gatnerd

Military Guns and Ammunition

Hosted by gatnerd

This is intended for people interested in the subject of military guns and their ammunition, with emphasis on automatic weapons.

  • 3357
    MEMBERS
  • 191125
    MESSAGES
  • 1
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Squad Support Weapon   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 17-Jun by stancrist; 22118 views.
renatohm

From: renatohm

9-Jul

Nope.

OICW fired 25mm grenades but they were lighter and slower than the ones fired by OCSW - not unlike individual and crew served 40mm grenade launchers.

graylion

From: graylion

9-Jul

renatohm said:

pe. OICW fired 25mm grenades but they were lighter and slower than the ones fired by OCSW - not unlike individual and crew served 40mm grenade launchers.

Goodness. did the US ever envision a situation where logistics might be a bit stretched possibly? 

17thfabn

From: 17thfabn

9-Jul

The individual weapon was a low velocity 25 X 40 mm.

The crew served weapon was 25 X 59 mm. 

Like with the 40 mm grenades the bigger one has much better range.

I don't know if the 25 X 59 has a better grenade than the 25 X 40.

The grenade for the 40 X 53 grenade is more powerful than the 40 X 46.

DavidPawley

From: DavidPawley

10-Jul

The 25x59 grenade was (is) much better. Higher velocity, HEDP availability, base fused, near double HE capacity.

The Barrett payload rifle (XM109) was a great solution to the perceived need that led to NGSW, but 1. it had a lot of recoil, noise and overpressure for the firer, 2. It didn’t look like what the Army thought they wanted at the time Barrett proposed it.

EmericD

From: EmericD

10-Jul

JesseH1234 said:

My only potential beef/question on rifle grenades: can you actually get most troops to actually use them?  Is there a way to mitigate the recoil?  Or is everyone just a wimp but France, Japan, and some plucky Balkanites?  My impression is that while RGs are vastly more efficient in terms of payload delivered, most militaries have gone the 30-40mm tube route because rifle grenades are just so unpleasant to shoot. 

Rifle grenades do kick more than 40 mm LV grenades, because they are carrying a bigger payload... and a rifle grenade with the same payload as a 40 mm LV grenade will still be heavier than a 40 mm LV grenade (because of the grenade tail), so you have to live with the higher recoil (than can be mitigated using 350-450 g grenades instead of the 600 - 800 g RG used during the '50s, but you can't really reduce the weight below 350 g and keep a decent payload).

The situation with rifle grenades is pretty simple. With more than 50% of the "West" defense budget, the US is setting the trend in weapons & ammo. Once the US Army switched to the 40 mm LV grenade system, US manufacturers gradually stopped producing RGs, other armies that are buying goods thru FMS process switched to 40 mm LV system, and the industrial base of manufacturers followed this trend. 

EmericD

From: EmericD

10-Jul

Mr. T (MrT4) said:

25mm OCSW round had both range an ability to penetrate armor 

With an impulse of nearly 60 N.s (13.4 lb-sec = 59.7 N.s), the 25 mm high velocity grenade of the OCSW can't probably be fired from a shoulder weapon.

Rifle grenades do kick, and they just have an impulse around 30-35 N.s (or 50-60% of the OCSW grenade), compared with ~15 N.s for the typical 40 x 46 mm LV grenade.

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

10-Jul

JesseH1234 said:

even a high velocity 30mm cannon won't punch through the kind of armor a good HEAT rifle grenade will.

Not really.
While the penetration of AT-rifle grenades looks impressive on paper its mostly a theoretical number. The warheads are on the light side. Actually extremly light by todays standards and their behind armor effect is low.
A 30x173 mm cannon with APFSDS is conciderable more potent as an anti vehicle weapons.

The low weight is the main reason why rifle grenades are outdated as AT weapons. They simply can not pack the required punch.
 

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

10-Jul

EmericD said:

the US is setting the trend in weapons & ammo.

I really think this is a very important factor in a lot of procurement decisions. Some things are en vogue and considered cool. So a modern military must have them.
The under barrel grenade launcher is a perfect example IMHO.
Originially the German Army did use rifle grenades. A grenade launcher for 40x46 was introduced in the '70 and the rifle grenades phased out. Regardless the G3 and the G36 both have the capability to use rifle greandes.
In the '90 there was conciderable dissatisfaction due to the fact that the US used the "cool" under barrel grenade launchers and "we" had to do with a old style grenade launcher. There was no sensible reason behind it. Just the fact that a UBGL looks cooler and was a newer piece of kit. The GL we had did the same, actually it was better compared to the M203 use at the time and is more flexible. But there was so much noise that after the adoption of the G36 a UBGL for it was adopted. The GLs did not go away though. They are still used in addition.

Something similar happened not long ago. The KSK just had to have M134. Which has now been accepted into service as the MG6. For no good reason other than "we want what they have".

JesseH1234

From: JesseH1234

10-Jul

schnuersi said:

A 30x173 mm cannon with APFSDS is conciderable more potent as an anti vehicle weapons.

Sorry, but I beg to differ. EASIER TO HIT WITH IF YOU HAVE IT?  Yes.  But a 500 gram AC58 can-optimally-penetrate 3-5x what the-optimal-point blank capabilities of an autocannon can.  Cannons are not immune to issues of angle and range.  Also I never said a rifle grenade was an optimal "antitank" system, I'm just saying something like an AC58 enables each soldier to at least threaten an aweful lot of things. 

I didn't even imagine this point would be controversial, there was this thing a while back called the panzerfaust and HEATs have gotten a lot better since.  All I wanted to know was if Emeric thought the recoil made French soldiers hesitant to use (ie practice) with rifle grenades.

TOP