Engineering: Infantry Style

This isn't exactly the sort of gee-wiz tech usually discussed here, but as a former weapons-squad grunt in a light Infantry unit, I wish to hell that we'd had something like this in 2004.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Ironman_a_game_changer_on_battlefield_999.html

Just curious though. How did a lowly SSG get permission to take apart a CROWS system to play with the parts?

And, you can own one of your own.


http://soldiersystems.net/2010/10/12/mico-machine-gunners-pack-now-for-sale







Interesting that the article date of this appears to be one or two years before the 'Ironman' article.

jstar said:

And, you can own one of your own.


http://soldiersystems.net/2010/10/12/mico-machine-gunners-pack-now-for-sale







Interesting that the article date of this appears to be one or two years before the 'Ironman' article.

Click to expand...

No frame on the commercial version, and suspect it's rather Micky Mouse as well. Might work for a pogue that wants to look like a badass.

Some interesting comments in the original article:

"This was a new piece of equipment for us, and we struggled to come up with a solution for carrying and employing ammunition for it due to our small size and the inability to have a designated ammo bearer, as is common doctrine with the M240B.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question - why not simply modify their organisation to provide a "designated ammo bearer"?

Why did the US Army assume they could operate such a weapon by a single person?

"The ammunition sacks that came with it made it too cumbersome and heavy to carry over long, dismounted patrols and especially when climbing mountains. Initially, we came up with using 50-round belts and just reloading constantly, which led to lulls of fire and inefficiency."

Click to expand...

Again, it seems to be inflexibility in organisation and doctrine which is the problem, not the weapon, which is causing the problem.

While the backpack is an interesting idea, it isn't new by any means. I seem to remember recently seeing that such a backpack was trialled with the original Armalite rifle.

While it enables the gunner to carry his own ammunition, who carries the spare barrel and who carries the gunners personal gear, rations and water?

Kadija_Man said:

Some interesting comments in the original article:

"This was a new piece of equipment for us, and we struggled to come up with a solution for carrying and employing ammunition for it due to our small size and the inability to have a designated ammo bearer, as is common doctrine with the M240B.

Click to expand...

Which begs the question - why not simply modify their organisation to provide a "designated ammo bearer"?

Why did the US Army assume they could operate such a weapon by a single person?

"The ammunition sacks that came with it made it too cumbersome and heavy to carry over long, dismounted patrols and especially when climbing mountains. Initially, we came up with using 50-round belts and just reloading constantly, which led to lulls of fire and inefficiency."

Click to expand...

Again, it seems to be inflexibility in organisation and doctrine which is the problem, not the weapon, which is causing the problem.

While the backpack is an interesting idea, it isn't new by any means. I seem to remember recently seeing that such a backpack was trialled with the original Armalite rifle.

While it enables the gunner to carry his own ammunition, who carries the spare barrel and who carries the gunners personal gear, rations and water?

Click to expand...

In a perfect world with rainbows and unicorns, each fire-team in a weapons squad includes a gunner (carrying a 240B and a starter belt), an AG (spare barrel, tripod, 200 7.62 rounds), and an ammo-bearer (~800 7.62 rounds). Unfortunately, it just doesn't work out that well most of the time, and units have to figure out how to get by with whatever personnel they have to deploy. It's also worth noting that spare-barrels and tripods almost never get used unless it's in defense of a prepared position or a vehicle mount; packing lists are on a unit-by-unit basis, but we quit carrying the spare barrels and tripods on walking missions unless there was a specific projected need.

Please don't be condescending. It doesn't become you and its insulting to me. You have no idea of my personal experiences. As I suggested, it appears to me that the US Army has decided that this weapon which would normally be operated and supported by several soldiers can be operated by a single man. That is, I would suggest rather foolish.

If you believe the spare barrel is of little value, that is you affair but I'll beg to differ. My experience suggests as does my knowledge of history, one needs to maintain one's major source of firepower and firefights may last longer than you may expect. I didn't even mention tripods nor would I expect them to be carried normally, so I have no idea why you dragged them into the conversation.

Finally, I note you failed to answer my question - who carries the gunners personal gear, his rations and his water when he's carrying this contraption?

Kadija_Man said:

Please don't be condescending. It doesn't become you and its insulting to me. You have no idea of my personal experiences. As I suggested, it appears to me that the US Army has decided that this weapon which would normally be operated and supported by several soldiers can be operated by a single man. That is, I would suggest rather foolish.

If you believe the spare barrel is of little value, that is you affair but I'll beg to differ. My experience suggests as does my knowledge of history, one needs to maintain one's major source of firepower and firefights may last longer than you may expect. I didn't even mention tripods nor would I expect them to be carried normally, so I have no idea why you dragged them into the conversation.

Finally, I note you failed to answer my question - who carries the gunners personal gear, his rations and his water when he's carrying this contraption?

Click to expand...

It doesn't really sound like you've ever had to hump this stuff downrange, so I guess I'll have to do this Barney-style. Everyone carries their own water because we use *Camelbacks.* As for MREs (don't think I ever once heard the word "rations" used) and extra "$hit" (the general term for "personal gear"), that would typically be the "ammo-bearer's" load as the AG usually ended up carrying all the ammo. This, of course, is how it was done in just one squad during one tour. Everyone operates differently depending on the personnel and equipment available at a given time in a given place. What people carry is a matter of what works best for the unit in a given situation, and there are many where it would be advantageous for the 240 gunners to have a useful load of ammo (500 is still short of a combat load) instantly at hand.

1st503rdSGT said:

It doesn't really sound like you've ever had to hump this stuff downrange, so I guess I'll have to do this Barney-style. Everyone carries their own water because we use *Camelbacks.* As for MREs (don't think I ever once heard the word "rations" used) and extra "$hit" (the general term for "personal gear"), that would typically be the "ammo-bearer's" load as the AG usually ended up carrying all the ammo. This, of course, is how it was done in just one squad during one tour. Everyone operates differently depending on the personnel and equipment available at a given time in a given place. What people carry is a matter of what works best for the unit in a given situation, and there are many where it would be advantageous for the 240 gunners to have a useful load of ammo (500 is still short of a combat load) instantly at hand.

Click to expand...

I have several medals to show that indeed I have "humped this stuff downrange" on a two-way rifle range, thank you very much. Different armies, different eras, different language. In my Army - not the US one - they are indeed called "rations". Personal equipment is indeed issued to individual personnel for personal use and consists of anything from a KFS set through to a change of underwear. So, again, please don't try and patronise me. In my Army we have SOPs dictated by Standing Orders and Operational instructions on not only what you carry, what you wear but how you are expected to act in a given situation. There is latitude within those but they are the baseline and variation too far from them is usually discouraged. I have no idea how your army operates and that is why I am asking questions.

As I've said, this appears to be a case of inventing something to fix a problem which could be more effectively fixed by changing how the weapon is used.

1st503rdSGT said:

....
Just curious though. How did a lowly SSG get permission to take apart a CROWS system to play with the parts?

Click to expand...

Probably? "Tis better to ask forgivness...."

Kinda curious though why no one thought of this before? The "same" system has been "available" for paintball (played more "field-ball" than anything else) for decades and I recall discussing such a set up with a lot of other military folks that played. As an AF-weenie (Ammo) I'd often dealt with 20mm/30mm towed versions we used to re-arm aircraft and THOSE were a bear I never heard anyone note that they saw problems with a personnel vesion for SAW use.

There was a lot of discussion on the viability of using some type of "steady-cam" system as depicted for the "Smart-Guns" in "Aliens" and about the only "complaint" was how to use the weapon from a prone position. (NOBODY I knew liked the Aliens "Colonial Marines Tech Manual" lay-on-your-back-and-shoot-between-your-feet option )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens:_Colonial_Marines_Technical_Manual

Any thoughts?

Randy

Kadija_Man said:

I have several medals to show that indeed I have "humped this stuff downrange" on a two-way rifle range, thank you very much. Different armies, different eras, different language. In my Army - not the US one - they are indeed called "rations". Personal equipment is indeed issued to individual personnel for personal use and consists of anything from a KFS set through to a change of underwear. So, again, please don't try and patronise me. In my Army we have SOPs dictated by Standing Orders and Operational instructions on not only what you carry, what you wear but how you are expected to act in a given situation. There is latitude within those but they are the baseline and variation too far from them is usually discouraged. I have no idea how your army operates and that is why I am asking questions.

As I've said, this appears to be a case of inventing something to fix a problem which could be more effectively fixed by changing how the weapon is used.

Click to expand...

What Army? Somewhere in Africa? British? In that case, we're probably comparing apples and oranges. Your system sounds quite a bit more rigid than ours. It's hard to tell from the article what issues this particular guard unit was having. Maybe the terrain was making it difficult for gunners and AGs to stay together, maybe they were short on bodies, maybe their gunners were real bad Oscars who didn't need AGs and wanted to move faster. Whatever it was, they had to adapt in the field, and they did.

RanulfC said:

Kinda curious though why no one thought of this before? The "same" system has been "available" for paintball (played more "field-ball" than anything else) for decades and I recall discussing such a set up with a lot of other military folks that played. As an AF-weenie (Ammo) I'd often dealt with 20mm/30mm towed versions we used to re-arm aircraft and THOSE were a bear I never heard anyone note that they saw problems with a personnel vesion for SAW use.

There was a lot of discussion on the viability of using some type of "steady-cam" system as depicted for the "Smart-Guns" in "Aliens" and about the only "complaint" was how to use the weapon from a prone position. (NOBODY I knew liked the Aliens "Colonial Marines Tech Manual" lay-on-your-back-and-shoot-between-your-feet option )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens:_Colonial_Marines_Technical_Manual

Any thoughts?

Randy

Click to expand...

A steady-cam mount might work for shooting blanks with no recoil, but in real life, all but the first 1 or 2 rounds would be up in the air; such is what happens when the 240B (which in NOT a SAW) is fired from the hip. One has to put the thing down on something to be effective with it. As for shooting between your feet, that's a very good way to blow your own foot off in the heat of the moment.

1st503rdSGT said:

RanulfC said:

Kinda curious though why no one thought of this before? The "same" system has been "available" for paintball (played more "field-ball" than anything else) for decades and I recall discussing such a set up with a lot of other military folks that played. As an AF-weenie (Ammo) I'd often dealt with 20mm/30mm towed versions we used to re-arm aircraft and THOSE were a bear I never heard anyone note that they saw problems with a personnel vesion for SAW use.

There was a lot of discussion on the viability of using some type of "steady-cam" system as depicted for the "Smart-Guns" in "Aliens" and about the only "complaint" was how to use the weapon from a prone position. (NOBODY I knew liked the Aliens "Colonial Marines Tech Manual" lay-on-your-back-and-shoot-between-your-feet option )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliens:_Colonial_Marines_Technical_Manual

Any thoughts?

Randy

Click to expand...

A steady-cam mount might work for shooting blanks with no recoil, but in real life, all but the first 1 or 2 rounds would be up in the air; such is what happens when the 240B (which in NOT a SAW) is fired from the hip. One has to put the thing down on something to be effective with it. As for shooting between your feet, that's a very good way to blow your own foot off in the heat of the moment.

Click to expand...

I'm not explaining it well but the idea was both to help the gunner keep the weapon on target and allow for easier movement. It wouldn't BE a steady cam mount but something like it the "smart" part being an active suppression system to keep the weapon from climbing.

Again though I don't recall anyone coming up with a way to use the system in any position that wasn't standing or kneeling.

Randy

Recent comment by Lockheed rep actually talked a little about this at a recent trade show, during discussion of field deployment of the HULC in Afghanistan in late 2012/early 2013. Apparently the rep was wearing the new second version of HULC, which was substantially lighter, moved better, and more power efficient (no pictures were allowed unfortunately), but the real takeaway was a machine gun mount. The rep claimed 2/3 recoil reduction. One has to assume it would be similar to a steadycam style mount, but there hasn't been much in terms of design images of what this mount looks like, though one might be able to make some guesses from the first generation front load carry assist framing/straps. Pairing that up with the Ironman ammo carrier (I still like calling it the Predator backpack...) makes for an impressive setup.

Unfortunately, it appears even the 2nd gen HULC still uses battery power, estimated to be 8 hours for a full load heavy march. The rep said simpler guard duty operation allows for multiple days of use. Apparently Lockheed's work on a fuel cell power system (to provide 72 hours continuous high power operation) is substantially behind schedule and won't be ready in time for the first deployment. One would have thought that they would at least have a diesel microturbine generator (wouldn't the phrase picoturbine be more appropriate for a handheld sized turbine?) as a plan B but I guess not apparently. Say something like the Metis micro-turboalternator which has a funky power turbine before combustor setup;

http://www.metisdesign.com/multidisciplinary-systems/propulsion-systems.html

Kadija_Man said:

Why did the US Army assume they could operate such a weapon by a single person?

Click to expand...

Because the guys in the field who created it said so, and apparently demonstrated so.

While it enables the gunner to carry his own ammunition, who carries the spare barrel and who carries the gunners personal gear, rations and water?

Click to expand...

Bishop.

1st503rdSGT said:

What Army? Somewhere in Africa? British? In that case, we're probably comparing apples and oranges. Your system sounds quite a bit more rigid than ours. It's hard to tell from the article what issues this particular guard unit was having. Maybe the terrain was making it difficult for gunners and AGs to stay together, maybe they were short on bodies, maybe their gunners were real bad Oscars who didn't need AGs and wanted to move faster. Whatever it was, they had to adapt in the field, and they did.

Click to expand...

The Australian Army. Yes, it is apples and oranges. The US Army does things its own way but it often isn't the best way. I've yet to see terrain that prevents a two man team from operating effectively. I've also never seen the Section's main firepower source to be the one that is short-changed first, rather than last when manpower shortages occur. Yes, they adapted but not necessarily in my opinion in the best way.

ouroboros said:

Recent comment by Lockheed rep actually talked a little about this at a recent trade show, during discussion of field deployment of the HULC in Afghanistan in late 2012/early 2013. Apparently the rep was wearing the new second version of HULC, which was substantially lighter, moved better, and more power efficient (no pictures were allowed unfortunately), but the real takeaway was a machine gun mount. The rep claimed 2/3 recoil reduction. One has to assume it would be similar to a steadycam style mount, but there hasn't been much in terms of design images of what this mount looks like, though one might be able to make some guesses from the first generation front load carry assist framing/straps. Pairing that up with the Ironman ammo carrier (I still like calling it the Predator backpack...) makes for an impressive setup.

Unfortunately, it appears even the 2nd gen HULC still uses battery power, estimated to be 8 hours for a full load heavy march. The rep said simpler guard duty operation allows for multiple days of use. Apparently Lockheed's work on a fuel cell power system (to provide 72 hours continuous high power operation) is substantially behind schedule and won't be ready in time for the first deployment. One would have thought that they would at least have a diesel microturbine generator (wouldn't the phrase picoturbine be more appropriate for a handheld sized turbine?) as a plan B but I guess not apparently. Say something like the Metis micro-turboalternator which has a funky power turbine before combustor setup;

http://www.metisdesign.com/multidisciplinary-systems/propulsion-systems.html

Click to expand...

I wonder how well these microturbofans operate with dust or mud ingestion? Infantrymen get down and in the mud and dust a lot. Anything they carry quickly gets covered in the stuff. I also have concerns about the amount of fuel that has to be carried and what happens when a soldier carrying such fuel gets hit.

Kadija_Man said:

I wonder how well these microturbofans operate with dust or mud ingestion? Infantrymen get down and in the mud and dust a lot. Anything they carry quickly gets covered in the stuff. I also have concerns about the amount of fuel that has to be carried and what happens when a soldier carrying such fuel gets hit.

Click to expand...

FOD ingestion would be an issue for microturbines due to mass flow rate making inlet design a problem, but otherwise, you face most of the same issues with a fuel cell. Particularly fuel carriage and attendant safety. Fuel cells still need air input as well, but not quite at the same rates. They actually suffer more from thermal shock issues, so suddenly cutting off air input would be unpleasant. Another point might be minimum battery charge to spin up the turbine, otherwise you are screwed if you go below that. Fuel cells may be better in that regard, since they likely only need some preheating, but their pump systems are not trivial in energy expenditure, though closer to being solid state. Might we see the advance of a buddy system power transfer cable, or some new cable spec for charging from other sources (buddy or a vehicle perhaps?)

Regardless, it will always be a hybrid system between batteries and a man portable generator. I would imagine it is a tradeoff between standalone battery run time, generator weight, fuel capacity, and operational issues. Are you willing to operate a generator during a firefight, or on patrol/guard, or only during downtimes? For a microturbine, acoustic signatures may be an issue.

Not that taking a hit in the battery/capacitor area for a pure battery system would be much better...

AFAIK the "lay on your back and shoot between your feet" option has been used by sharpshooters in wars past (long, long past). To be fair to them, IIRC they were the few riflemen on a field dominated by muzzle-loaders, and the (relatively) long barrels of those days probably kept their feet safe!

RanulfC said:

Kinda curious though why no one thought of this before?

Click to expand...

Well they did! The Armament Components, Inc of Santa Barbara under sub-contract to Armalite for the AR-10 project developed the ‘Design B’ Mechanical Ammunition Supply System (MASS) back in 1956 no less. Now the following information qualifies this discussion for the Secret Projects army weapons forum but I’ll post it here for the sake of ease of discussion and maybe work something out later with a lot of new weapons information I have for that forum.

Despite being developed 30 years before Aliens and Predator (and the rumoured Delta Force backpack belt used in Grenada) the Design B also seemed to address the real technical problems with large belt feeds in infantry weapons. While there is good tactical sense to provide the section machinegun with a large belt feed that is one man operable it is a significant liability because of the chance the belt can twist and block feeding. Unless the new crop of backpack belt boxes are continuous chutes from start to finish a loose belt in the box is likely to get twisted as the infantryman moves through the field. Even in a much smaller belt box like the softmag under the Minimi (M249) the belt will easily get twisted blocking the feed. The Design B addressed this without a continuous chute by placing the belt in the box under pressure. It was kept compressed towards the feed end, so unable to twist, by a torsion operated flap.

The Design B concept was also developed for use as a magazine for belts integral to a tripod. And by the look of one of the concepts could use the same backpack frame as the basis of a tripod. Which would enable the machinegunner just to drop off the backpack, add the extension legs and presto a tripod in the field.

So nothing is new under the sun...

Edit: A closer look at these images after I cleaned out all the shading from a poor scan and it looks like this is a beltless feed. There was a belt feed AR 10 developed at the same time but this system looks like a magazine feed with a rammer going up the chute to force the last rounds into the magazine well. Anyway the concept of the belt box under pressure by a flap would work well for current forces.