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
  • 191148
    MESSAGES
  • 4
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Squad Support Weapon   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 17-Jun by stancrist; 22215 views.
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.

In reply toRe: msg 37
Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

21-Jun

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

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

21-Jun

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. 

gatnerd

From: gatnerd

21-Jun

Reportedly the Switchblade 300 uses a similar 'forward firing' warhead to the STK 40mm, with fairly comparable payload. 

I've seen them quoted at $6k a pop. Which is expensive compared to a 40mm grenade, but likely much cheaper then a guided missile would be. 

Mr. T (MrT4)

From: Mr. T (MrT4)

21-Jun

I think at 6k it would be a steal ,but its likely not even close 

If you look at the orders and costs it seems to be a 70k weapon that kills a single person or wounds a group , Product of GWOT targeted killing campain , that ultimately turned out sub 5% success rates

While the number might include 300 and 600 models, its clear it's not even close to 6k a pop.

''Add up all the of contracts we know about, and AeroVironment has received at least $105.4 million worth of orders for 1,500 Switchblades produced -- which works out to a unit cost of more than $70,200 per Switchblade. Minimum.''

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Jun

EmericD said:

       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.

That is incorrect.  The grenade launcher was meant to also be used at <300 meters.  For example, against targets in defilade, or in buildings, where the KE weapon would be ineffective.

And I did not say like the OICW concept in every way.  I said like the OICW concept in that the squad's riflemen become grenadiers.

EmericD said:

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.

Yes.  As I said, the OICW tried to do too much with too little.  I think a bigger warhead is needed, and the range shortened (to keep recoil tolerable).

EmericD said:

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

Since their primary weapon would still be a rifle, they would not be grenadiers.  They would be riflemen who have a few grenades.

----------

ETA:

Remember what you said in Msg 16?

EmericD said:

That's the failure point of the OICW (and other similar programs).

You can't aim, lase, check the relevance of the firing solution, aim again, and launch a grenade at medium range, in just 2 seconds.

You need to expose yourself and stay perfectly motionless for much more than that.

You have a very similar "failure point" with rifle grenades.

You can't load the grenade onto the rifle, take precise aim, and launch the grenade, in just 2 seconds.

You need to expose yourself and stay perfectly motionless for much more than that.

Tir FLG Famas ! - YouTube

https://youtu.be/0WTq5wSCPAw?t=4

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

21-Jun

Ah yeah I'm definitely not opposed to this, especially with pgk now having a mortar version which allows you to carry fewer rounds and takes some of the pressure off having your mortar tube perfectly aimed to get effective fire.

roguetechie

From: roguetechie

21-Jun

The Chinese do indeed have drone hand grenades that can also be hard launched from 60mm countermeasures tubes and mortars giving it a range boost.

Also MIT Lincoln labs has just made a very relevant advance to this sort of thing which will very quickly bring the cost down on some things like this...

Anyone who wants more information can PM me, I don't necessarily want to attach this advance to this topic in the minds of anyone who can read this thread though. 

Oh and here's a way better picture of SSW I pulled from a Russian site.

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Jun

roguetechie said:

Oh and here's a way better picture of SSW I pulled from a Russian site.

As Crocodile Dundee might say, that's not a way better picture of SSW.

Now this is a way better picture of SSW.  grin

stancrist

From: stancrist

21-Jun

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: OICW sought to improve his effectiveness.

Yes and that was dumb.

???  Since when is it "dumb" to seek to improve combat effectiveness? 

schnuersi said:

If the effectiveness is 0,01 and I double it it becomes 0,02. Which is such a marginal improvement it is hardly worth any resource invenstment.

Now you are just making up numbers.  The actual improvement would have varied with target distance.  

schnuersi said:

The effectiveness of a rifleman or better infantry man goes up significantly from 100 m and closer. So doubling a significantly larger number would have yielded significant results... most likely for less resource investment.

Yes.  IMO, they made a mistake in trying for such long-range capability.  They should have gone with a much bigger caliber, and much shorter range.

schnuersi said:

       stancrist said: I see no need for an arcing trajectory with airburst rounds. Indeed, I think that in most infantry vs infantry combat scenarios, a flat trajectory would be preferable with airburst munitions.

Why? The rifle/small arm has a flat trajectory. Why have two weapons with the same profile?

There would not be.  As I said, replace the rifle.  Every rifleman a grenadier.  sunglasses

TOP