Now made by Northrop Grumman as of 2018, which Purchased Orbit ATK (2018), has always been of US design and mfg since it was first mfg in 1975 by Hughes.
That would definitely replace the M2A1 Heavy Machine Gun and the MK.19 Automatic Grenade Launcher! Considering what they both weigh having external power provided by a truck engine doesn't seem like much of a concern. They need to double the rate of fire on that thing and get it as close to 550 RPM as they can. That seems to be the sweetspot for automatic weapons.
*" They need to double the rate of fire on that thing and get it as close to 550 RPM as they can. That seems to be the sweetspot for automatic weapons."* You do realize that "all automatic weapons" don't fire the same round, right? Just compare that 30mm round with even a 50 BMG. The difference is like that of a toddler's wang versus a horse's dong. Far more propellant. Duh. So naturally, depending on the power of the round, the recoil it generates, the barrel heat it generates, the build of the machine (eg. Gatling vs single barreled) and the support available from the platform (power support, chassis stability) as well as the cost to benefit of each of these decisions (a 30mm and a 7.62 NATO obviously don't cost the same and neither is their effect the same), different machine gun' are bound to have different sweet spots, no? Why waste couple hundred of 30mm rounds (like you would with a 7.62 machine gun issuing suppression fire) when even a few dozen of those explosive tipped bad boys can completely shred an enemy position up?
that is moronic. this thing is not a machine gun. its ammunition is significantly more expensive per round, its a much more complicated sighting system and its an explosive round which adds more safety concerns for the crew as well as friendly forces in the area. This COULD replace the Mk.19 since all those same factors also effect the MK. 19 but replacing the .50 would be retarded. .50 is a heavy machine gun. This thing could never have a 550 rate of fire on a ground platform- not because it could not handle the rate of fire because its rate of fire on the Apache is something like that anyway- but because its ammo takes up much more space than the .50 also its muzzle velocity is much less than the .50 or other Machine gun bullets.
@@mikeg8876 that can be part of the issue but the Apache's doctrine involves firing above the tree line while stationary. So you don't need a high rate of fire to hit a target when you are hovering above a tree line. Rate of fire is higher on airborne vehicles to increase chance of hit in general but they also can get away with it because helicopter doctrine calls for forward refuel and rearming point where birds can get replenished rapidly and return to combat. Ground vehicles really don't have that option.
@ " but it's a false dichotomy to say that there isn't a sweet spot for larger rounds. " I'm not sure you understood me completely. I never implied there can't be a sweet spot for larger rounds. Rather, the whole of my argument is about different sweet spots for different (cartridge + application) combos.
Damn, that is so much power in those rounds. And it's the same gun that they shoot insurgents with in afghanistan/iraq from apache. Imagine what's left of them after 1 of those hits the body. I've never seen aftermath or bodies shown after those attacks from apache. Would be curious to see.
R.I.P LEE ERMEY!!
I’m in. What option package do I check when ordering from the Toyota website?
the jihad package
JLTV didn't even budge with the recoil. Pretty good for a troop truck.
1:02 tayto sales go up
Why don't they use this variant of the 30mm on more CROWS mounts?
какой боекомплект у модуля? количество снарядов?
Cartridge 30x113 no airburst. Cartridge 30x173 with airbust and two fold effective range.
30x173 is fired by way bigger and heavier guns on larger vehicles
At Ah-64 Apache like this
R.I.P BTR
Bang!!!!
Bang!!!!
Bang!!!!
they should show the target
ANYONE INSIDE THT CONTAINER GONNA HAVE A REAAALLLL BAAAADD DAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is the vehicle I would use in the Purge, except I would be purging the bad guys
is that the australian made weapon
American made for the ah 64 apache helicopters
Now made by Northrop Grumman as of 2018, which Purchased Orbit ATK (2018), has always been of US design and mfg since it was first mfg in 1975 by Hughes.
Yep! EOS from the evil Liberals who took guns off Australian's then gave then GST to make guns. They sell it the Saudi's. It sure looks Yankie thow.
That would definitely replace the M2A1 Heavy Machine Gun and the MK.19 Automatic Grenade Launcher! Considering what they both weigh having external power provided by a truck engine doesn't seem like much of a concern. They need to double the rate of fire on that thing and get it as close to 550 RPM as they can. That seems to be the sweetspot for automatic weapons.
*" They need to double the rate of fire on that thing and get it as close to 550 RPM as they can. That seems to be the sweetspot for automatic weapons."*
You do realize that "all automatic weapons" don't fire the same round, right?
Just compare that 30mm round with even a 50 BMG. The difference is like that of a toddler's wang versus a horse's dong. Far more propellant. Duh.
So naturally, depending on the power of the round, the recoil it generates, the barrel heat it generates, the build of the machine (eg. Gatling vs single barreled) and the support available from the platform (power support, chassis stability) as well as the cost to benefit of each of these decisions (a 30mm and a 7.62 NATO obviously don't cost the same and neither is their effect the same), different machine gun' are bound to have different sweet spots, no?
Why waste couple hundred of 30mm rounds (like you would with a 7.62 machine gun issuing suppression fire) when even a few dozen of those explosive tipped bad boys can completely shred an enemy position up?
Gaurab Chatterjee
Is JLTV strong enough to properly handle the recoil of this 30 x 115 mm round?
that is moronic. this thing is not a machine gun. its ammunition is significantly more expensive per round, its a much more complicated sighting system and its an explosive round which adds more safety concerns for the crew as well as friendly forces in the area.
This COULD replace the Mk.19 since all those same factors also effect the MK. 19 but replacing the .50 would be retarded. .50 is a heavy machine gun.
This thing could never have a 550 rate of fire on a ground platform- not because it could not handle the rate of fire because its rate of fire on the Apache is something like that anyway- but because its ammo takes up much more space than the .50 also its muzzle velocity is much less than the .50 or other Machine gun bullets.
@@mikeg8876 that can be part of the issue but the Apache's doctrine involves firing above the tree line while stationary. So you don't need a high rate of fire to hit a target when you are hovering above a tree line. Rate of fire is higher on airborne vehicles to increase chance of hit in general but they also can get away with it because helicopter doctrine calls for forward refuel and rearming point where birds can get replenished rapidly and return to combat. Ground vehicles really don't have that option.
@
" but it's a false dichotomy to say that there isn't a sweet spot for larger rounds. "
I'm not sure you understood me completely.
I never implied there can't be a sweet spot for larger rounds.
Rather, the whole of my argument is about different sweet spots for different (cartridge + application) combos.
What is it called again when you're scared but also strangely aroused?
@RyanAndrewJones Scared stiff?
abrams already overweight by about 25 tons...
Damn, that is so much power in those rounds. And it's the same gun that they shoot insurgents with in afghanistan/iraq from apache. Imagine what's left of them after 1 of those hits the body. I've never seen aftermath or bodies shown after those attacks from apache. Would be curious to see.
Probably just blows the body into big chunks, like being hit by a train. Especially if it's explosive rounds.
all that slo motion ruined this video
They need this at the border.
Who’s going to do your work?