. The IJN had the superlative A6M Zero fighter, the solid B5N Kate torpedo bomber, and the obsolescent D3A Val Dive bomber. I might also talk about the relative experience levels of the flight crews. But I won’t. Neither aircraft purchasing decisions, nor delays in production, nor failures to secure timely replacements, nor even how much time had been spent beating up on minor league air forces are the purview of ship designers. It isn’t reasonable to award or deduct points for things beyond their control. Besides, adding planes into the mix then brings up a question of doctrine, and the Japanese favored using float planes from cruisers as scouts. But the US Navy used SBD Dauntless dive bombers as scouts, which were embarked on the carrier. This will get very complicated very quickly if you’re trying to pick a winner from a hypothetical battle, as you might expect to be able to do if you were adding an aircraft comparison into the mix. Do we spot the Japanese some cruisers so they can scout too? Do we magically assume they can see the US Navy? Are we instead trying to make a hypothetical battle modeling of task forces, since these ships never travel alone? I should also point out that down that road lies the madness of trying to figure out how many fighters are on CAP duty/alert, and how many are in a strike force, and then comparing dissimilar types with unequal numbers. Lunacy. So I shan’t waste any more time discussing the matter.

Defensively, the best defense is the carrier’s own air wing. But that is not always enough. What about the guns? No points for antiship capability, of course. It is somewhat difficult to evaluate antiaircraft guns comparatively, so we’ll take as couple of proxy measures total throw weight per minute of all embarked guns in May of ’41, and AA Ceiling for the heavy AA. In my calculations, I will take the best rating I can find for sustained rate of fire, as a simplifying metric for comparison.

Enterprise had, in 1941, eight 5″/38 guns in single mounts, plus sixteen 1.1″/75 autocannons in quad mounts, and twenty four .50″ M2 machine guns. The 5″/38 is the best DP AA naval gun of the war. In the Enterprise’s pedestal mounts, these are good for about fifteen rounds per minute, with each shell weighing 55.18 lbs. So the 5″/38s give 6,621.6 lbs per minute. The Quad 1.1″ guns were less well liked, and were generally replaced with the more powerful Bofors 40mm as the war progressed. But that is in the future. Each shell of the 1.1″/75 weighed 0.917 lbs and the guns had a rate of fire of 100 rounds per minute. This gives us 1,467.21284 lbs per minute. The famous M2 Browning fired a round weighing 0.107 lbs at a rate of 550 rounds per minute. We have 24, so that’s another 1,284 lbs per minute. So in one minute, Enterprise’s AA guns can put out 9,372.8 lbs of aircraft killing pain. Maximum ceiling on the 5″/38s is 37,200 ft.

Zuikaku had, in 1941, sixteen 5″/40 guns in eight twin mounts, plus 36 25mm/60 autocannons in a dozen triple mounts. The 5″/40 gun was the standard DP heavy AA gun for the Imperial Japanese Navy. It fired 51.7 lb projectiles at a rate of eight rounds per minute, giving a total of 7,052.8 lbs. The Japanese 25 mm autocannon was a clone of a Hotchkiss design. Later in the war, the Imperial Japanese Navy would regret not developing something punchier, given how heavily built American naval aircraft were. The thirty six guns each had a rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute, and fired a 0.55 lb. shell, yielding another 2,376 lbs. So Zuikaku can put out 9,428.8 lbs of defensive firepower. Maximum ceiling on the 5″/40s is 30,840 ft.

So Zuikaku has a more powerful antiaircraft suite at this point in the war. On a raw points tally basis, that’s one point each, but we want to weight air wing heavier. That’s more useful for an aircraft carrier. The Enterprise was fitted with radar before the war. Zuikaku never got any.

So, overall, the Enterprise is the more powerful carrier. So she gets the crown of Most Powerful Warship in May of ’41.

Those of you who aren’t grumbling about me ignoring aircraft design are no doubt thinking “Fine, parvusimperator. But what about the old battlewagons? Surely Bismarck is the most powerful battleship in May of ’41. Yamato hasn’t been commissioned yet!

Wrong again.

“Magic mirror, on the wall, who’s the mightiest battleship of all?”

Battleships are a lot easier to compare than aircraft carriers. Pesky debates about aircraft don’t enter into it. Battleships fight with guns. Bismarck had eight 15″ guns, each firing an armor piercing shell that weighed 1,764 lbs. Well and good.

As mentioned before, Yamato isn’t commissioned yet. So her monster 18″ guns don’t enter the picture. And, my personal favorites, the Iowas aren’t done yet either. Nor are the South Dakotas or Britain’s Vanguard. What we have are treaty built battleships, and pre-1922 things.

Let’s start with which ships have 16″ guns? That would be the Nelsons, the Colorados, the Nagatos, and the North Carolinas. The Colorados have eight guns, and all the rest have nine. Of these, the North Carolinas are the only ones built after the end of the 1922 Washington Treaty-imposed ‘building holiday’. We might expect them to be better, being newer.

And for once, we’re totally right. The North Carolinas are not only the prettiest of the 16″ gunned battleships in commission in May of 1941, but they’re also the most powerful by far. The US Navy’s Ordnance Bureau had done a bunch of testing between the wars, and reckoned that heavy shells were best. As a result, when they went to design a new 16″ gun, they not only made the gun lighter and simpler, but also made the shells really heavy. The resulting Mark 8 “Superheavy” AP rounds weighed 2,700 lbs. North Carolina’s broadside is an impressive 24,300 lbs. Bismarck can only manage 14,112 lbs.

Discussion of armor protection is more complicated, and I’ll leave that for another article. But suffice it to say North Carolina does that better too.

There you have it. The mightiest battle wagon in May of ’41 is the USS North Carolina.

1.) Shokaku would also work here, and she’s the class leader and namesake. So perhaps the honor should be hers. But Zuikaku was luckier. And survived longer. Shokaku was damaged a bunch first, and sank first. So Zuikaku gets the nod here. Luck is important for a ship.
2.) Or Yorktown, who is the class leader (again, and namesake). But Enterprise is a legend, and the most decorated American ship of WWII. How could I not pick her?

Overdue Apologies

Posted by

Inspired by a wonderful TV spot by Colin Cowherd and Jason Whitlock for their new sports show. Which I also thoroughly enjoyed. Probably more of these to come next time I feel like letting ‘smartass’ go to 11.

I am sorry I hate the shotgun component of 3-Gun.

I am sorry I think the T-72 is a worthless piece of garbage.

I am sorry I don’t think the J-20 is very stealthy.

I am sorry I think BMPs are deathtraps.

I am sorry I think Chinese jet engine manufacturing capability is a joke.

I am sorry the Olympics bore me.

I am sorry I’m not an “AK Person”.

I am sorry I think hosting the Olympics is a colossal waste of money.

I am sorry I doubt the value of America’s NATO allies who aren’t Great Britain or France.

I am sorry I would never have let the Baltic States into NATO.

I am sorry I don’t believe in the ‘Olympic ideal.’

I am sorry I take mutual defense pacts seriously.

I am sorry I hate planning for COIN.

I am sorry I don’t like double action semiautomatic pistols.

I am sorry I’m not a gun hipster.

I am sorry I’m not a sports viewing hipster.

I’m sorry I’m not a hipster anything.

I am sorry my gun tastes are pedestrian.

I am sorry I’m a trigger snob.

I am sorry I’m a huge optics snob.

I am sorry I still think about big conventional wars.

I am sorry I’m not a safety nazi.

I am sorry I still plan around big conventional wars.

I am sorry my cynical distrust of politicians is rewarded by being right.

I am sorry I think nylon is a stupid fabric to have in a combat uniform.

I am sorry I don’t think linux is the greatest OS ever.

I am sorry I think the USN camo uniforms are stupid.

I am sorry I hate when my computer asks me for permission to do the thing I just told it to do.

I am sorry I’m still patriotic.

And, I’m sorry for fake apologies.

Infantry Kit Challenge

Posted by

So, it’s long been popular to bitch and moan about how much weight our soldiers carry. Okay. Fine. It sucks to carry all that weight, true. But it’s a lot easier to complain than it is to offer solutions. So, lest you think we are cynical grognards who do nothing but complain, let’s try to offer alternatives.

In that spirit, some rules that I’ll abide by when pondering the problem. Hopefully Fishbreath will also take up the challenge. And you, dear reader, can also feel free to write in with your own ideas.

1.) A loadout should be geared towards a standard area of operations.
This is mostly to avoid nonsense like having to worry about hot and cold weather gear. Since Borgundy is a European country (for some fictitious definition of Europe), I’ll keep this kit focused on a temperate climate loadout. I might also talk changes for winter/desert/jungle, but there it is. Remember, you can focus on one area at a time and leave some things home.

2.) Basic uniform and boot weight doesn’t count
This one is another simplifier. It’s also a huge pain to find uniform weights, and is one of the most likely things to change if you’re switching climates. Plus, it varies a lot, more even than armor. And when most people think “load” they don’t count the clothes on their back or the shoes on their feet. It is assumed your soldiers wear boots and a uniform. You needn’t account for it in the table.

Do note, however, that if you choose to issue protective gear integrated into your uniform (e.g. some combat uniforms have integrated elbow/kneepad pockets) that those protective items count. So if you picked Crye’s combat uniform, say, you would need to list the weight of the elbow- and kneepads, if you chose to issue them. Supplemental stuff (poncho, poncho liner, soft shell jacket, greatcoat, etc.) does count for the weight table. This also goes for extras like spare socks. Those count for weight too.

3.) You may stipulate the sort of infantry your loadout is for (e.g. Light infantry, Motorized infantry, Mechanized infantry, etc.)
Your loadout needn’t work for all situations. You can feel free to assume your soldiers in question have to march everywhere (light infantry), get some trucks to move them (motorized infantry), or get APCs/IFVs to move them about (mechanized infantry). If they have some kind of transport, you can feel free to note things that are carried in the vehicle. These don’t count toward your weight limit (duh), but also don’t count towards the things I’m requiring on the person, like food/water/body armor below (also duh).

4.) You must budget for minimum amounts of water (at least one quart) and food (at least one day’s worth) on the soldier’s person
This is mostly to make the motor/mech guys work a little. You might end up away from your vehicle, so you need to keep some minimums at hand. The above (especially for water) are particularly spartan minimums. But you need to have some food and water on your soldiers, even just a canteen and iron rations.

5.) You must provide a minimum standard of protection (some form of ballistic helmet, AND some form of body armor) on the soldier’s person.
Now I’m being mean. Yes, I know body armor is heavy. Get over it. You have the same political considerations as real military officers. Protect your boys in uniform. I’m not telling you what kind of body armor to wear, that’s up to you and your expected threat. A flak jacket with no plates is ok. A plate carrier with rifle plates and no supplemental soft armor is ok. But you gotta take something protective on the chest. And don’t forget that if you choose SAPI/ESAPI plates, they need soft armor backers to function as advertised. Yes, those count too. As does your plate/armor carrier. Similarly, your helmet must offer some amount of ballistic protection. PASGT is fine. A simple bump/climbing helmet isn’t.

You can always pack more, but some level of head/body protection should be standard and worn at all times.

6.) You must standardize on a weapons supplier, (i.e. choose NATO stuff, or Russian stuff, or Chinese stuff, but no mixing)
This one’s just another real world constraint. You likely have a friend you buy all your small arms from. So do so.

You can have plenty of fun making various specialist loadouts, but you should start with the basic rifleman. Have fun!

Glockblaster Range Report

Posted by

So all the parts for the Glockblaster are in and it’s assembled. I even added a couple more things: the Glock factory extended slide stop and the Glock factory (slightly) extended mag release. More on those below. Anyway, got it to the range.

WOW.

No really. This thing is amazing. It’s as close as I can get to an actual phaser, blaster, or phased plasma rifle in the 40W range without actually being a fictional character. There’s a bit more flash and noise from the comp, but it’s nothing awful. Once you get used to that, you can actually track the red dot through the recoil arc. It is super cool to keep a target focus and watch the red dot bob a bit in your field of view. So between the comp an the added weight from the weaponlight, the gun doesn’t recoil overmuch. Next to no muzzle flip.

That takes some getting used to. I outran my sights a couple times, simply dealing with a weapon that got ready so quickly. It really, really makes follow up shots a breeze. And with a bit of focus, I could tear a nice ragged hole in the middle of the target faster than ever before.

Will this weapon make you a better shooter? No. Will it give you a whole bunch of advantages and make it easier to shoot fast? Yes, yes it will.

Let’s talk accessories. That covers the comp, the use of the weaponlight as a weight (it’ll probably be great as a weaponlight with the 500 lumens of retina-searing illumination it produces), and the red dot, which you already know I love.

I actually found the Glock factory extended slide stop to be a great choice. It’s just big enough to be noticeably easier to manipulate, but it still won’t get in your way. Gets a thumbs up.

The Glock factory extended magazine catch was made for the FBI. It’s a few millimeters longer than the regular one. Helps with small hands, won’t get pressed accidentally when the gun is holstered. I found it made magazine ejecting a little easier. Fishbreath, who has short thumbs, found it was a significant improvement in being able to easily reach the mag release. So, good choice there.

I haven’t done too much reload practice, but the Freya magwell doesn’t seem to help my time overmuch. I’m probably not quite quick enough yet to notice the equipment improvement being a help.1 But it does help keep my hand nice and high. It will also help prevent your hands from getting pinched by the magazines, if you have big hands.

I also haven’t touched the trigger yet. It’s a stock gen 4 trigger, with the polish of several hundred rounds. I might upgrade this in the future.

There you have it. One of my better pistol projects to date. Even Fishbreath, who doesn’t like Glocks or fancy race gadgets, thought it was great.

1.) See? It’s not just equipment. Duh.

Australian Land 400 (Wheeled Component) Downselect

Posted by

The Downselect has happened! Just last week, we saw Australia announce the two preferred bidders for the wheeled component of the Land 400 program. They are Rheinmetall (entering a Boxer MRAV with Puma turret)1 and BAE/Patria (entering a Patria AMV with a CV9035 turret).

Land 400 is designed to replace the Australian LAV IIIs and M113s with a new family of tracked and wheeled vehicles (respectively). The choice of the Rheinmetall and BAE/Patria families represent pretty safe choices. Both of these base vehicles (the Boxer MRAV and the Patria AMV) are in use with armies already, both have already met with some export success, and both have seen some combat in Afghanistan. That’s a laundry list of modern ways to be able to slap a big “PROVEN!” sticker on your vehicle. Someone paid for development already, someone else has already bought one, and some half-starved, uneducated baddies-of-the-year have shot at it with 50 year old hardware. Sigh.

Still, that’s more than can be said for the unselected vehicles. The STK Terrex III out of Singapore had some interesting features but didn’t make the cut. On the one hand, the Terrex had really good networking, an excellent camera system for all-round visibility, and plenty of internal volume. On the other hand, that made it big, heavy, and underprotected. Unlike the Lance turret on the Boxer, the Terrex’s turret can’t make STANAG Level 6 protection, at least not in any version currently fielded, and the turret manufacturer (Elbit) hasn’t challenged this. And a bigger vehicle means more armor weight. That said, it’s a wheeled vehicle, so they all have big, vulnerable tires that everyone seems to be forgetting about. The bigger problem for the Terrex is that it’s completely unproven. No one has bought any. It’s in a USMC competition, but that hasn’t concluded yet. Australia wanted MOTS above all else, and Terrex III isn’t off the shelf by any stretch of the term. Hello development costs, hello inevitable delays, hello griping, hello significant chance of legislative budget kill. So the Terrex III got a ‘no thanks’.

General Dynamics’ LAV3++ also got a rejection letter. There’s not a lot of growth room left in that design, and they would have needed to pull out more stops, or really, really play up the savings to get a nod. It would have likely been better to try to preempt the competition with an upgrade offer direct to the Australian MoD. By this point, they’re looking for something new. The upgraded LAV also failed to meet the desired protection levels. Sorry, GD. You’re out.

Let’s also look at the two competitors. Overall, I’d say the Rheinmetall option is better2. The turret has much better electronics, and the turret and vehicle offer much better protection. It’s also going to be the more expensive option. BAE/Patria have their work cut out for them to upgrade the protection, and/or make a big play for local manufacturing. They’d also probably be wise to play up the price, but it’s not clear what each side can offer, since they’d need to do some work to get protection levels to the desired level.

As for Rheinmetall, they have the best entrant in the pageant. In addition to excellent armor on both the Puma turret and the base Boxer vehicle, they’ve added an active protection system with an estimated 26 countermeasures. They’ve also added a .50 caliber HMG in a remote weapons station that’s slaved to the Commander’s sight. Finally, the Lance turrets, like the ones on the Lynx at Eurosatory, had Spike ATGM launchers installed.3 These are properly shock-isolated, so bumps from plenty of cross-country driving won’t damage the missiles over time.

I wish Rheinmetall, Patria, and BAE the best of luck in the next phase of testing. And, I’m in agreement with the Australian MoD on their downselect choices. Good times all around.

1.) That Lance turret again. Score.
2.) Cf. my APC Procurement selection
3.) Why the Pumas in the Bundeswehr don’t have these fitted yet is beyond me. But it’s clear they can be without much trouble. Which will make IFV procurement fun when I actually get around to making that budget challenge for Fishbreath.

Parvusimperator & Eurosatory: A Look at Rheinmetall’s Lynx

Posted by

Eurosatory 2016 has just happened1, and let’s take a look at some of the big ticket items. Specifically, let’s look at a new IFV from Rheinmetall.

I’ve written a lot about IFVs, and what’s clear is that there are a lot of different variations on the theme. Different armies want different things, and it seems nobody quite agrees with me (and my conceptual Borgundian army). Let’s see what Rheinmetall has to offer.

Unlike the Puma, the Lynx is a private venture aimed squarely at the export market. So they’ve had to keep costs under control, and develop for one of many armies. Or not–they’ve actually gone and made several different options that you can select from in the Lynx. The base chassis, under all the new stuff, is the same as the Marder 1 IFV. This is an older IFV design, but it’s functional. This saves on some testing, and allows a cost saving option if you can get your hand on some used Marders. The Marder is 1970s vintage tech, but it was a well-protected IFV in its day. And the Leopard 2 and M1 Abrams are both also 1970s vintage, and are still great choices with upgrades. Why shouldn’t the Marder 1 be?

That said, just about everything else is new. Engine, armor, sensors, weapons, suspension. And unlike the Marder, or any other IFV, there are options! We’ll look at what options are available, and then go over what we’d pick. Rheinmetall plans to expand this into an entire family of midsize armored fighting vehicles, but for now we just have the two IFV options.

First of the options is size and dismounts. The clever men of Rheinmetall have developed two versions of the Lynx: the KF31 and the KF41. The KF31 is 7.2 meters long, weighs 38 tonnes, and holds six dismounts. It has a 755 hp engine, so it should have no trouble keeping up with your MBT of choice. Here, you’ve basically got a Puma. Granted, it should be cheaper than a Puma, and it lacks the quick attach/detach armor kit, but otherwise it should meet the same combat profile and provide the same high-end sensor and protection levels as Puma. Cool.

The other size option is the bigger KF41. It’s 7.7 meters long2, weighs 44 tonnes, and holds eight dismounts. Eight! Be still my beating heart. Plus, they redid the suspension design to take the added weight on the KF41, and put in a 1,050 hp engine, so it should still be able to move well. Both the KF31 and the KF41 have blast-resistant seating for all nine or eleven occupants. Both versions, of course, have a crew of three.

Both also have similar turret options in the Lance turret, which is a COTS project. A Lance variant was used in the British Ajax AFV. The Lance turret is available in an unmanned configuration or a manned configuration, and both are available on either Lynx variant. If you want to have the commander be able to stick his head out of the turret, you can. If you want the crew isolated from the ammo, you can. The two man turret does have some reasonably effective ammo isolation, but the unmanned one is going to be better in that regard. You can also choose your gun: the Lance can be equipped with a 30 mm or 35 mm autocannon. Regardless of which size you choose, the Lance is designed to accommodate two ammunition types in a dual feed system, and has all of the electronics and shell-programming systems in place to handle airburst rounds if you so choose. The Lance turret also has the same great optical suite as the Puma, with modern thermal viewers for the commander and gunner, plus obligatory laser rangefinders. The commander’s sight is independent, of course, and is configured to be ready to synchronize to a remote weapons station. Just add RWS.

As a brief aside, while the Germans do not make such a gun, if you’re interested in the 40mm CTWS, that shouldn’t be too hard to fit to the Lance, since that’s what the British used in their Ajax.

But wait, there’s more. The Lance turret has a coaxial machine gun, in proper 7.62×51 mm caliber, unlike the Puma. Plus, it’s got an automatic barrel change mechanism with three barrels to keep up that sustained fire, since it’s not easily accessible in either the manned or unmanned turret versions. Further, the Lance turret can be fitted with a two-tube launcher for the Spike LR ATGM. Unlike the Puma though, where this has been claimed for a while but keeps getting delayed, this was mounted on the Eurosatory display model. You can have your ATGMs now with Lynx!

Protectionwise, Lynx is loaded up with the latest composites, and matches the levels of Puma at protection level C. It’s not easily removable though, so it doesn’t have that slightly better than normal strategic mobility of the Puma. OF course, that assumes that you not only have Pumas, but that you have a bunch of A400ms that work, and no one does yet. A stripped down Puma is still too fat for midsize airlifters that actually function like the C-130J.

The turret also has the usual smoke grenade launchers, plus plenty of cameras, just like Puma. No active protection system (hard kill or soft kill) is fitted though. You’d have to select one to add.

The display model at Eurosatory was the KF31, with a two-man turret, 35 mm gun, and ATGMs fitted. Built for the show, and looked great. Plus, got a lot of attention too. I know Rheinmetall will be entering the Lynx in the Land 400 competition, and I wish them the best of luck. No word yet on what they’re entering though, or what the Aussies have asked for.

What about Borgundy? Well, it should be obvious that yes, we’d totally buy this. I don’t have pricing information yet, but I might be able to scrounge something up or guesstimate. Anyway, we’d order the KF41 with an unmanned turret packing a 30mm gun and the ATGM launcher. 30mm because that should do whatever support job we ask of it and we get more rounds. ATGMs because duh. Eight dismounts because that’s a full squad, and unmanned turret for the extra survivability. We’ll just need to add the active protection system of our choice.

1. (I hope we aren’t giving the impression that we’re rich or famous enough to be there. Yet. -Ed.)
2. I’ve long thought that adding about half a meter or so of length to an existing six dismount design would give me eight dismount capacity, and would be a worthwhile improvement to the FV510 Warrrior or the M2 Bradley.