This is a follow-up post to this on the work being done at the Army Research Laboratory (ARL) by Dr. Alexander Kott:
On page 9 of Dr. Kott’s paper provides the following table:
This is a sample of the data used for 8 weapons systems. He ended up using 195 weapon systems for his analysis. This is discussed in depth in his paper (referenced in his footnote 12): “Kott A. Initial datasets for explorations in long-range forecasting of military technologies. Adelphi (MD): Army Research Laboratory; 2019. 128 p. Report No.: ARL-SR-0417.” It is here:
https://www.arl.army.mil/arlreports/2019/ARL-SR-0417.pdf
These are all ground-based systems (no aircraft) that are either direct fire, or indirect fire systems using explosive rounds.
————-
P.S. Now the figure of a rate of fire of 30 for the house-mounted harquebusier got my attention, and no other muzzle loading weapon has a rate of fire above 3 rounds per minute. I did discuss this with Dr. Kott. He has a note in his papers that states:
MFS048: I consider the harquebusier (see Wikipedia “Harquebusier”) of the early 17th century (taken as 1620) as light armored at 160 J of protection and with armament that is an interpolation between a light harquebus (which they often could fire only once at the beginning of the engagement and produced about 1600 J KE) and a sword/saber that produced about 100 J per hack (see data for gladius in Note MFS005). I take this intermediate effect as corresponding to about 500 J, and assign an artificial projectile mass and velocity to account for this. I assume that the maximum rate of sword blows could reach 30 per minute.
Note, his figures are based upon cyclic rate of fire, not sustained rate of fire. This will be the subject of a future post.
It is unfortunate ARL no longer allows access to the article, I lost my download of it.
I have sent an email to ARL on this.
New link is in the blog post of 7 March 2020.