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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

Roketsan Yatagan Laser guided missile can be relatively cheap compared to chinese with IR/Tv seeker but is much more limited in terms of target engagement.,altough at one point you have to wonder why bother with launcher at all an not just make drone/hand grenades 

Chinese QN-202

schnuersi said:

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

I think 'everyone is a grenadier' is likely a bridge too far.

In previous discussions, I've advocated for replacing the current 2x Grenadiers per Squad with 1x 'Super Grenadier,' armed with some type of smart grenade launcher and a lighter then rifle PDW. 

Ie 

2x LMG gunners

6x Riflemen 

1x Super Greandier w/ SSW+PDW

With 1-2x of the Rifleman carrying some spare 40mm ammo. 

....

I'm not sure whether UA provides totally applicable lessons in terms of small arms ammo expenditure. 

Reason being that they have an extremely limited airforce capability, and very limited G2G guided munition stockpiles beyond ATGMs.

In a US (and likely much of NATO) engagement, there'd be a much larger amount of enemy killing done from the air, and also very unlikely that things would devolve to the point of defending trench lines. 

Had this say been an invasion of Poland, for example, that famous '40km convoy of doom' would have vaporized with a bunch of sensor fused munitions and Small Diameter Bombs via the US airforce. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CBU-97_Sensor_Fuzed_Weapon

I suspect the US would have had to engage in 1/10th or less the amount of ground/infantry combat that Ukraine has had to (think 1991 Iraq) simply due to targets being blown up from the air. 

Thats also really a testament to the bravery of Ukraines forces holding out in whats such a pressing and distressing situation; defending a trench in 2022 that can be observed by drones guiding artillery would absolutely suck and be totally terrifying.