Army equipment that should have seen service

It had a grenade launcher and all the necessary accessories already in the gun, so it's worth it.
And you used kg twice BTW.
The military disagreed.
By the early 2000s, the weapon had settled on a design and was classified as the XM29. The XM29 was based on the HK CAW (Close Assault Weapon) (Cal. 18.5×76mm or 12 Gauge non-conventional). However, the weapon had serious problems: it did not meet weight or cost targets, and the 20 mm High Explosive Air Bursting (HEAB) did not seem to be lethal enough in testing. To compound matters, the kinetic-energy component had to be light and short in length. As a result, the 5.56×45mm NATO barrel had a length of only 250 mm (9.8 inches), which is too short to generate enough muzzle velocity to be effective as a standard infantry rifle. It was also too heavy and too large to be operated effectively by a soldier.
 
If you really want to see a soldier that carried a Bar and or had men that did (when he/they had to) but hated the thing. I can introduce you to a Sergeant that spent time on Heartbreak Ridge and elsewhere in Korea and he could not stand the bar. Said it was way to heavy. Had ammo that was to heavy and it was so distinctive sounding that you could tell it was a Bar (and thus an American) from way way way far away. And that would occasionally get you into trouble.
So he and his guys did everything they could to get their hands on carbines to take on patrols, So not everyone liked them.
I'd appreciate hearing his story if you've got more details. First complaint I've ever heard of it from a user. My grandfather carried one in WW2 and loved it.
 
They didn't. Must have had a reason...
Interestingly they didn't adopt any of the weapons they developed thereafter as standalone weapons either.
Grenade size was too small.
All the tech reduced explosive size which made it not as good.
They should have made a 40mm or 50mm smart grenade.
 
I wasn't debating if their radar worked or not.

Their "Blue on Blue" puts pay to your statement that their target discrimination was better!

Much obliged!
No; it doesn't. Their French SAMS hit at what they aimed. The British SAMs and radars failed. Discrimination and identification are two different things.
 
Can you back that up with figures?
Sure, go upthread and read where I pointed out in 33 engagements the British were only able to get four successful engagements.

Again, are you prepared to back that up with figures?
Sure. Roland in the same discussion about Rapier scored 3 hits out of 5 engagements.

Not when the poor pilot gets shot down it isn't.
Or the entire crew of a British helicopter, that was lost when it was shot down in one of the only four British engagements that hit anything that we can confirm.
 
Sure, go upthread and read where I pointed out in 33 engagements the British were only able to get four successful engagements.



Sure. Roland in the same discussion about Rapier scored 3 hits out of 5 engagements.



Or the entire crew of a British helicopter, that was lost when it was shot down in one of the only four British engagements that hit anything that we can confirm.
I understand that the RN had very little confidence that they could shootdown an Exocet. They assigned a helicopter to hover astern of each carrier to serve as a last ditch defense against an Exocet attack. The Helicopter was to interpose itself between the missile, and the ship, and take the hit. How they could actually do that isn't too clear to me, but they were to try to do it, and give up their lives for their fellow sailors. Prince Randy Andy was one of the pilots taking his turn on suicide guard duty. It struck at the time that this was the technological state the mighty RN had been reduced to. Just stunning.

At least today the RN has much better point defenses. At least that's progress. In many ways the Falklands was both a high, and low point for the British Military. I still can't believe that the RN has only 19 major surface combatants. Their new carriers will keep them in the power projection game, and their SSN's, and SSBN's still make them a major naval power, but the decline since WWII is still jarring.
 
Last edited:
I understand that the RN had very little confidence that they could shootdown an Exocet. They assigned a helicopter to hover astern of each carrier to serve as a last ditch defense against an Exocet attack. The Helicopter was to interpose itself between the missile, and the ship, and take the hit. How they could actually do that isn't too clear to me, but they were to try to do it, and give up their lives for their fellow sailors. Prince Dandy Randy was one of the pilots taking his turn on suicide guard duty. It struck at the time that this was the technological state the mighty RN had been reduced to. Just stunning.
Is that really that bad considering that the Exocet presumably has to hit for its fuze to be set off and the helicopter is a much smaller target than a ship so its likley to miss and simply be decoyed past? In the last few seconds once the missile is going to miss the CV can't the helicopter switch off the electronic systems (presumably using French info on the radar) attracting the missile and climb above Exocets low level attack hight, making it even more likely to miss?

Is this not basically a improvised manned Nulka decoy?

I still can't believe that the RN has only 19 major surface combatants. Their new carriers will keep them in the power projection game, and their SSN's, and SSBN's still make them a major naval power, but the decline since WWII is still jarring.
Its a huge decline but most other navys have also shrunk similarly look at USN number compared to 1945 or European v 39?
Once you add in the CAN/AUS/etc ships are you not almost up to pre WWII empire numbers if you count modern surface ships as mostly Cruiser equivalents due to size? (before you could then add in India/etc)
Modern UK has far less critical areas to cover than WWII GB....
 
Last edited:
What about a somewhat simplified MBT-70/Kpz 70? Replace the troublesome XM-150 152mm gun/launcher with a more conventional 105mm or a 120mm AT gun. Weren't the rest of teething troubles more easily fixable?
Apart from the gun there were considerable problems with the position of the driver in that vehicle. So much so, that it made the vehicle basically impossible to use realistically. It seems the driver takes far too many unconscious cues as to where his vehicle is pointed externally from the vehicle he is in.
 
Is that really that bad considering that the Exocet presumably has to hit for its fuze to be set off and the helicopter is a much smaller target than a ship so its likley to miss and simply be decoyed past? In the last few seconds once the missile is going to miss the CV can't the helicopter switch off the electronic systems (presumably using French info on the radar) attracting the missile and climb above Exocets low level attack hight, making it even more likely to miss?

Is this not basically a improvised manned Nulka decoy?

Its a huge decline but most other navys have also shrunk similarly look at USN number compared to 1945 or European v 39?
Once you add in the CAN/AUS/etc ships are you not almost up to pre WWII empire numbers if you count modern surface ships as mostly Cruiser equivalents due to size? (before you could then add in India/etc)
Modern UK has far less critical areas to cover than WWII GB....
Your right about the Nulka Decoy, but the point I was making was they were using a manned system trying to take a hit, rather then a point defense gun, missile, decoy, or jammer. Yes your right about the much greater size of ship classes today, compared to say 1939, and yes the UK has fewer global commitments, but they still have to cover a lot of water. Home waters, ASW in the North Atlantic, NATO standing force, the Med, South Atlantic, nuclear deterrence, support of Commonwealth nations, the Persian Gulf, show the flag deployments, and coalitions operations. That spreads them pretty thin. If the UK brakes up that may well put the RN out of business as a major naval power. Charles III may have a navy much weaker then Charles I had.
 

DougM

Donor
A short review of the BAR from a Korean Vet point of view.
i have heard his stories a lot as he is my father...
FYI he was drafted into the Army. Spent time in Japan and was sent to Korea as a replacement.
He was ultimately promoted to a Sergeant of some flavor. Spent time on the front in a couple locations and was scheduled to rotate home based on points when the fighting stopped and he was stuck a bit longer as they stopped rotating people home like they had been. In trains he shit well enough to be at the top on the range. Abd was offered a chance to go for Officer Training but turned it down. He was a machine gunner (30 cal) in Korea and somehow ended up with a water cooled 30 for a while as it was swapped out for an air cooled when it was left behind by someone rotating back. He was a mechanic by training and so was very good at keeping his machine gun running. His assistant gunner was hit in the neck by shrapnel from a motor round that hit outside there bunker. He is unsure what happens to him as no one would say but he never saw they guy again. But he was not killed instantly... still he probably didn’t make it.
So that is his background
the Pros.
It was a pretty accurate weapon used in single shot and braced.
Cons.
They were often getting a bit used as Korea was fought with mostly WW2 hand me downs. But he did not like even the good versions.
They were heavy as hell and the ammo was as well.
They did not have enough rounds to be practical in a clip for an automatic weapon.
But that is ok because they fired to slow for an automatic weapon.
They were to long to conveniently carry on patrol.
They were loud and when fired on Automatic they were very distinct and thus they shouted ‘American over here” which could result in the enemy responding . Often with a few motor rounds. They tended not to respond as much when other guns such as carbines were fired.

So in general they preferred Automatic Carbines (and they had a trick to basically get autom fire from most any carbine if they had the time).
Carbines were lighter. Had lighter ammo. Fired faster, were easier to tape two clips together and were small enough to run/maneuver with.
ANd being as as they almost NEVER aimed at anything with a single shot long range fire but usually just hoses down an area at short range the accuracy of the BAR was not useful on patrol.
Basicly if you are on patrol and round a corner and run into a Chinese/NK patrol you want a lot of ammo going down stream as fast as you can. And you want a weapon light enough to swing around fast to target the bad guys. A long heavy BAR was not the optimum for that.

So their you have it a cranky octogenarians view on the Bar.
keep in mind that Korea, especially at the end was a radically different war then WW2.
And it did not have the jungle of Vietnam. In fact my dad says he doubts he ever saw a tree still stand at the end as they had been shot to pieces. So at relatively short ranges out on patrol and more likely to stumble into a firefight then to see the enemy at a distance the Carbine was preferred. If you think about it an assault rifle like the M-16 would have been ideal. But the carbine was as close as they had.
And once back into position on the ridge or wherever they had other weapons to use. In my dads case either a water or air cooled 30cal depending on where/when we are talking about.
so for him it was 30cal machine gun when stationar,y, carbines on patrol and a 45 under his pillow at night.
Perhaps in a different setting the Bar would be more useful. But in this case the patrols would have just fallen back if they met something to tough. Not as much an option when walking accros Italy or France
 

Driftless

Donor
Apart from the gun there were considerable problems with the position of the driver in that vehicle. So much so, that it made the vehicle basically impossible to use realistically. It seems the driver takes far too many unconscious cues as to where his vehicle is pointed externally from the vehicle he is in.
Good point about the driver. They got way too cute with too many design ideas. "Oooh, oooh, while we're at it, let's add....."
 
I understand that the RN had very little confidence that they could shootdown an Exocet. They assigned a helicopter to hover astern of each carrier to serve as a last ditch defense against an Exocet attack. The Helicopter was to interpose itself between the missile, and the ship, and take the hit. How they could actually do that isn't too clear to me, but they were to try to do it, and give up their lives for their fellow sailors. Prince Randy Andy was one of the pilots taking his turn on suicide guard duty. It struck at the time that this was the technological state the mighty RN had been reduced to. Just stunning.

At least today the RN has much better point defenses. At least that's progress. In many ways the Falklands was both a high, and low point for the British Military. I still can't believe that the RN has only 19 major surface combatants. Their new carriers will keep them in the power projection game, and their SSN's, and SSBN's still make them a major naval power, but the decline since WWII is still jarring.
The helicopter was fitted with a radar transponder which made it look like a BIG target, they would fire a chaff pattern to the left of the ship relative to the missile bearing as EXOCET would always start scanning from left to right and then move away from the chaff pattern to the right, the helo would remain between the ship and chaff pattern to further confuse the missile. The helo would then climb and confuse the missile further if it locked on to the helo, the risk of being killed by a EXOCET was very low for the helicopter crew.

The RN were fully aware of the shortcomings of EXOCET and various countermeasures. The Sheffield was lost as the ship was not running its radar as it interfered with the SATCOM so they got no warning of the incoming missile. The Atlantic Conveyor which was killed had no chaff or EW system, this is why it was hit.
 
The helicopter was fitted with a radar transponder which made it look like a BIG target, they would fire a chaff pattern to the left of the ship relative to the missile bearing as EXOCET would always start scanning from left to right and then move away from the chaff pattern to the right, the helo would remain between the ship and chaff pattern to further confuse the missile. The helo would then climb and confuse the missile further if it locked on to the helo, the risk of being killed by a EXOCET was very low for the helicopter crew.

The RN were fully aware of the shortcomings of EXOCET and various countermeasures. The Sheffield was lost as the ship was not running its radar as it interfered with the SATCOM so they got no warning of the incoming missile. The Atlantic Conveyor which was killed had no chaff or EW system, this is why it was hit.
IIRC the Israelis were using the same 'recipe' to fool the SS-N-2s during the Yom Kippur war.
 
Top