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.

  • 3358
    MEMBERS
  • 191133
    MESSAGES
  • 0
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Squad Support Weapon   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 17-Jun by stancrist; 22163 views.
schnuersi

From: schnuersi

20-Jun

roguetechie said:

This other thing we see in Ukraine is Ukrainian SOF absolutely WRECKING Russian units at night because the ukies sof is extremely well supplied with quad tubes and thermals and can see the Russians at ranges where the Russians don't even know they're near them!

I am not convinced that something that specific can be simply used to draw conclusions for a general approach. Also the conclusion would not be weapon related but rather equip all our infantry with night vision to SpecOps standarts. While desirable its simply not feasable. Its way to expensive.

roguetechie said:

and blowing off organic capability to do things like this by blithely saying why not use a mortar is not helpful or useful.

I am not blowing off organic capability. My "use a mortar" was meant like: maybe issue light mortars at platoon level. Rifle grenades are organic in any way. Mortars currently are organic to the infantry batallion. They are the main firepower asset. Mabe issue additional ones to company level?
What we are seeing in UA as well is that the ability to trow massive amounts of indirect fire is a decisive factor.

EmericD

From: EmericD

20-Jun

gatnerd said:

STK used 330x 0.25g Tungsten balls in its LVER grenade concept: https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/ndia/2005/smallarms/thursday/fong.pdf Performance as described - even against IIIA type protection - looks pretty solid.

Yes, the performance of this grenade is pretty solid, so let's summarize:

  • With a grenade weight of 248 g, of which 82.5 g is tungsten balls (33%),
  • Launched from a 40x53 mm HV system, with a MV of 242 m/s and an impulse above 60 N.s (a rifle grenade that brutally kicks is around 30 N.s),
  • With a special muzzle device to measure the MV of the grenade, compute the ToF and properly time the fuze,
  • Using a base-detonated fuze to eject most fragments forward,

=> You can expect a Pk of 0.35 at nearly 5 m against a CRISAT protected target.

graylion

From: graylion

20-Jun

schnuersi said:

roguetechie said: and blowing off organic capability to do things like this by blithely saying why not use a mortar is not helpful or useful. I am not blowing off organic capability. My "use a mortar" was meant like: maybe issue light mortars at platoon level. Rifle grenades are organic in any way. Mortars currently are organic to the infantry batallion. They are the main firepower asset. Mabe issue additional ones to company level? What we are seeing in UA as well is that the ability to trow massive amounts of indirect fire is a decisive factor.

bring back the 60mm commando mortar?

EmericD

From: EmericD

20-Jun

roguetechie said:

I don't know how much of the available ngsw FC and FWS I / FWS CS content you've watched or read but it appears that they have gotten the lazing and reticle adjustment time way down to actually useful time increments.

You can "try it at home".

Put a human-size target with low IR signature (maximum 30% reflectivity) at a known distance between 300 m and 400 m in a realistic environment (with foliage, trees, maybe cars...), take a hand-held range finder and record the time you need to lase this static target, and achieve a solid range measurement.

I'm not saying that issuing a properly designed HE launcher (along with a properly designed FCS) is a stupid idea.

I'm just saying that issuing a semi-automatic grenade launcher with a FCS and a rifle, to every soldier, is maybe not the most effective way to achieve our goals.

stancrist

From: stancrist

20-Jun

EmericD said:

I'm just saying that issuing a semi-automatic grenade launcher with a FCS and a rifle, to every soldier...

Who said anything about issuing each soldier a semi-auto grenade launcher and a rifle?

My thinking is to issue the grenade launcher instead of a rifle to the squad's riflemen.

Like the OICW concept.  No more riflemen in the squad.  Riflemen become grenadiers.

graylion

From: graylion

21-Jun

stancrist said:

EmericD said: I'm just saying that issuing a semi-automatic grenade launcher with a FCS and a rifle, to every soldier... Who said anything about issuing each soldier a semi-auto grenade launcher and a rifle? My thinking is to issue the grenade launcher instead of a rifle to the squad's riflemen. Like the OICW concept.  No more riflemen in the squad.  Riflemen become grenadiers.

Do the French thing? One fireteam of grenadiers, one of fusiliers?

  • Edited 21 June 2022 2:59  by  graylion
gatnerd

From: gatnerd

21-Jun

EmericD said:

Yes, the performance of this grenade is pretty solid, so let's summarize: With a grenade weight of 248 g, of which 82.5 g is tungsten balls (33%), Launched from a 40x53 mm HV system, with a MV of 242 m/s and an impulse above 60 N.s (a rifle grenade that brutally kicks is around 30 N.s), With a special muzzle device to measure the MV of the grenade, compute the ToF and properly time the fuze, Using a base-detonated fuze to eject most fragments forward, => You can expect a Pk of 0.35 at nearly 5 m against a CRISAT protected target

Thank you for crunching the numbers.

How would it look performance wise as a Medium Velocity (40x51) grenade? This likely being the food for the Squad Support Weapon or a Milkor.

MV is the same 248g grenade from the x53, but fired at a more sedate 100m/s.

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

21-Jun

schnuersi said:

So that is 82 g of W per grenade... in this case I think W core AP bullets are the better choice. As long as only a few of these grenades are used the use of W may be fine but since the idea we are talking about is wide spread distribution and mass use I think there is a problem here. Furthermore 1,6 mm Ti plus 20 layers of Kevlar is CRISAT. STANAG 4512 does not define protection levels but targets for testing. So it can not be assumed that these fragments will penetrate Lvl 3A which is significantly better than CRISAT

CRISAT (or anything with a hard metal sheet) is tougher than a IIIA vest. 5.7x28 can zip through IIIA with subsonic 55gr lead core FMJ, but requires a steel core AP load to pierce CRISAT. 

Helmet penetration is a different, unknown quantity. It's a sort of plasticized, rigid kevlar thats a good bit tougher then a IIIA vest, even if its also sold as 'IIIA.' Some of the newer helmets are using UHMWPE as a solid, which is also pretty tough.  

...

In terms of tungsten expenditrure, I dont think grenades would be that much of a problem. Pretty much all the modern PFF he munitions are using tungsten - in much larger quantities (the latest M72 LAW airburst uses 4000 tungsten pellets). And tungsten is a staple of all manner of autocannons and tank shells as well. 

If a squad had more than 40x 40mm shells to fire, I'd be impressed.

EmericD

From: EmericD

21-Jun

stancrist said:

Like the OICW concept. No more riflemen in the squad. Riflemen become grenadiers.

The OICW concept was to provide a KE weapon to fight from 0 to 300 m, and a semi-auto grenade launcher for the longer range (300 m to 600 m), where the rifle is supposed to be ineffective.

One conceptual problem (there were others) was that a semi-auto grenade launcher, light enough to be carried all day long, and with a recoil light enough to be fired from the shoulder, is also ineffective at those longer range.

The warhead is simply not large enough to compensate for the dispersion and the large ToF.

Of course, you can provide a rocket instead of a grenade to allow for a large payload & a decent ToF, without the large recoil, but the ammo will be much more heavier (a rifle grenade is propelled by a 12 g or 24 g cartridge, a rocket motor will weight 10 times more) so the soldiers will carry only a very limited number of ammo.

We already know how to "make every rifleman a grenadier", simply issue rifle grenades to every rifleman.

If you want to punish yourself with a grenade launcher, you could issue a M32 and 18 grenades (around 9.44 kg without FCS).

For the same weight, you could issue a M16, 210 rounds in magazines and 6 AP/AV40 rifle grenades, but at least with the M32 a single grenadier will have the capability to saturate a zone in less than 3 seconds, which will not be a needed capability if every one is a grenadier...

schnuersi

From: schnuersi

21-Jun

gatnerd said:

In terms of tungsten expenditrure, I dont think grenades would be that much of a problem. Pretty much all the modern PFF he munitions are using tungsten - in much larger quantities (the latest M72 LAW airburst uses 4000 tungsten pellets). And tungsten is a staple of all manner of autocannons and tank shells as well. If a squad had more than 40x 40mm shells to fire, I'd be impressed.

All of this is a probem.
It was not in the past with allmost unlimited supplies and small expected rates of expenditure. Now we have limited supplies, high cost and need to prepare for massive expenditure.
Basically we are back in a pre Fall of the Iron Curtain situation. If we look at the ammo expenditure rates in UA we can get a feeling for what is realistic. The expenditure of autocannon ammo and grenades of all sorts is in a compleltly different league to what has been planned in the last two to three decades. In addition the number of troops involved is high. Using expensive material that has limited availability is simply not a sensible option with the changed circumstances.


40x40mm seems way to low if we take the proposal of turning rifleman into grenadiers into account.

TOP