14.5mm potential, & use in Afg

[Britboy]

Alright all,
Was scooting around Youtube when I found this:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=0XM47K...eature=related
and
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Fm5RxG...eature=related

Looks like some ex-USSR 14.5mm KPVs have found their way into service with the Afghan National Army, which looks to be all to the good - talk about bloody powerful!

This got me thinking, they may be too heavy for infantry use on foot, but they would make excellent force protection weapons for bases and outposts. Reading '3 Para' a while ago now, it commented on how much more hardhitting a .50 cal weapon was perceived to be than a 7.62mm weapon. No doubt it also had a psychological effect on the en!

Well 14.5mm could rack this up further still at least when static, and at low cost as you could possibly get weapons recovered in-country or from Eastern European states like Poland who have now joined NATO who used to manufacture this kit and the spares, ammo etc.

Additionally, who would want to be in a light armoured vehicle or a helicopter near these weapons?

No doubt 14.5mm would also have anti-material uses. Doing a bit of research came up with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denel_NTW-20
a South African AMR, looks like the old anti tank rifles. Which is also available in 20mm -ouch!

Knowing the BTR series uses 14.5mm made me wonder if it might be an effective vehicle armament. New wheeled APC type vehicles like LAV, Piranha, Stryker, probably FCS and FRES when they happen, seem to be mounting 7.62 or 12.7mm weapons. Same with WMIKs, Hummvees, MRAPs and the Armoured Security Vehicles that MPs use for convoy escort. While I'm sure if you get engaged by even 7.62 from one of these wagons that you can be in a world of pain, could their mobility/load carrying ability let you squeeze a bit of light-anti-armour capability out of them as well by mounting a 14.5mm?

I know 12.7mm and 7.62mm are doing their thing very well, and that there is a danger of always wanting to scale up until you are talking of 20, 25, 30mm autocannons etc. But my questions are:

To what extent are 14.5mm (and 7.62x54mm) weapons used by ANA and NATO? (I can imagine they are more common in ANA units but if NATO units could acquire them for base defence or other static tasks then they certainly wouldn't turn them down...)

Would adoption of such weapons for static defence, light-to-mediumweight vehicle use, and possibly anti material use, give a decent jump in capabilities worth the effort? Or are we best of sticking with what we use now? Especially when you consider there is the new grenade machine gun and other automatic GLs (USA ones) to complement the .50 cal HMG?

And does anyone know if any contractor from ex-Warsaw Pact, recently-NATO/EU countries (or indeed anywhere else that might be open to trade) kept the factories going or at least kept the tooling for ammo, spares and even weapons, or did it all get dismantled or sold?

I'd not really thought about this before, but coming across that clip of it in use on Afghan mountaintops and with NATO troops using it as well, highlighted to me that it could have some potential...

Regards
BB

[GazB]

For static base defence the Soviets and Russians have traditionally gone for a combination of weapons depending upon the geography of the region. ZU-23 towed twin barrel 23mm cannons generally being the most popular with their dual surface to air and surface to surface role. Where targets can appear at distance the SPG-9 recoilless rifle is also used as is the Plamya AGS-17 for fixed base defence.

Regarding the 14.5mm, it certainly is a very powerful round, but I doubt the west will adopt such a round no matter how good it might be. They simply don't have the infrastructure to support such a calibre and no pressing need to spend the money necessary to get the capability. Any role the 14.5mm round might fill would be filled within NATO by light 20mm calibres. Generally worse kinetic power, but with better HE capacity making up for that.

[REMOV]

Any role the 14.5mm round might fill would be filled within NATO by light 20mm calibres. Generally worse kinetic power, but with better HE capacity making up for that.

Absolutely. The favourite "artillery for commandoes" (for instance British SAS) in Afghanistan is the French 20-mm (20 mm x 102) automatic cannon Nexter 20M621

[kutter]

FN actually came out with the 15mm BRG-15 machine gun to bridge the gap between .50 cal and 20mm cannons. Unfortunately they shelved the project due to financial difficulties but it did show some very good potential:
http://world.guns.ru/machine/mg26-e.htm

[D.E. Watters]

Yeah, but the FN cartridges were nearly the same size as existing 20mm cartridges. One was based on the 20x110mm Hispano case and the other on the 14.5x114mm Russian case.

FWIW: The US 20x102mm evolved from an earlier experimental .60 cal. MG round. It is basically the same case, slightly shortened and necked up.

[GazB]

Yeah, but the FN cartridges were nearly the same size as existing 20mm cartridges. One was based on the 20x110mm Hispano case and the other on the 14.5x114mm Russian case.

The Russians seem to actually be making the move I suggest from 14.5 to a cannon calibre. Some of their MTLB modifications seem to have a KPV like gun they called KPVB that is described as being 23mm calibre. Now it could be the ground based 23 x 152mm of the ZU-23, but I think it is actually the 23 x 115mm, which means very few modifications would be needed as the cases for the 23 x 115 is very similar to the 14.5 x 114m round.
The lower muzzle velocity reduces armour penetration capability, but the larger HE capacity often makes it more effective in terms of effect on target for most other targets.

[notherhen40]

Why would you want to use a 20mm round weapon, when you have the availibility of 25mm and 30mm cannon rounds? You get more damage to the enemy especially vehicles, and do severe damage to dismounted infantry. Plus the 25mm chain guns high rate of fire are equal to vulcan type weapons, such as the 200 used for defense against mortar rounds, artillery rounds, and aircraft.

[Ought Six]

n40:

"Why would you want to use a 20mm round weapon, when you have the availibility of 25mm and 30mm cannon rounds? You get more damage to the enemy especially vehicles, and do severe damage to dismounted infantry. Plus the 25mm chain guns high rate of fire are equal to vulcan type weapons, such as the 200 used for defense against mortar rounds, artillery rounds, and aircraft."

Because he was talking about SAS guys, who like to drive light trucks. The Nextar SH20 is small enough, light enough, and has a low enough recoil impulse to pintle mount it on an SAS truck. Even the Bushmaster 25mm is a bit too big for that. The Nextar 20mm is even used as a door gun on helos.

[Britboy]

This is the danger I suppose. Once you get talking of above .50 cal, you are probably sliding to 20, 25, 30, 40-something mm's in time!

It will end up with us all having personal 120mm's

To be honest, 14.5 looks good to me, its a proven very heavy MG round without getting into cannon territory that is normally the preserve of IFVs or very specialised kit like that Saffie anti-materiel rifel. I'm sure 20-30mm's have their applications too, of course, but I can't imagine mounting one on say an MWMIK... On APCs like LAVs, maybe, but its going to interfere with the number of dismounts you can carry I'd have thought.

What I'm effectively wondering is if 14.5 and other rounds of that ilk are enough of a boost from 12.7 to justify having to procure them (less the ones found by NATO in theatre)? Or is it not really justifiable because 12.7 already does a lot of damage, is good for static defence and softskinned/light armoured vehs, AMRs etc, and it'd be too tricky to get ammo, spares, even new weapons in a good state?

Cheers
BB

[GazB]

To be honest, 14.5 looks good to me, its a proven very heavy MG round without getting into cannon territory that is normally the preserve of IFVs or very specialised kit like that Saffie anti-materiel rifel. I'm sure 20-30mm's have their applications too, of course, but I can't imagine mounting one on say an MWMIK... On APCs like LAVs, maybe, but its going to interfere with the number of dismounts you can carry I'd have thought.

When I talk about going from 50 cal to cannon, I am not suggesting just any 20mm cannon, or in the case of the Russian KPVB 23mm cannon. The reason I did not mention 120mm is because we are talking about using the ammo in a portable weapon.

The full power 23 x 152mm shell the ZU-23 fires in a rifle the size of the average 50 cal AMR would rip your arm out of your shoulder. It is a high velocity round designed to kill aircraft at 2.5 km range. The 23 x 115mm round I mentioned is like a necked up 14.5mm round so the gas levels are comparable. The 23 x 115mm round relies on a heavy HE projectile rather than high velocity for effect on target... its muzzle velocity is less than 720m/s. This makes it ideal for a man portable weapon if you can fit an effective muzzle brake. The South African NTW-20 picks a very mild 20mm calibre round rather than a hot modern high velocity round for the same reason. It is HE power that does the damage so velocity only makes it kick harder.

What I'm effectively wondering is if 14.5 and other rounds of that ilk are enough of a boost from 12.7 to justify having to procure them (less the ones found by NATO in theatre)? Or is it not really justifiable because 12.7 already does a lot of damage, is good for static defence and softskinned/light armoured vehs, AMRs etc, and it'd be too tricky to get ammo, spares, even new weapons in a good state?

I think it is useful to look at existing changes in small arms. For example currently western armies are looking at the 338 laupa magnum because they currently have a gap. That gap is between 800m where the 7.62 x 51mm starts to fall down and where the 50 cal is necessary. The 50 cal can kill targets at 800m-1,200m no problem at all but there is a big jump in weight and size and cost between a 7.62 x 51mm and a 50 cal rifle. The 338 fills that gap by being effective in that mid range gap where a target might be wearing body armour or it could be too windy for a reliable hit with the smaller calibre (7.62) but the distance the sniper team has to cover makes a 50 cal too much gun.

Now look at the 14.5mm vs 50 cal arguement. The 50 cal has proven performance out to 2km. The 14.5mm might extend that to 2.5km and in optimum conditions even further, but is there really a problem that makes such a solution useful. Finding a target 1.6km away with a 338 just means getting 400m closer for the shot. If it is clear that max range is worth it then the 50 cal would be chosen. The question is, would it ever be likely that every hundred metres mattered and that a 14.5mm round would make all the difference?

If it is not a question of range but hitting power or penetration then the 14.5mm certainly has lots of energy and HE power, but a slower slightly shorter ranged 20mm will have much more HE capacity still, so the question then becomes why not 20mm if you need a bigger heavier rifle. BTW a 20mm gun will probably be a two load weapon whereas a 14.5mm weapon could be a slightly beefed up 50 cal rifle.

What I think it would need is a manufacturer to make some very accurate 14.5mm rounds and a decent rifle to fire it with and then go from there.

[PvtPyle]

We used them mounted to the back of LMTV's for convoy security while there on 03/04. The round is MUCH more powerful than the M2. We used an old vacume truck got target practice which was just about 2000m out on the east river range. The M2 rounds were bouncing off the vaccume hull while the 14.5 was punching cleanly thru both sides. We could engage targets on hill tops over 3k away when needed with it.

The down side to these is ammo capacity. The normal 40rd cans are not enough for sustained fire so we linked a hundred or more together and used other ammo cans to hold them.

There has been great interest of late in this round as an anti-material round. The ammo is commonly available in country and there are several types of AM guns in the US that have been tested by USSOCCOM. (Crane in particular). The barrels on the original guns are actually quite good even by US standards. There have been several guns made in the US on their barrels that have proven to be quite accurate with the API ammo. The Bulgarians and Poles both have pretty good ammo for AM use out to 3000m+.

We are building a few bolt action mag fed 14.5's as soon as the ATF give us back the manufacturers license now that we are in our new building. They will be bipod or tripod mounted for accuracy's sake, and the sake of the shooter. Even with them being able to be broken down the entire unit weighs in at nearly 100lbs.

[Walker-69]

I think it is useful to look at existing changes in small arms. For example currently western armies are looking at the 338 laupa magnum because they currently have a gap. That gap is between 800m where the 7.62 x 51mm starts to fall down and where the 50 cal is necessary. The 50 cal can kill targets at 800m-1,200m no problem at all but there is a big jump in weight and size and cost between a 7.62 x 51mm and a 50 cal rifle. The 338 fills that gap by being effective in that mid range gap where a target might be wearing body armour or it could be too windy for a reliable hit with the smaller calibre (7.62) but the distance the sniper team has to cover makes a 50 cal too much gun.

Sorry but I don't agree 100%. It is my impression that the 338 Lapua is actually superior to a 50 cal rifle in some aspects. The 12,7 or 50 cal round was never meant to be a sharp-shooter's round. The 338 Lapua has longer reach, so it should be superior to the 50 cal as an anti-personnel round in most cases. Of course, the 12,7/50 cal has more mass and better penetration, therefore it is better as an anti-material round, against vehicles, OK maybe body armour... well I am not an expert so I shall not go into too much detail.

Let's do a quick google, and what do we find. This is from www.snipercentral.com:

The effective range of this caliber is about 1 mile (1600meters) and in the right shooting conditions, it could come very close to the 2000 meter mark, provided you have the right rifle/ammo/optics/shooter/spotter combination. Realistically, 1200 meters is well within the average sniper.

Recommendations: For military extreme long-range anti-personnel purposes, the .338 Lapua is king. Even the .50BMG falls short (Do to accuracy problems with current ammo). This caliber is not recommended for Law Enforcement.

Hmm, pretty impressive stuff. Let's hope that elephant poachers won't get access to these guns.

Edit: I said the Lapua has longer reach, that might be BS, what I was trying to say is that it's more accurate.

[notherhen40]

As I said before, why would you want to use 14.5mm rounds, in the dshk machine gun, when you get NATO commonality with 20, 25, 30mm rounds?

I do understand the special op guys like the 14.5mm machine guns, and the 20mm guns, but you get a much more effective amount of fire from the 25 and 30mm chain guns, and if you want a smaller caliber round, the .50cal, and the 7.62mm Vulcan.

Not every one uses the DSHK, and if a unit was deployed out side of A-stan for instance, they might find it hard to find rounds for that gun. That's the reason quite a few former Warsaw pact armies are standardizing their ammo and guns to NATO standards.

I am not trying to cut down the effectiveness of the DSHK or its 14,5mm rounds. It is a very good weapon system, and the round is very effective against most targets.

What I am trying to stress, is the lethality, and range improvements with a 25mm gun and rounds, versus the 14,5mm rounds against targets that are either hardened, or at long ranges.

[notherhen40]

Here is another thought.....If a target requires the rounds from the DSHK 14.5 mm gun, another option would be a 40mm GMG like the Mk19

[Britboy]

True. The grenade machine guns coming out would seem to be handy on top of a wheeled APC or MRAP, even if not usable in some situations where civilians are about. The Mk47 Striker AGL looks good, programmable 'smart' shells like the XM25/XM307 was to have, but 40mm and conventional usage also.

I agree that with old WP states going to NATO STANAGs now, sourcing rounds and spares might be tricky. That said, they must have an inventory they will be releasing as they go over to NATO kit.

I am not completely au fait with the intricacies of ammo design, or how capacity can complement for kinetic energy. Surely though with 20mm, even with the capacity within the round, you lose some AP application due to a slower travelling round? Whereas high velocity might not give you the absolute best anti armour capability, surely it gives a nice 'all-rounder' use for AP, AT and AA.

It may just be an Afghan thing only then, due to the weapons being in-country, but I think it is at least worthy of consideration.

PVTPYLE, is the performance of 14.5 vs 12.7 against light armour really that different?

If that is the case I'd be very tempted to have something like the 14.5 available just for the anti-armour, twinned with the AP capability as a standard MG that a slower moving 20mm might not have.

12.7 would probably still be retained in MG platoons and the like due to it being lighter and fitting into STANAG.
However 14.5 on soft skinned/light armour vehicles would give them improved capacity to take on other vehs without sacrificing their MG...
Probably cheaper than 40mm grenades and easier to hit moving targets due to faster speed of rounds?

NH40, by 25mm, do you mean the autocannons that are fitted to Bradleys?
Surely an IFV autocannon is going to be too heavyweight (not to mention the ammo) for MWMIKs and the like?