Top 10 Combat Rifles
-
Bizzare... a lot of your opinions don't seem to come from any information that you could logically construct from Janes... which I wanted to suggest to you as well, but considering the quality of your replies in here had thought prehaps was a little high-brow for you.Originally posted by glock:Google, Wikipedia and strategypage are your friends.
Mine are named Janes.
Looks like it's not enough to get information... you need to make sense of it as well. -
I cud not find the answer to my question below in Jane' s so I also tried
Wikipedia but also cud not find the answer.
" So Tyra, what are Minimis using now ? And what wud be ideal for a LMG ? "
Maybe someone cud help me. -
The most common misconception here is probably due to the fact that the Ultimax and the Minimi, while both SAWs, are used in different applications. Our SAW operator doctrine emphasises mobility and close contact with the section itself, to provide immediate, localised fire support while advancing.
The Minimi as used by the Americans, is used 50-50 between static fire-support roles and playing catch-up with the section. Sometimes, when they break up into fireteams, the SAW may be isolated with the rest of the section, and sent to do mop-up or softening duties before entry into a moderately large area with little foilage or environmental cover for the enemy. The Minimi's accuracy is only at it's best while fired with it's bipod legs deployed, and not on the move. Practically speaking, this would allow for it to be belt-fed and save on magazine change while in prone position.
Our Ultimax is built for low-recoil and handheld application. That's where the different lies. The C-MAG has a problem with the springs in the magazine when they do not channel the bullets smoothly towards the chamber under battle conditions where heat is common and may warp the springs slightly under extreme movement. One solution could be to standardise the magazines with the AR systems.
Until we realise that the Ultimax and the Minimi were developed for different applications in two different armies, the arguments will continue. -
Thanks LazerLordz for your insight into the different doctrines for the employment of SAWs in different armies. Clearly, the Minimi and Ultimax are weapons designed for different purposes - hence the difference in feed systems.
-
The Croat Army used the Ultimax in the Balkan War too.. I wonder if anyone has any material on their infantry doctrine.Originally posted by glock:Thanks LazerLordz for your insight into the different doctrines for the employment of SAWs in different armies. Clearly, the Minimi and Ultimax are weapons designed for different purposes - hence the difference in feed systems. -
There's this cool video on YouTube showing a bunch of guys (non-SAF) firing the Ultimax standing shoulder on full auto with a C-Mag, burning through it without any stoppages. It's rather cool.
-
Yeap, that's the Mk4 video, IIRC.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:There's this cool video on YouTube showing a bunch of guys (non-SAF) firing the Ultimax standing shoulder on full auto with a C-Mag, burning through it without any stoppages. It's rather cool.
The C-MAG is good when conditions allow for proper maintanence and cleaning. -
I saw a picture in Time or Newsweek magazine ages ago - early 90s?- ( when the Balkans civil work was in full swing before the NATO intervention ) showing a soldier carrying an early model Ultimax. It was one of the rare occasions when one actually sees a S'pore small arm being used in a major conflict.
-
Croatian National Guard.Originally posted by glock:I saw a picture in Time or Newsweek magazine ages ago - early 90s?- ( when the Balkans civil work was in full swing before the NATO intervention ) showing a soldier carrying an early model Ultimax. It was one of the rare occasions when one actually sees a S'pore small arm being used in a major conflict.
I still have that page from TIME magazine in my file.
-
I always use this comparison from WW2.Originally posted by LazerLordz:The most common misconception here is probably due to the fact that the Ultimax and the Minimi, while both SAWs, are used in different applications. Our SAW operator doctrine emphasises mobility and close contact with the section itself, to provide immediate, localised fire support while advancing.
...
The Germans invented the 7.92 GPMG concept. While it worked well as a tripod or bipod-mounted MEDIUM machine gun, it was incapable as a HMG as it had no armour-piercing capability and hopeless as a SAW.
In the end, the Germans used captured Czech mag-fed zb-26 (father of the Bren).
On the other hand, the Allies had the excellent SAWs in the form of mag-fed Bren, and the mag-fed BAR. The Russians had the Degtyarev, also mag-fed.
However, everyone went ape-shxt for the GPMG concept after WW2 even though it was clumsy in the SAW role.
Britain was the only one with any sense and they hung on to the Bren until the 7.62 round was phased out.
US soldiered on with the M-60 GPMG in the SAW role after attempts to auto the M-14 were discontinued.
After the switch to the 5.56 everyone had different ideas as to what a SAW should be.
US soldiered on with the M-60 GPMG after attempts to turn the M-16 into a SAW was discontinued.
Later on, the US and everybody else went for the belt-fed SAW, which I feel is the old GPMG firing a smaller bullet.
The US actually used the Minimi in a SAW assault role but maybe because they have guys big enough to run full speed with a heavy bulky weapon.
Sullivan went back to the Bren, BAR and Degtyarev (Lewis even) mag-fed concept and came up with the Ultimax 100.
But US must've been disinterested and Singapore ended with a tidy little LMG/SAW.
Any one knows the true story of why/how Sullivan sold the design to us?