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.

  • 3372
    MEMBERS
  • 192589
    MESSAGES
  • 18
    POSTS TODAY

Discussions

Future Infantry Heavy Weapons   Army Guns 20+mm

Started 29-Sep by stancrist; 6055 views.
stancrist

From: stancrist

1-Oct

Apsyda said:

Taking from the Chinese then, on the precision grenade launchers? Or is this going to be closer to a XM25 throwback?

Perhaps a bit of both?  The drawing of the PGS is similar to the Chinese weapon, except with box mag and no muzzle brake.

  • Edited 01 October 2022 17:09  by  stancrist
In reply toRe: msg 11
Refleks

From: Refleks

1-Oct

IMO a HVGL would be quite useful but belongs at platoon level, by virtue of its size, weight and effective range. During more conventional style combat it would be better able to support the maneuver squads there as part of a base of fire in the weapons squad, and if operating in OOTW/COIN it can be attached to and move with patrols as appropriate in much the same way as M240s were.  Much like the USMC and the Carl Gustav, reading "habitually attached" as "let's make them organic" is a scar of the Afghanistan theatre I suspect, and doesn't make sense if we're looking at issuing these things to play to their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses.

EmericD

From: EmericD

1-Oct

stancrist said:

I imagine that's probably because the slide was created solely to show what weapons the PGS and IAM would replace.  

I agree.

stancrist said:

Yup.  As I said 10 days ago in the PDW thread, "If a new, larger and heavier semi-auto [grenade launcher] should be developed and fielded, a grenadier so equipped probably would carry no secondary weapon, as is typical of XM25 users seen in Afghanistan photos and video."

When the M79 was introduced, the grenadier was issued a 1911 for self-protection, isn't it?

Then the M203 was designed so the grenadier could have also a rifle.

I don't know how things will change after the grenadier will be issued a PGS... which seems to be the OICW without the "kinetic energy" part of the weapon.

By the way, the PGM silhouette seems to be expressly selected so it doesn't look like the XM-25 (is there a "no bullpup" policy in the US Army ?)

stancrist

From: stancrist

1-Oct

gatnerd said:

This is all very exciting. Obviously I'm super stoked off the airbursting grenade launcher. Hopefully they decide to pursue something with more emphasis on lethality/bang vs flat trajectory, as the newest gens of smart optics can counter pretty steep trajectories.

Well, judging by the drawing of the notional PGS, caliber is to be much bigger than the 25mm of the XM25, so apparently the plan is to increase lethality/bang.

But the slide shows an example of shooting a grenade into the narrow opening of a bunker, so my guess is that the Army wants to have a pretty flat trajectory.

gatnerd said:

But the Individual Assault Munition is also very interesting. I'm curious whether this will be LAW M72 size, or AT4 sized, and whether it will be optically equipped or just those flip up irons. 

The IAM is meant to replace both the BDM and the AT4 CS, so I'd think it will need to have comparable destructive power. 

That likely means IAM will be of at least AT4 size and weight.  Since it's disposable, I expect sights will also be "flip up irons."

gatnerd said:

The 120mm seems like the most lethal but hardest to develop. 120mm power, 69 round loadout, with a accurate man portable launcher that can be gone in 3 minutes. 

What comes most to mind is perhaps a 81mm using the Saab MAPAM munition, which gives 120mm level fragmentation but in a smaller shell?

MAPAM or something like it.  The man-portable mortar requirement rules out 120mm.  That means it will have to be 81mm.

stancrist

From: stancrist

1-Oct

Refleks said:

IMO a HVGL would be quite useful but belongs at platoon level, by virtue of its size, weight and effective range.

???  Where does it say that the PGS would be a HVGL?

Refleks

From: Refleks

1-Oct

"But the slide shows an example of shooting a grenade into the narrow opening of a bunker, so my guess is that the Army wants to have a pretty flat trajectory"

If not high velocity, how would one achieve this? Trajectory shaping?

  • Edited 01 October 2022 16:34  by  Refleks
stancrist

From: stancrist

1-Oct

EmericD said:

When the M79 was introduced, the grenadier was issued a 1911 for self-protection, isn't it?

My recollection is that when the M79 was first introduced in 1960, the grenadier was not issued a pistol.

Note the grenadiers don't have pistols in this period US Army film:  https://youtu.be/EsSWQBr_R9M?t=22

Issuance of the M1911 to grenadiers is seen in the TO&E in 1963:  https://youtu.be/b2Jwhe-BDKQ?t=532

EmericD said:

I don't know how things will change after the grenadier will be issued a PGS...

Nor do I.  But the SOP of XM25 users not carrying a pistol makes me think PGS users likely also will not.

EmericD said:

...which seems to be the OICW without the "kinetic energy" part of the weapon.

Yes, that's pretty accurate.  Although since caliber appears to be larger, I'd say it's the OICW on steroids.  grin

EmericD said:

By the way, the PGM silhouette seems to be expressly selected so it doesn't look like the XM-25 (is there a "no bullpup" policy in the US Army ?)

AFAIK, there is not a "no bullpup" policy in the US Army. 

There is a historical, institutional prejudice against bullpup rifles, but it doesn't seem to apply to other weapons. 

The XM25 and XM29 are bullpup grenade launchers, while the M60 and XM235 are semi-bullpup machine guns.

  • Edited 01 October 2022 21:57  by  stancrist
stancrist

From: stancrist

1-Oct

Refleks said:

If not high velocity, how would one achieve this?

My mistake.  I conflated meters per second and feet per second of HV grenades.  flushed

Refleks said:

IMO a HVGL would be quite useful but belongs at platoon level, by virtue of its size, weight and effective range.

Why?  PGS looks to be about the same size as the Rheinmetall SSW, which reportedly weighs ~10 lbs.  Neither size nor weight seem excessive.

Refleks said:

During more conventional style combat it would be better able to support the maneuver squads there as part of a base of fire in the weapons squad...

I think that's very questionable.  The weapons squad already has a quite heavy load.   I don't see them being able to also carry 3X PGS and ammo.

  • Edited 01 October 2022 19:22  by  stancrist
Refleks

From: Refleks

1-Oct

stancrist said:

Why? PGS looks to be about the same size as the Rheinmetall SSW, which reportedly weighs ~10 lbs. Neither size nor weight seem excessive.

SSW isn't a high velocity grenade launcher, it's a medium velocity grenade launcher and not what I was referring to.  I've already mentioned in the past (on other threads) that I'm in favor of a multi-shot medium velocity grenade launcher at the squad level. Something like SSW would work, as would something like the Milkor.  Despite brochure ranges claiming 700, 800 or even 900m, these would likely have a realistic useful range of something along the lines of 600m, which is a marked improvement over LV grenades and a reasonable far-edge distance of responsibility for a squad.

I was referring to a high velocity grenade launcher, something like the Chinese QLU-11/LG5 or FN HIWS firing 40x53 or similar, because the Chinese grenade launchers were mentioned prior to my response.  These things are more like an M240 / M82A1 in weight (that is to say closer to the 30 lbs range) and that is the context of my previous post - I think they'd be a useful platoon asset, but if they were brought up as a notional PGS at squad level then I don't think it's appropriate for the reasons outlined above.
 

stancrist said:

I think that's very questionable. The weapons squad already has a quite heavy load. I don't see them being able to also carry 3X PGS and ammo.

Obviously the weapons squad in this context would be larger to accommodate the addition of assets like these, I would have thought that goes without saying. 

For future reference, if I ever mention something about 60mm commando mortars or some other asset at the platoon level that isn't presently there, I'm not saying strap one to the M240 gunner's back, in case that's the first thing assumed.  We are referring to TO&E changes here, after all.

  • Edited 01 October 2022 23:19  by  Refleks
stancrist

From: stancrist

2-Oct

Refleks said:

I was referring to a high velocity grenade launcher, something like the Chinese QLU-11/LG5 or FN HIWS firing 40x53 or similar, because the Chinese grenade launchers were mentioned prior to my response.  These things are more like an M240 / M82A1 in weight (that is to say closer to the 30 lbs range) and that is the context of my previous post - I think they'd be a useful platoon asset, but if they were brought up as a notional PGS at squad level then I don't think it's appropriate for the reasons outlined above.

I never argued for adopting the Chinese HVGL as a PGS.  I merely said that the Chinese weapon looked somewhat like the PGS drawing.  I don't know why you would conclude from that comment that I was proposing an HVGL for PGS.

Refleks said:

Obviously the weapons squad in this context would be larger to accommodate the addition of assets like these, I would have thought that goes without saying.

Why?  The discussion has been about the Army's proposed changes to equipment of the infantry platoon as it currently exists (reference the platoon TO&E in the second slide in the OP).  How should I know you are talking about a weapons squad that does not now exist, and undoubtedly never will exist?

Refleks said:

For future reference, if I ever mention something about 60mm commando mortars or some other asset at the platoon level that isn't presently there, I'm not saying strap one to the M240 gunner's back, in case that's the first thing assumed.  We are referring to TO&E changes here, after all.

The discussion certainly has been about the Army's planned changes to equipment, but their presentation contains no proposed changes to organization.  If you wish to divert a discussion from the actual organization to an imaginary one, it would be best to say so at the time.

TOP