Jump to content


Photo

German Rifle Testing In Yuma, Arizona


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#21 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 19 January 2019 - 1052 AM

When the Padres moved their spring training home away from Yuma, it lost what little appeal it had. 


  • 0

#22 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 January 2019 - 0409 AM

 

 

 

 

Didn't the German Army have this futuristic rifle that fired, IIRC, "caseless" ammo? Guess it didn't work.

 

Yes the G11 was dropped before really having any introduced into service, when the wall fell. It was still not really mature and they were happy to cut it to save money. a few years later they bought the G36 as a cheap rifle for peacetime conscription army, hence all the corners cut like in the "scope".

 

So was the G11 NOT ready for prime-time, but politically driven and Reunification provided a good excuse to drop a loser?  It's interesting that no one has touched it since, despite the theoretical advantages of caseless ammo.

 

 

Actually the planed production version did work reasonably well (the one with the 2 spare mags in the weapon), but with re-unification Germany not only had too many G3s for the shrinking army, but also tons of AKs with tons of ammunition. In addition the chances of other NATO partner adopting the G11 were zero due to the end of the cold war. And when the switch to multinational operations outside the actual NATO area started, the G36 offered to use the common 5.56 round and was cheap enough and capable enough for the conscript army of the time.

 

Yet it is a dead-end.  Even the latest US tinkering utilizes cased cartridges in various forms.

 

 

Sure, as making the ammo is expensive and handling and storing it is even more so. Add the fact that the heat thrown out of the gun with each case remains in the gun and increases the cooling needs of the gun and the concept makes little sense. But still the final version of the G11 worked reasonably well. 


  • 0

#23 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 20 January 2019 - 0524 AM

Worked reasonably well with 150 rounds issued ammo load.


Edited by bojan, 20 January 2019 - 0525 AM.

  • 0

#24 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 January 2019 - 0550 AM

Which is more than standard issue for the G3.


  • 0

#25 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 20 January 2019 - 0600 AM

Point is that they just delayed inevitable, to after 150 rounds.

G3 ammo load might have been 100 rounds, but it would not have problems with cooking off after single ammo load.

G11 would have it after single ammo load.


  • 0

#26 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 January 2019 - 0608 AM

But it was a cold war development. No single rifle bearing soldier was expected to even go through the basic ammo load. The engagement would be over (with the enemy dead or him dead) before firing off those rounds and he was meant to use single shot fire. So for what was required and for the design goals behind the G11, it worked reasonably well, those requirements just do not hold up today. 


  • 0

#27 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,149 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 20 January 2019 - 1019 AM

I would dare to say that requirements did not hold any reality, even back then, and whole "people will die w/o using whole ammo load" was a H&K marketing...

 

Local tests from 1962:

 

Round 1:

 

150 rounds - 60 with 3-5 rounds bursts, 60 with rapid fired semi, 30 with 3 x ~10-rounds bursts

forced cooling (dip in the barrel of water)

150 rounds (same as first time)

forced cooling (in the crushed ice, simulating snow)

150 rounds. (same as first time)

 

Round 2 - (not clear if same rifles as in round 1 or "fresh" ones):

 

300 rounds, 180 with rapid fired semi, 90 with 3-5 rounds bursts, 30 with 3 x ~10 rounds bursts

 

AR-10 (7.62x39mm version), AK, vz.58 passed both

In 1963, G3 in 7.62x39 also successfully passed those tests. FAL failed, ironically, becoming inoperable after 393 rounds in first test, 291 in second. FAL was however 7.62x39 version.

 

So why did people known for building "just good enough" weapons (Soviets) made a gun that will withstand those, when something lighter that could just blow through 150 rounds would be enough? And when updating it in the AK-74, they required that it should withstand more heavy fire before having to cool down. It is just like they knew something...


Edited by bojan, 20 January 2019 - 1113 AM.

  • 0

#28 shep854

shep854

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,855 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Birmingham AL, USA
  • Interests:Military History, Aviation

Posted 20 January 2019 - 1126 AM

Thanks, Seahawk & Bojan.  So essentially, HK sidestepped the heat issue.  That answers my question very well. :)


  • 0

#29 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 January 2019 - 1214 PM

No, HK´s promotion line was that 500 rounds for HK G11 would weigh as much as the magazines and ammo for 100 rounds for the G3. They also improved the powder enough that the overheating was acceptable, which was also compensated by the rather slow rate of fire at full auto with 500 rds/m.

 

But in the end the  focus of the whole project was on easy to fire, easy to use and likely to hit. For that they had the fast burst mode and the low recoil ammo. In the end it was working, but it was no breakthrough compared to conventional rifles, more like a trade-off with a very high price when it came to buying the guns and ammo.


  • 0

#30 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,413 posts

Posted 20 January 2019 - 1319 PM

...and the G3 still soldiers on with some militaries.


  • 0

#31 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,667 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 20 January 2019 - 1447 PM

Even the Bundeswehr still has plenty.


  • 0

#32 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,592 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 20 January 2019 - 1904 PM

But it was a cold war development. No single rifle bearing soldier was expected to even go through the basic ammo load. The engagement would be over (with the enemy dead or him dead) before firing off those rounds and he was meant to use single shot fire. So for what was required and for the design goals behind the G11, it worked reasonably well, those requirements just do not hold up today. 

there were some dumb ideas back then, our guys got "64 pattern webbing" because everything will stay in the APC/truck and you fight light, with 4 mags and 1 in the rifle.


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users