Rheinmetall Introduces the Squad Support Weapon -The Firearm Blog

This New Automatic Grenade Launcher Looks Straight Out Of Terminator (thedrive.com)

About time too! This one has been hanging around for a decade.

On the face of it, this could be a far more significant development than a new infantry rifle, assuming that armies can work out how best to make use of it. The inclusion of the (already developed) time-fuzed airburst system is particularly interesting.

autogun said:

On the face of it, this could be a far more significant development than a new infantry rifle...

Concur.  It's not quite what I had in mind, but it's in the right direction.

https://forums.delphiforums.com/autogun/messages?msg=7519.2884

autogun said:

On the face of it, this could be a far more significant development than a new infantry rifle,

I have been slowly coming to that conclusion during the discussion of the NGSW program.  It seems that HE might well be a more effective solution than increasingly bigger and more powerful rifle rounds to deal with an opponent wearing decent body armor.  The general concept of the OICW program has been making more and more sense to me.  

nincomp said:

The general concept of the OICW program has been making more and more sense to me.

The OICW concept always seemed like a good idea to me.

----------

Soldiers in defilade.  Incoming rifle fire @ 2:22-2:39 is ineffective.

  https://youtu.be/UNNg5V8OfDk?t=140

----------

Fleeting targets.  Ten men race across open area.  One man is hit by a bullet.

  https://youtu.be/Eb9vZig-7ok?t=66 

Fragmentation by an air burst would likely have inflicted multiple casualties.

----------

Trench clearing.  Rifle fire @ 3:00-3:10 is ineffective.  

  https://youtu.be/-eNaaNx0qTg?t=180

Bursting munition @ 3:58 eliminates the opponent.

stancrist said:

The OICW concept always seemed like a good idea to me.

Concepts are always good and shiny, things start to be less interesting when you add the numbers...

The effective casualty radius of a 25 mm grenade, using a pre fragmented tungsten warhead (around 150 g), was less than 3 m.

An airbursting grenade would have hit soldiers helmets, shoulders and upper torso, all covered now with at least lvl IIIA body armor. Some fragments could have hit the arms, but the effectiveness was very limited.

Against protected soldiers in a trench, the effective radius of a 25 mm airburst grenade was computed to be less than 1 m.

stancrist said:

Bursting munition @ 3:58 eliminates the opponent.

It seems that ~9 grenades were needed, or an equivalent of ~[3.6 - 4.0] kg of ammo, or ~[300 - 330] small arms cartridges.

EmericD said:

Concepts are always good and shiny, things start to be less interesting when you add the numbers... The effective casualty radius of a 25 mm grenade, using a pre fragmented tungsten warhead (around 150 g), was less than 3 m. An airbursting grenade would have hit soldiers helmets, shoulders and upper torso, all covered now with at least lvl IIIA body armor. Some fragments could have hit the arms, but the effectiveness was very limited. Against protected soldiers in a trench, the effective radius of a 25 mm airburst grenade was computed to be less than 1 m.

...and I wanted to be the party pooper ;)
Just wanted to point these things out as well.

OICW and other such systems are a terrible idea. Not even great on paper. At least once you do the math.

stancrist said:

Soldiers in defilade. Incoming rifle fire

Fleeting targets. Ten men race across open area. One man is hit by a bullet.

Trench clearing. Rifle fire @ 3:00-3:10 is ineffective. Bursting munition @ 3:58 eliminates the opponent.

Nothing of this is new. It has been long established that the hand grenade is at least as important as infantry weapon as the rifle. If not more. The important tools are the MG, the mortar and hand grenades. Rifles are much less important and situational.
The last two videos to me seems like tactical mistakes.
You don't cross a street or clearing potentially in view of the enemy one after the other, single file. All sprint at the same time togeather. This way the enemy doesn't get allert by the first guy, can aim and pick of one of the last guys. Which is exactly what happened.
IMHO in this case the weapon of choice would have been a machine gun.

The trench clearing is more or less exactly how that is done. With the exception of the attackers not being agressive enough. More rifle fire for supression and hand grenades while the rifles shoot. Once the grenades go off advance to the next bend. They are way to static. They are even lucky because the one guy killed at the end threw one grenade back and allmost put it in the right spot. Also the defenders are not communicating and coordinating well. Would they have not left the guy alone they could have pushed them back out with a few grenades.
 

Chinese drum magazine seems to offer a more practical form factor for a grenade launcher

35mm grenade 

Schnuersi, 

Math is a funny thing and I'm glad you brought it up...

What happens if you use the wrong formula to solve for a given problem?

Let's say you try to calculate the area of a rectangle while using the formula to calculate the area of a square for instance. Are you going to get the right answer once you do the math?

Of course you won't right?

But you applied the formula exactly the way the formula is supposed to work so how could you get a wrong, or maybe even misleading for instance answer, answer if you applied the formula correctly but used the wrong formula?!

I agree with you that the best guess casualty radius for 25mm, 30mm, 35mm, or even 40x46 MV doesn't look All that impressive compared to let's say a 60mm mortar or an airburst charlie G round.

Where I disagree strenuously with you is that the casualty radius is the Important number here. (Especially since even the worst case 25mm radius is actually more than sufficient IF you're actually doing the right math!)

The key here is doing the right math.

So what's the right math in this case?

The right math in this case looks something like this. 

1. In an active fire fight at medium range how many seconds can someone expose themselves to take an aimed shot before their likelihood of getting hit goes parabolic?

2. What is the average windage and ranging error for a soldier under stress with standard issue optics and weapons when given the answer from number 1 minus 1 seconds of time to line up a shot?

3. What is the ranging and windage error with something like SSW or xm29 with the same number of seconds from 2, and does that put a shot within a close enough distance to a national target to be within your system's casualty radius?

4. If you can use offboard cuing can you speed 3 up to a point where it's possible to get off 2 shots in the time from #2?

I could add several more variables and calculation factors to my version of "the right equation" but I think I have at least somewhat illustrated my point here.

Yes the casualty radii aren't super impressive on paper in and of themselves but I believe if you factor in the other relevant factors and variables you do actually have a fairly solid mathematical case for employment of things of this nature.

Are there going to be situations where a squad with one guy carrying something like this will perform objectively worse than a pure KE direct fire squad?

Absolutely

Can you adjust your squad's tactics and TTP's to make those instances rare enough that they're actually better off with things like SSW/XM29 than a pure KE direct fire squad?

I believe that the answer as of today is a resounding yes.

More importantly with the direction infantry combat and equipment is going, I believe that this will actually make an approach like this more and more potent.

I could be wrong though, I am entirely open to the idea that it's me doing the math wrong. I think I have brought up things that are definitely worth thinking about and discussing further though.