Posted on 04/11/2016 6:22:01 AM PDT by C19fan
South Korea’s Armored Fighting Vehicle Is Like America’s Bradley — But Better SOUTH KOREA April 10, 2016 Ed Kim 0 K211 For several years, South Korea has been in the throes of a military weapons binge. In particular, Seoul really wants weapons made in South Korea. Officials have a mix of concerns regarding the evolving nature of the U.S.-Korean alliance, the unique needs of defending their mountainous country and the desire to bolster an indigenous arms industry.
It hasn’t always gone well. One of the first attempts to create a completely independent weapons system was an armored infantry fighting vehicle — known as the K200 — in the mold of an American M-113.
(Excerpt) Read more at warisboring.com ...
How many rounds could someone fire through that cannon before it starts to deform from overheating? In other words, is there a practical limit on the number of rounds fired before it has to cool?
Solar manufacturing economy can make things better than a service economy can?
From Wiki:
“The K21 KNIFV’s chassis is constructed entirely out of fiberglass...”
Seriously?
Wrong thread?
It happens.
Rate of fire makes a difference in how quickly one can do a follow up shot. You actually wouldn’t run that many rounds in a minute but you can place a few rounds on target more quickly.
That’s pretty sweet. This IFV seems like a winner. The fire and forget missile would be great against threats that lacked counter measures but the TOW would be better against tanks with advanced counter measures. Seems like it isn’t amphibious either. The 40 mm main gun seems like a big improvement from the Bradley’s 25 mm bushmaster cannon and the power to weight ratio improvment is impressive. The 50 cal is also a big bonus. Lots of things can be destroyed with a 50 cal that don’t require the use of the 40 mm rounds. The main gun stabilization certainly increases lethality as does the ability to carry more troops in the back and more ammo in the racks. This is an awesome vehicle.
I agree, but, whether you can run 200 rounds per minute or 300 rounds per minute seems to be a dubious claim to fame if the chance of doing so is zero. Will a difference of 4/10 of a second matter for shooting, say, four successive rounds?
Rounds per minute is cyclic rate. Its never intended to convey sustained fire.
For example an M61 Vulcan cannon has a cyclic rate of 6000 round per minute, but the magazine is limited to 400-500 rounds. So it can fire a few 100 round bursts.
Sorry, my bad. I actually had two questions that I combined into one very bad question. The first question should have been would they actually test the cannon to determine what would happen to it if they, indeed, tried to fire 200 or 300 rounds through it and what is the limiting rate of fire on the cannon. Second question, is what is the practical limit on the rate of fire? If you are shooting multiple rounds at a target, how much does the rate of fire affect you when your cyclical rate is 200 or 300 rounds per minute? 300 rounds per minute sounds much better than 200 rounds per minute, but is it when you shoot two, reaim, shoot two, reaim...?
Would be cooler with the M231 port firing weapons to mow down the commie hoards that get close enough.
When someone is shooting at me, I prefer a slower rate of fire.
I’ve heard arguments that the U.S. Brownings were better machine guns than the MG42, because they had a slower rate of fire that didn’t require as frequent of barrel changes.
But if you are the one that has to dash across 30 ft of exposed ground, do you prefer that the enemy gunner be shooting 500 rpm at you or 1600 rpm at you? I prefer 500 rpm.
Now you questions are directed at the notion of sustained fire, which is also a big factor. A 6000 rpm cyclic rate with a 20 round magazine would result in fairly low sustained fire, due to reloading time. Also, heating is a big issue as you pointed out. Some heavy water cooled machine guns could just hold down the trigger an feed belt after belt without effect, but an air-cooled weapon will get too hot fast. Steel loses about half its strength at around 450F, so at about 600F you are blowing out all of the rifling in the barrel. You also have cook off problems, where the chambered round fires from the intense heat.
Even 16” battleship guns had sustained fire restrictions. There comes a point when you really don’t want to be placing bags of powder on hot metal.
The increased rate of fire comes into play when engaging helicopters.
Warthog food.
thanks. that sounds logical.
The photo shows what a tight fit it is for the driver.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.