OICW vs Grendel & 60mm mortar

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Only downside to that, IMHO is time in flight. Indirect morter fire is INFINITELY slower during battle than someone who is on sight flipping a switch and dropping a frag grenade right next to the Tango or using an OICW (Oink) to frag around corners. Don't get me wrong, Being able to call in a fire mission at the touch of a button would be way cool, but nothing quite beats firepower there in the combat zone. Not to mention the Oink or an M203(updated or current) can pop a round through a suspect window, while a morter would hit the top of a building.

On and I think Grendalizer started the Ideal AR thread...I just seem to be monopolizing it :o

Again, the light morters would be a good addtion, but would not replace the man portable grenade launcher. I personally think the addtion of a pump action or break/slide open 25mm replacement for the M203 is in order. Maybe even set it up to use the targeting and rangefinding of the Oink when they get all the bugs worked out. That way you can have your riflemen supplimenting the firepower of the Oink and each rifle team can have at least one grenade launcher/shotgun with electronic dodad/rangefinder/morter fire designator.

Oh, and on a similar note. Had an idea for increased "on sight" firepower from an underbarrel launcher. Why not design the launcher to handle a muzzle loaded, external warhead rocket like the russian RPG series. Recoil could be minimized by using a "Kickout" blank charge loaded like a grenade. Then you just slide the bore sized "Stick" down the barrel, and fire it at whatever target you wanted to use it on. Use HE/AP for "morter fire", HEAT for antiarmor or whatever warhead you want. In fact, if its designed right, we could even use scavanged warheads off of russian RPG-2s and RPG-7s (they use the same warheads, just different "rocket sticks" get screwed into them).

Lockheed Martin Lightweight 120mm Mortar

Produced 2 firing prototypes for test firing in 1994. Lightweight mortar weighs 18.1 kg, compared to 50 kg for conventional steel mortar barrel. 12rds/minute for first minute, 4 rds/min after. Undisclosed recoil energy absorber aids accuracy even with the drastic decrease in weight. Low enough to fire from cargo deck of a HMMWV. Lockheed proposed 81mm mortar tubes, and also composite mortar bomb casings (lower the weight of each “shell”, easing transport problems).

Total system weight: 62.6 kg
Barrel 18 kg
Baseplate 18kg
Bipod 13.6 kg
Energy absorber 12.7 kg
Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1111 Lockheed Way, Sunnyvale, California, 94089-3504.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Solidpoint, that’s a good concept. Especially if you use the best, latest 60mm mortar bombs, with the Swiss fragmentation (over 2000 pieces of frag), US or South African airburst fuse (set to 2 feet above the ground). And the South African sight system for their compact 60mm mortars, just point and shoot, insanely fast and cheap fire support out to 1500m.

There WOULD be a time of flight to consider, but here’s the thing: you aren’t trying to kill them all, you are either getting them to go out of their minds, unseat them and get them running (then you can just shoot them), or suppress their firing on you. All it would take is one really close shell going off, and they’ll be thinking survival instead of killing you.

Add to that an advanced .338 like the Lutz Moeler, or a .408Cheytac, and you can really gain substantial standoff even without aircraft or arty.


When it comes to fire support from outside the infantry, I’m swayed to two types of systems: the 160mm mortar, which has a much bigger explosive payload than 155mm Nato arty shells. Couple it with the modern GPS guidance and automatic fire control like the “Dragonfire”, and you are calling in some really serious ordnance.

The second is the latest version of the MLRS: it’s a 6 shot pack, on a cheap and airmobile truck (fits in a Hercules I think), and shoots a GPS guided 227mm rocket that either has one big warhead or cluster munitions. Oh and it’s range is doubled over the unguided MLRS, to about 70km (what’s that, 40 miles?).

Benefit: no need to call for a helicopter gunship, a Hog, or an F-16, rounds are on their way, arriving in about a minute.

>>>>>>>>>>

Personally, I do NOT like the OICW’s very small explosive charge. It’s just too little explosive to do the job, IMO. Forget the cost of the sights, forget the cost of the shells, or development costs…that 20mm and 25mm shell just doesn’t have the physical capacity to do the job. I keep picturing the poor soldier lugging that beast of a “alien killer” gun all over the slums of Mosul, only to suddenly find he’s shooting firecrackers at his enemy!



Instead, I suggest that perhaps the technology in the Lockheed LW mortar, be used to make a lighter 40mm launcher than the M-203. Make it faster to handle and insert fresh shells, fast like an M-79. Or…even make it a new M-79A2, with better, faster sights. Engagements with it would be VERY fast, the grenadiers would practice by trap shooting clays with the 12gau inserts! Man do I love that concept!

New 40mm “Mk.2”
Give it a new case, with more power for a slightly flatter trajectory (engineered with a slight “belt” on the case, to allow old 40mm, but prevent the new powered cases from chambering in old tubes). We can stand a level of recoil like that of a 12gauge 3 inch magnum, especially if launching an HE round.

The shells would be longer than the current lightweight 40mm, to haul more HE, and more fragmentation. The shells would use the OICW’s fuse technology, which reduces unit cost, while also further increasing the internal explosive capacity dramatically. The end result is that “40mm Mk.2” would carry an explosive volume of about half that of the RPG-7’s HEAT round (which is mostly empty due to it’s shaped charge; our 40mm wouldn’t have anywhere near the armor penetration capability though, due to the small diameter shape charge). Then we could use the US Navy’s “insensitive munitions explosives”, which would boost the power of the explosive payload by 3times, from the same mass.


Shell type 1, general purpose/urban combat:
Make the warhead having fragmentation, but also a shaped charge like the HEDP rounds, standard: the shaped charge allows penetration in light armor, and walls in urban terrain (it’ll punch through 2.5 inches of NATO armor, so that’s great for a point and shoot lightweight infantry weapon). The fragmentation would be an instant/easily removable plastic sleeve, when off allowing the use of this weapon even with civilians in close proximity, while engaging terrs hidden behind walls. With the sleeve on, the frag can “reach” around corners to kill them hiding behind cover. Think postwar Iraq urban combat.

Shell type 2, open terrain light enemy:
All fragmentation, Motorola’s radar airburst fuse set to 2 feet. For traditional infantry engagements in forests and fields, mountains…think Afghanistan, or Iraq during initial invasion.

Shell type 3, non-lethal flashbang:
A 40mm flashbang, offering the ability to stun from a standoff, which would be vastly useful for hostage rescues in particularly nasty situations. It would also allow a much more serious warning shot to vehicles coming up on checkpoints before having to unleash lead. Even better, in a situation where terrs, civilians and friendly police are all doing their own thing in panic, one could shoot a flashbang into a door or window of the building you are about to enter (running under fire), and do a building takedown while avoiding the killing of innocents that may be inside. Anyway, useful in the real world.

If you have an explosive that is three times more effective than what is currently in the 40mm munitions, instead of keeping the same bulky system, why not scale it down so that its a third the size and weight?

And keep the "warhead on a stick" for when you need more oomph than the old '203 could do

>>“If you have an explosive that is three times more effective than what is currently in the 40mm munitions, instead of keeping the same bulky system, why not scale it down so that its a third the size and weight?”

Well there’s a whole bunch of reasons, but I’ll try to keep it to a minimum:

IMO, the standard issue 40mm of today is BARELY of any use, it IS the minimum. Going significantly smaller payloads, well a 500 meter firecracker is still just a noisemaker. I want to kill as many as I can and stun the rest so the Grendels can rip into them.

See, it’s not the loss of 15mm’s in diameter, it’s the dramatic decrease in 3d volume. But instead if we use the miniaturised OICW fuse systems in the 40mm, instead we have a dramatic net gain, virtually doubling it’s explosive capacity right there and then.

An M-79 or M-203 style weapon is far less bulky, or complex, as the OICW. How exactly is the OICW going to be 1/3 the weight of an M-79? Per munition? Not in my opinion: you are gonna have to fire the same weight if not MORE weight, because that explosive is spread out in small dollops. You are gonna have to empty it’s 5 round mag to get one or two kills. With my concept, I could get 1-3 kills from a SINGLE round/shell/grenade, possibly more with the airburst and extra fragmentation. Also, the extra blast could help stun the nearby enemy who were close enough to feel it but weren’t hurt or killed by it.

The “insensitive munitions” explosive may be too expensive for anything but certain NAVY payloads, as it’s a far higher grade than normal HE. But regardless, the 25mm won’t have even close to the same level of fragmentation, period. And mine would have roughly 8 times the explosive payload on pure density, regardless of munitions filling, whether it be the normal Comp B or the Navy’s IM.

Whatever weight you save per shell, you will loose in the sight system weight, complexity and so on. Anyway, that savings in the number of shells expended to engage a target, will result in the same or less system weight IMO.


>>“With a folding stock to brace against a wall, truck, BFV, ground, why not use the full-strength MK-19 round?”

An infantryman doesn’t have that kind of time to muck about looking for something solid to butt it up against: he needs to be able to shoot from the WORST shooting stance imaginable without injuring himself. Needs to be able to shoot from the wrong shoulder, wrong eye, wrong trigger finger, at a fleeting instant target running across the street 150m away. After having sprinted himself 200m. And the full strength Mk-19 round has far too much recoil by itself.

The Navy SEALs had actually thought of this in the 80’s and by ’85 had at least three different firing prototypes of a shoulder fired weapon in Mk.19 40mm, but the kick to the shoulder was too much even with these tough hombres and a fancy recoil absorbing buttstock (telescopes with the recoil like a soft mount). It was dramatically more kick than any of the 50cal rifles. Remember, the Mk.19 itself weighs near a hundred pounds AND is on either a vehicle mount or tripod groundmount.

I’m thinking similarly, but no where near as intense for the shooter, but WAY more intense for the enemy on the receiving end. I’m picturing similar launch pressures to the normal M-79, but with a significantly larger payload, the warhead being physically larger, for even more explosive punch. Oh and a slight increase in launch pressures to push that bigger payload, and make the trajectory a bit flatter than the original M-79/203. That would all conspire to give a healthy shove…but nothing anyone would have a problem with in combat or training. I mean, if you can train policewomen to use 00buck magnum loads…

>>“The battle plan is quite clever I think.”

That’s true…but if you called six Hogs in, they could wagon wheel the armored column and tear them all up in two minutes flat. Infantry included. A thousand miles from base, with air refueling.

That’s the thing that most people don’t know about OIF: the A-10 took out 11,900 targets in two weeks. With only 12 planes. That arrived late. And that sealed the A-10’s fate once and for all: it will not be retired for at least three more decades. For the first time, it’s FINALLY receiving it’s first truly serious upgrade in capability, becoming the A-10C “Precision Engagement”.

See, the USAF as an organization, particularly at the Pentagon level, has HATED, loathed the Close Air Support mission from day one. They feel it’s a waste of resources, better focused on the enemy’s hometowns. In VN, the brass didn’t like the “Air Commandos”, but there was little to say, they did the job exceedingly well despite the planes were too tired for the job.

And the Army wasn’t happy with the level of CAS they were getting, and so they tried for a very fast, very firepower heavy gunship called the AH-56 Cheyenne
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-56.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/ah-56-pics.htm

Anyway, as impressive as it was, it was too costly, had many engineering problems, and tactics were changing to add new night flying requirements that it couldn’t meet (well easily anyway).

But there was another reason that project was killed: the USAF HATED that the US Army would have something faster than it’s slower planes. And so they too helped kill the project. And to keep the US Army from having dominance in CAS, to keep some of that budget in the USAF domain, they took up the A-10.

The A-10 wasn’t wanted by the USAF, it was like an unwanted step child. It was built to be so simple and cheap, in fact with the notion of being a disposable plane. And in the years afterward, the AF tried to ditch it. The US Army then made serious moves to take over all A-10 operations, including the pilots. That didn’t go over well, so the USAF kept it for a few more years.

Then the Gulf War happened. Notice that despite the A-10 doing the majority of difficult tank destruction, little of this was mentioned at top USAF meetings, while they instead championed the “tank plinking” by F-111’s with LGB’s.

In the ‘90’s the USAF very nearly got to put the “Hog” in the grave (Tucson graveyard), and had even gone so far as to rename many of them OA-10’s (“Observation”) to make them seem something other than ‘Hogs’. Only the pilots in the USAF, and Army veterans of many wars helped to ensure it kept a foot out of the grave.

Then Kosovo had embarrassed the USAF staff in a big way, B-2 Stealth being very impressive looking JDAM strikes, but didn’t do anything to the will of the Serbian people. Only the Hogs were actually killing REAL targets, everything else being a decoy or an empty building/vehicle. Then the F-117 Stealth fighter was shot down, major propaganda coup for the Serbs. Still the Hogs soldiered on, proving that it could operate in a high threat environment that would even kill a stealth strike platform, which went against USAF doctrine in every single way.

9/11, Afghanistan. Black Hawks couldn’t operate in the high altitudes. Chinooks were needed to do troop lift, thanks to those big rotors. Apache’s and Cobras did great work, but it’s my understanding that they were running with low fuel and low ammo loads, full throttle for short duration’s, owing to the thin air. See, helicopters fuel burn rates are directly proportional to their payloads carried, and the air density: less density with substantial payload, you need full throttle to stay airborne.

A-10’s once again to the rescue. While JDAM’s were of major value in that war, they were NOT a substitute for the Hog providing CAS in those frenzied battles for life and death. No, JDAM’s from strategic bombers orbiting in the stratosphere, were a substitute for heavy artillery, nothing more.

See, the Hog has an insane amount of lift generated by it’s wing, even at low speeds, which means that the thin air in the mountains that caused so much problems for the rotorbirds, was no sweat for the “Sweathogs”! (Welcome back, Kotter!)

And in OIF it was basically 1000 targets per plane in just two weeks. NOTHING in the last few decades has had that kind of war record. It may even be a record including WW2, but that’s not really important. What IS important is that it’s combat record from OIF is so insanely overwhelming, that the USAF brass have suddenly decided to love their Hog!

Several times the Hogs came back with the entire plane needing a washdown, nosecone and engines the color of soot from it’s powerful gun, expending over 1000 rounds. It kept it’s pilots alive, and kept them from being taken prisoner, which must have been quite disconcerting to Pentagon planners worried about the public loosing faith in the swift outcome of the war.

After the first few days of the war, the USAF had little to do other than support the Army. And within days the Army and Marines’ CAS requests specifically asked for A-10’s by name, 80% of the time. The Apaches were sent on an ill-planned mission hatched at the Pentagon, and the resulting Iraqi hasty-ambush led to two pilots being taken prisoner, and the grounding of the squadron for weeks, leaving the Army with far fewer attack helicopters to do CAS with. It’s not the Apache pilot’s fault, nor a problem with the helicopter, they were just carrying out a silly mission they were ordered to do.

The pilots never needed convincing: the A-10 has long been the most requested plane among pilots in the USAF. And those that do fly it guard their slot in the flight roster like junk yard dogs.

Anyway, the new Hog, A-10C, has a whole slew of new onboard gear. It doesn’t seem to carry any new ordnance, but that “seem” would be very deceiving. It’s now going from the Korean War level of tech, to systems that are simultaneously getting retrofitted to strategic stealth bombers. Among other things, finally a proper nav/attack/allweather navigation system, satellite comms, datalink, standoff target designation, JDAM and LGB attack…

…man, the “New Hog” is the Grendel of ground attack! As good as the Warthog’s reputation has been, I actually feel it’s been underrated.

And to think the USAF has about 400 of them, all at the low, low cost of 10 mil a unit. Soon the first retrofit “C” versions will be appearing in service. Awesome stuff.

http://www.a-10.org/

PS: sorry for going on a tangent, but having been a grunt overseas without a shred of CAS support (Canadian Army can't count on any fire support really), I have a bit of a soft spot for the USAF's stepchild! :D
http://www.a-10.org/photos/p.asp?FileName=MVC%2D002F%2EJPG

Actually I was more thinking of doing what the grendel does, with a grenade. Instead of having these short stubby projectiles (40mm) take the same basic weight...maybe a little less, and put it in a longer, narrower, more aerodynamic package. Think 30mm Scenar shaped projectile, possibly with a driving band or sabot to reduce friction/increase velocity, and the maximum pressure/recoil impulse considered controllable. Maybe even add a small sustainer motor in the base of the projectile to increase range/velocity (kinda like the old Gyrojet principle). After all, if you can take a bullet and maintaining the same weight, narrow it down, and stretch it out, and get better performance with a smaller powder charge (140 grain Grendel discussed elsewhere on this forum as a possible replacement for the 144 grain 7.62 NATO currently in use), why wouldn't that work with what is basically a light artillary shell for a man portable artillary piece?

One idea I had in this department is use a small case at the base, while most of the powder charge is like a solid rocket motor in the base of the projectile (the starter case would look kinda like the brass base on most shotgun shells, just a much larger base). You would get more efficiant propellant usage (since the relitively short barrel on an underbarrel GL would cause major muzzle flash and propellant waste with larger propellan loads) because the projectile would CONTINUE to accellerate after it had left the barrel, in addition to greater range.

There I go, think outside the box again ;)

As a side note, wasn't the Russian launched grenade family around 30mm?

The Electric primer idea is good, but instead of having to swap over to that, why don't we look at what the paintball community has been using for years, successfully. The "latest" in paintball guns (semi and full auto) seem to be based on the same principle. You still have the mechanical action to release pressure and fire the ball, but instead of having a direct linkage to the trigger, it is controled by a servo and a small electronics package in the grip. Now, I wouldn't want this on my PRIMARY weapon (Grendel based rifle) but it might be good for the grenade launcher. Put the electronics in your rifle's pistol grip, hooked up to a second trigger (maybe a thumb trigger?) or just have a wired remote trigger and the electronics are in the GL. I would recommend though that there be a secondary manual trip for the firing pin so that if the "combat trigger" does fail, you can fire the GL the old fasioned way. :D

Oh, and I still think having a smaller general purpose grenade (25 to 40mm) with a 40 to 70mm "warhead on a stick" (like a barrel launched RPG) would greatly increase individual soldier capabilitys without having to pack around a rifle, a grenade launcher, and a LAW/RPG style launcher.

Oh, almost forgot. I'm not looking at the "Oink" system for a replacement for the M203, I am more looking at ways to lighten up and shrink the M203 so that it is more likely to be carried by at least one guy in each rifle team, if not be standardized for full sized and carbine sized weapons. Yes, I know not everyone needs a grenade launcher, but like the lady said "Its the same principle as a condom, I would rather have one, and not need it, than need one, and not have it" :D

On that note, I think what they were trying to do is make the "Oink" or the XM25 replace the M203. Bad Idea. Its more like a replacement for the rotory multi grenade systems, but instead of sticking with a nice, light weight platform, they porked it up to a semi auto. BLAH. One idea I have seen is to go back to the rotory. I know I referance video games a bit, but some times those game designers DO have good ideas. Case in point, the assault rifle from Unreal Tournament 2003 (not 2004, they screwed up on the layout on that one). The gun was basically a carbine assault rifle with a ROTORY grenade launcher, with a removable cylinder. Kinda like the big gold shotgun in "Constantine". Its proven, its relitively simple, and its a crap load lighter than and more compact than the beefy semi auto "Oink" grenade launcher.

And before anyone says "But those are FANTASY weapons" may I just remind you that alot of technical innovations first started as cheap effects ideas on a sci-fi show...think about that next time you walk through an automatic door at a supermarket while talking on your motorola flip phone..."Kirk to Enterprise..." ;)

Look up the specs for the 30mm IGLS grenade launcher. basically, it looked like an oversized rifle with a box magazine holding 10 30mm grenades. The effective range was something like 500 meters, with the maximum about 1000 meters.

FWIW, coil gun small arms will not be possible until there are room temperature supeconductors or the ultraconductor technology has the bugs worked out.

Actually, Solid wasn't talking about a coil or rail gun. He was talking about an electrically primed rifle using an electrical power to operate the action when closing the breach and firing the catridge and then scavanging the energy from the recoil of the cartridge going off to recharge the "batteries" and power the gun. I proposed that the gunbe more like a "Diesel" engine in that it needs no electricity to fire and cycle, just ammo (fuel) and that any electrical generation be directed solely at powering aiming devices, and other battlefield electronics attached to the gun (no more having to worry about your EOtech or laser designator batteries).

That pretty much sums up alot of our ideas on the "Ideal AR" thread

Okay, heres what I was looking for. The Russians have thier AGL-17 and AGL-30 Grenade launchers firing a 30mm projectile with similar proportions to what was suggested for the OICW and the XM25. What I was thinking was use a similar cartridge with a slightly higher powder charge (the AGL17 and 30 were rated for almost 2 KM I believe) and an aerodynamic shape instead of the cylindar with a truncated cone tip. Usable in a "Barrett" Type AGL (like the XM109) or in single shot "M203/M79" type launchers, or even a pump action launcher similar to a shotgun.

One other idea might be to use a manually setable timer on the fuse so that they can be used as a hand grenade (try to match the capabilites of the grenade projectiles to thrown hand grenades and/or improve them) in case your gun is wrecked and so that you don't have to carry launched grenades AND hand grenades. Cuts down on the additional load carried. But thats much further outside the box at this time.

And it may be too close to those damn "sci-fi" bug guns yall were talkin about ;)
http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Base/1852/30mm.html

Guys, I should first say I'm trying to decide where to put these more general military discussions. Let's put future ones in the Soap Box section, and keep the other forums strictly dedicated to Grendel stuff.

To your points: Very stimulating thinking! Here are my quick points:

1. I like the idea of mortars that also have direct-fire capability, such as the AMOS of Finland and Sweden.

2. I like the idea of having some kind of heavier "artillery" closely supporting small, light units, which to me means having some kind of 120mm mortar mounted on a Humvee or towed by an even smaller vehicle.

3. I like the idea of the current 40mm being the minimum payload for a shoulder-fired grenade launcher, and also of putting the same payload in a higher BC grenade, such as the 30mm mentioned. My recoilless grenade launcher tube would be atop a pedestal that rests on top of the shoulder and puts the tube slightly above helmet height and is sighted by periscope. That way, the firer can stick the tube over a wall and sight and fire it without exposing his head to a sniper.

4. Finally, long live the A-10!

John

Note that in the County Fair section I've created an "Advanced Military Concepts" forum for stimulating, but non-Grendel, military discussion. Enjoy!

John

I've not fired the M224 at all, as we don't have that one in Canada. Ours I think was the really old M19, and we employed it without the bipod.

We employed ours having no sight system, not on "drop fire" but instead on "trigger fire" mode that it has, easily switched between the two modes, this is safer for use in the "commando knee mortar" role, including carriage with a round in the tube for instant reaction under fire.

We'd just hold the top with one hand, feed the mortar bomb in with the other, then "aim" by looking and moving your left hand (near top of the tube), and then fire. The round would fly in the air, and you'd adjust it in genralities. Range of 900m easily attained on a single "charge", but accuracy was poor. On the other hand, accuracy, and fire support coverage at 400m was seriously intense with 2 tubes operating. That's why I feel that with a proper commando sight, and cutting edge mortar bombs would REALLY kick butt.

For horizontal direct fire, that's great stuff for urban fight wall breaching. Especially if you can get the high yield explosives. Still need a shoulder fired explosive launcher though.

Anyway, I think we can all agree that the direction we are talking about is the right one, even if every detail isn't totally identical! :)

Have you seen this? a Humvee mortar carrier...seems to have potential.

http://www.rdecom.army.mil/rdemagazine/200409/itf_mortar.html
PICATINNY ARSENAL, N.J. - An innovative team of armaments engineers here has successfully designed and tested a mortar that fires from a military HMMWV, a technical breakthrough never before achieved.
Nicknamed Scorpion, the mortar could provide U.S. military personnel serving in hostile areas added protection, according to Anthony Franchino who headed the five-person team.

http://www.jedsite.info/transport/hotel/hummer_series/scorpion/scorpion-intro.html
SCORPION
TRUCK, 1¼-TON, 4X4, MORTAR, 82MM
This is a heavy chassis Humvee equipped with a 2B9 Vasilyek 82mm automatic mortar and intended to provide more protection for US troops in combat zones. This was developed during 2004 by engineers at the US Army's Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey. The mortar itself can fire on single shots or on automatic using 4 round clips. Range for direct fire is 1,000m and indirect fire is 4,000m. It's also intended to provide another means of destroying roadside bombs but at a safer standoff range.

Thats "Next Year's" Model, Solid. ;)

Here is an interesting idea for you. Basic two to three man team load would consist of the following. "Heavy weapon" (SAW, Mortar, LMG, etc.), and one or two assistants armed with 6.5G ARs with underslung, light grenade launcher(25 to 40mm)/RPG/"master key" systems. Each HW guy might be packing a PDW version of the AR or even an FN P90 incase he got separated from his team or his main weapon was out of action.

To further simplify, make sure that all of your "grenades" are compatable between underslung and multi grenade launcher systems, and perhaps even have the mortar bombs be usable as RPGs out of the same systems (not as much range, but if your mortar is down because of damage you arn't packing around a bunch of rounds that are of no use).

look up the Chinese 35mm auto grenade launcher- Man portable.

Its kind of threatening.

There are overlapping roles for GLMGs and mortars, but there are also roles where they do not. There is a viginette in Generation Kill where the 1st Marine Recon is told which building the Fydeene are in by the locals and they want to level the building. For this they need a large top attack weapon that will penetrate the roof and blow the crap out of the tangos inside. It is a 3 story building so they need quite a lot of punch all at once. They are so far forward being recon that there is no arty available. A GLMG isn't much good for this as there are other buildings in the way so direct fire is out of the question. They use a battery of 120mm mortars and don't get a hit for a few rounds so there is collateral damage, but once they have the range and fire for effect they make quick work of the building and wanna-Bs.

For most indirect fire roles the mortar must be used. (There are close-in scenarios where the M70/M203 can be lobbed in a high arc, but in general, the GLMGs are not very good for top attack or reverse-slope engagements.)

To be fair, for ripping through charging human waves, knocking a charging infantry formation on their asses and ripping the momentum right out of the charge, or area denial on short notice, the GLMGs are great. They also tend NOT to collaspe buildings to rubble in MOUT - which is primarily a direct-fire scenario engagement - they also excel and can hit small area or point targets much better.

What did you like about the 35mm? Shaped charge penetration is a function of diameter, so 40mm is better than 35 if you want a HellHound SC door or IFV blaster.

It's hard to imagine much of an improvement on the MK19 as it has good range - although a bit slow for moving targets. The handheld M203, M79 would benefit from a more streamline format, but since weight is so great recoil is likely to be unchanged. I can't see where it would be worth developing a new caliber low-charge grenade system. I think the Silsby system for "dialing a charge" allowing an M203 type weapon to fire the full charge 40mm would be more promising as it would make the ammo common and allow good top-attack mode from 20-2,200 meters.


I'll take another look at the Chinese 35mm. Maybe I missed something...

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/crewserved/mg_35.asp

At 200 mps its not going to hit anything moving more than 10-15mph beyond 50 meters. I seriously doubt the claimed armor penetration as the Hellhound is much larger and only claims 90mm penetration. In a fire-support duel I'd rather be behind a tripod mounted MK-19. For the Chinese, who look to fight with a heavy focus on infantry, this looks like a good choice.

Given our focus on vehicles and mech infantry this seems like an inferior weapon. Here a good laser rangefinder (or optical binocular rangefinder) and XM109 or 60mm light mortor (3 lbs if made with composites) would win the fire-support dual in short order and in the case of the 60mm from a covered defilade position.

HELLHOUND Technical Information:
Type: HE-Multi-Purpose. Weight: 225 grams (98g A5 explosive). Length: 120mm. Qualified Weapons: M79, M203, Milkor MGL MK-1/[MGL-140] launchers. Body Material: Steel. Fuze: SF801/M550. Charge: A5. Penetration: 90mm mild steel at normal impact with antipersonnel fragmentation. Muzzle Velocity: 80 mps (262 fps).

The link looks to me to be wildly optimistic about the system's capabilities, but deployed in large numbers with infantry they could be effective - if they closed the range sufficiently. They are going to get annhilated by arty, mortar, MK19 and even 50BMG sniper rifles using Raufoss as they are outranged by 500 meters. Frankly, given the claimed speed of the 30mm projectile, and claimed armor penetration, the lack of range just doesn't add up. All other things being equal, a 35mm needs more charge to get the same level of penetration as a 40mm and that would make it heavier. So if its heavier and flies faster and has less frontal area why is the range less???? Something is bogus here.

PS: the 35mm is .25kg and our 40mm is .3kg, so the penetration number is highly suspect. Also, they have fielded a 12.7x112mm HMG which cannot be moved with advancing (or retreating :D) formations so there seems to be some confusion amoungst the Chinese. It looks to me that they don't have clue one about tactics and are therefore in a state of confusion RE: weapons to support those tactics. Others here are more qualified to comment. stanc? dobrodan? zipperhead?

There are overlapping roles for GLMGs and mortars, but there are also roles where they do not. There is a viginette in Generation Kill where the 1st Marine Recon is told which building the Fydeene are in by the locals and they want to level the building. For this they need a large top attack weapon that will penetrate the roof and blow the crap out of the tangos inside. It is a 3 story building so they need quite a lot of punch all at once. They are so far forward being recon that there is no arty available. A GLMG isn't much good for this as there are other buildings in the way so direct fire is out of the question. They use a battery of 120mm mortars and don't get a hit for a few rounds so there is collateral damage, but once they have the range and fire for effect they make quick work of the building and wanna-Bs.

For most indirect fire roles the mortar must be used. (There are close-in scenarios where the M70/M203 can be lobbed in a high arc, but in general, the GLMGs are not very good for top attack or reverse-slope engagements.)

To be fair, for ripping through charging human waves, knocking a charging infantry formation on their asses and ripping the momentum right out of the charge, or area denial on short notice, the GLMGs are great. They also tend NOT to collaspe buildings to rubble in MOUT - which is primarily a direct-fire scenario engagement - they also excel and can hit small area or point targets much better.

What did you like about the 35mm? Shaped charge penetration is a function of diameter, so 40mm is better than 35 if you want a HellHound SC door or IFV blaster.

It's hard to imagine much of an improvement on the MK19 as it has good range - although a bit slow for moving targets. The handheld M203, M79 would benefit from a more streamline format, but since weight is so great recoil is likely to be unchanged. I can't see where it would be worth developing a new caliber low-charge grenade system. I think the Silsby system for "dialing a charge" allowing an M203 type weapon to fire the full charge 40mm would be more promising as it would make the ammo common and allow good top-attack mode from 20-2,200 meters.


I'll take another look at the Chinese 35mm. Maybe I missed something...



GOing from memory, 12 pound, fully automatic, 500meter range.

Nasty suppression fire weapon.

http://www.sinodefence.com/army/crewserved/mg_35.asp

At 200 mps its not going to hit anything moving more than 10-15mph beyond 50 meters. I seriously doubt the claimed armor penetration as the Hellhound is much larger and only claims 90mm penetration. In a fire-support duel I'd rather be behind a tripod mounted MK-19. For the Chinese, who look to fight with a heavy focus on infantry, this looks like a good choice.

Given our focus on vehicles and mech infantry this seems like an inferior weapon. Here a good laser rangefinder (or optical binocular rangefinder) and XM109 or 60mm light mortor (3 lbs if made with composites) would win the fire-support dual in short order and in the case of the 60mm from a covered defilade position.

HELLHOUND Technical Information:
Type: HE-Multi-Purpose. Weight: 225 grams (98g A5 explosive). Length: 120mm. Qualified Weapons: M79, M203, Milkor MGL MK-1/[MGL-140] launchers. Body Material: Steel. Fuze: SF801/M550. Charge: A5. Penetration: 90mm mild steel at normal impact with antipersonnel fragmentation. Muzzle Velocity: 80 mps (262 fps).

The link looks to me to be wildly optimistic about the system's capabilities, but deployed in large numbers with infantry they could be effective - if they closed the range sufficiently. They are going to get annhilated by arty, mortar, MK19 and even 50BMG sniper rifles using Raufoss as they are outranged by 500 meters. Frankly, given the claimed speed of the 30mm projectile, and claimed armor penetration, the lack of range just doesn't add up. All other things being equal, a 35mm needs more charge to get the same level of penetration as a 40mm and that would make it heavier. So if its heavier and flies faster and has less frontal area why is the range less???? Something is bogus here.


200mps is about 2.5 times the velocity of the M203.

This is not used as a heavy machine gun, iirc, but as squad weapon.

That is a LOT of fragmentation effect.

Shaped charges are also highly dependent on standoff distance. IIRC the projectile is longer, so could have a better standoff distance.

and the standard HEDP 40mm is supposed to penetrate 50mm+ armor steel. The 25mm version will do 70 iirc. so it isn't STRICTLY based on velocity.

The M203 weights 2 lbs... not a releavant comparison. The MK19 is 240mps.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm

I don't know where the idea that it was used as a HMG came from ??? The point is it is not a point weapon, and is not an indirect fire weapon. It is an area denial weapon - and one that is inferior to the comprable MK19 - which is also too heavy to be effectively fought with advancing troops. Why do you think the world abandoned water-cooled MGs? Too heavy, they couldn't be advanced fast enough to keep up with the infantry. This is also clearly stated as the reason for the first assault rifles - a high rate of fire that could be carried forward with the advancing infantry. At 44lbs (and the weight of the tripod I would have to assume) it is FAR too heavy to be an practical weapon except where there are static lines.

The standoff distance is determined by the fusing, not the caliber. Lets assume the weapon designer knew what he was doing - more or less - and has an appropriate fuse for best effect. The caliber is irrelavent in determining the standoff distance the SC charge is initiated at. By contrast, the diameter of the SC cone directly affects the penetration of the charge, so all other things being equal, larger is better. Advantage 40mm.

Velocity has NOTHING to do with penetration for a SC weapon. ??? Not sure why this was even brought up??? Velocity has EVERYTHING to do with hitting a moving target - which is why so many anti-material weapons use sabot rounds to get 1,400-1,800mps velocity. The Germans weren't happy with the rate-of-fire on twin MG-42S at 2,400rpm against 400-500mph propeller planes. Hitting flying objects with 200mps and 400 rpm is nonsense. Real air-defense weapons use banks of guns like the ZSU-4-23, Gatling guns like our GAUs, or Gast guns on MiGs and Hind helicopters. These have the range and ROF to engage helicopters.

It looks to me that the 35mm Chinese GLMG is a MK19 scaled back to accomadate the smaller stature of Chinese infantry. Unfortunately, it leaves the weapon seriously outgunned bythe MK19. In truth, neither of these is light enough for infantry use. They should be seen as mech infantry weapons only.

The Chinese weapon seems like a good idea...

However, it has the same drawbacks as other small-diametre "mortars"... It has to hit the ground to explode. Especially because of the relatively large velocity of the projectile, it can be difficult to get the effects where you would like it. Also, the fact that it explodes on, or in the ground, reduces the potential lethal area dramatically.

The OICW had one very good idea: Airburst that was auto-programmed by a laser-rangefinder.

This function should be incorporated into a light AGL. As I like the layout of the Bren, this would also be a good layout for an infantry-AGL, because it will be easy and fast to change mags with the help of a co-gunner, but still fairly easy and fast to do for the gunner alone.

It should have ha tri-burst function, with variable airburst on +5m, 0m, and -5m. This would make the life of the enemy really miserable, as they would be slaughtered in the open.

About the anti-armor capabilities of the Chinese round: Yeah, sure, on a wooden tank... But, of course it could do a good job in damaging an APC, or even destroy the termic and optical sights on a tank. But I wouldnt attempt that without a few 84mm or other AT-weapons nearby...

Personally, I believe that 40mm is a too bulky calibre for infantry. A long 30mm calibre with the same or larger payload would be better, and easier to carry. With a 10rd double-stack magazine, the height of the rounds alone would be something like 18.5cm. The mag should altogether not be very much longer than 20cm...

If the Chinese are fighting on foot then the 30mm GLMG is a bit more friendly, but you can still only advance as fast as your slowest, heaviest fire-support weapon and when you add the tripod weight to the 20kg its just too heavy. If they fight us where we are using mech infantry they are going to get slaughtered. You don't need to save weight when you are mounted - the idea behind the PAV - you can just upgun to crew-served and heavier weapons and use your heavy weapons and maneuver to decimate infantry. The exception is terrain where mech can't follow, but looking at the breakout from the Frozen Chosin the USMC in very challenging conditions anhillated 3 Chinese divisions as part of their "retreat".

It looks to me like the Chinese are still trying to come to grips with how to field million man armies and use mech. So far I see a lot of confusion. Unmounted infantry are going to be cannon fodder for arty, mortar, GLMG, HMG, MMG and Grendel type assault and ARs without the ability to maneuver or seek cover. (A single 155mm DIPCM arty round will saturate a square kilometer with "steel rain") One of the reasons I favor a .338 MMG and high rate of fire Grendel MGs is to keep human waves under fire for long periods of time/distance - and to provide devestating firepower at closer ranges respectively. Because human waves take space to mass, the depth of fire of "light" long range HMGs is important in thinnning their ranks in depth, turning any delays on their side into destroyed, degraded, demoralized and disorganized units. This robs the enemy of the time to properly organize forces for the assault, forcing the pace and creating fear and confusion. He who hesitates will indeed be lost under such long-range fire.

The .338 delivers long range leathality at a fraction of the logisical load and weapon weight of the M2 - which was designed and is still best used against light vehicles or MOUT cover. The .50 is not optimal for a long-range "rank thinner" used against enemy massed infantry formations. The .338 and Grendel are MUCH better choices and overlap each other's range very nicely.

We will use mech, but if we needed a way to move heavy weapons forward a wheel barrow planform with a 26" mountain bike wheel, spiked telescoping rear feet with captured pins and M16 rifle type carry handles and a flop back gunner's bicycle style seat and possible 6mm 500 Brinell hardness armor cladding should allow a strong co-gunner to advance at the same speed as the infantry with 250-350lb loads. I am thinking of the M2, MK19, M240 and 60mm mortars with 100 bombs, but a Grendel AR with 100 30 & 40 round mags would also be possible. Unlike a conventional wheel barrow, ammo and bombs could be lower, flank the wheel, and be mounted substantially ahead of the wheel. The larger wheel would add stability and reduce rolling resistance. The armor cladding would provide 7.62x51 protection at bp ranges and add maybe 50 lbs. This would be more valuable for direct-fire counter battery protection than motars but would protect the bombs on a mortar wagon. By using the co-gunner as the prime mover the gunner will NOT be winded when he sits down to take care of business.

In retreat, groups of 3-5 could drop and cover, then retreat under cover fire, then drop and setup to cover their alternates, etc, etc. The addition of armor cladding would be priceless in this mode. By adding a small ball-hitch feature ahead of the wheel which the gunner's seat support tube latched into, four bearers could carry two barrows in tandem with the gunner on the front one in action. With the center bearers using both arms, two sets of tandems next to each other could be retreated by six men with two gunners fully active in retreat - an M240 and MK19 would be a good choice. Because the muzzle of the guns would be 4-5 feet ahead of the bearers the gunners could operate without worrying about blue-on-blue.

The M203 weights 2 lbs... not a releavant comparison. The MK19 is 240mps.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm

I don't know where the idea that it was used as a HMG came from ??? The point is it is not a point weapon, and is not an indirect fire weapon. It is an area denial weapon - and one that is inferior to the comprable MK19 - which is also too heavy to be effectively fought with advancing troops. Why do you think the world abandoned water-cooled MGs? Too heavy, they couldn't be advanced fast enough to keep up with the infantry. This is also clearly stated as the reason for the first assault rifles - a high rate of fire that could be carried forward with the advancing infantry. At 44lbs (and the weight of the tripod I would have to assume) it is FAR too heavy to be an practical weapon except where there are static lines.

The standoff distance is determined by the fusing, not the caliber. Lets assume the weapon designer knew what he was doing - more or less - and has an appropriate fuse for best effect. The caliber is irrelavent in determining the standoff distance the SC charge is initiated at. By contrast, the diameter of the SC cone directly affects the penetration of the charge, so all other things being equal, larger is better. Advantage 40mm.

Velocity has NOTHING to do with penetration for a SC weapon. ??? Not sure why this was even brought up??? Velocity has EVERYTHING to do with hitting a moving target - which is why so many anti-material weapons use sabot rounds to get 1,400-1,800mps velocity. The Germans weren't happy with the rate-of-fire on twin MG-42S at 2,400rpm against 400-500mph propeller planes. Hitting flying objects with 200mps and 400 rpm is nonsense. Real air-defense weapons use banks of guns like the ZSU-4-23, Gatling guns like our GAUs, or Gast guns on MiGs and Hind helicopters. These have the range and ROF to engage helicopters.

It looks to me that the 35mm Chinese GLMG is a MK19 scaled back to accomadate the smaller stature of Chinese infantry. Unfortunately, it leaves the weapon seriously outgunned bythe MK19. In truth, neither of these is light enough for infantry use. They should be seen as mech infantry weapons only.




I can't see the Type 87 (I beleive I was thinking of the prototype W87 that didn't actually reach production) as a Mk 19 analog. The MK 19 is a Heavy machine gun in size, weight, and usage. The Type 87 is 26-44 lbs, and it sounds like they intend to use it more as an HE firing Squad MG. Sure, It is still too heavy. Until the new run of Lightweight 40mm grenade machine guns get into service, The US won't have a directly comparable weapon.

SURE the Type 87 is nowhere near perfect.
There is no reason it could not be quite effective though.
80mm penetration from the shaped charge may be based on a different standard for penetration. A 50% perforation standard could make a fair difference when compated to an 80% standard.

The 25mm OCSW iirc is supposed to penetrate 70mm. No reason a 35mm couldn't do a bit more.

I believe there is a newer 40mm HEDP round that is supposed to penetrate 70+mm also. German or Swiss perhaps?

I'd love to play with the OCSW, OICW/xm25 whatever.

It is very possible that despite the impressive potential of the airbursting rounds, the sights/fire control system may be the biggest advance.

I have a hunch that a lot of the early ammunition will be a much cheaper point detonating, programmable for delay fuse instead of the all up airburst fuse.

I have been wondering why the US has such an aversion to Rifle grenades, they would give a bigger bang, and if even a few were issued...

On the other hand, I suspect that something in the range of a 40-75 mm recoilless rifle would be very useful. The Army iirc is buying more Carl Gustav 84mm recoilless so that more units than just the rangers can have them, hopefully that will make a POSITIVE difference. I need to look up whether there is a cannister round for it, the HEDP is a goodie, but...