"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?

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.  

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.

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.  

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.

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.

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.

gatnerd said:

An interesting chicken egg question is whether this was due to the lack of a PDW for them to carry. 

Couldn't / didnt want to also carry a M4, and they either lacked a pistol or figured it was effectively useless at afghan ranges and didnt bother carrying one. 

Had an actual MP9/MP7 type PDW been available, I wonder if they would have chosen to carry it?

I don't personally know any of the guys who used the XM25 in Afghanistan, so I could only guess if any of them would have chosen to carry such a PDW.

Considering combat distances in AFG, do you think that either the MP9 or the MP7 provide enough effective range to warrant carrying the extra weight?

Perhaps an option for the super grenadier:

https://soldiersystems.net/2022/10/05/land-forces-22-squad-support-weapon-40/

SSW40:

Hint of brochure looks like a concept for a XM25 style smart optic integration, which is obviously the ideal:

gatnerd said:

Hint of brochure looks like a concept for a XM25 style smart optic integration, which is obviously the ideal:

Looks like an artist's rendering of the FCS-MR800 (first photo below, center) mounted on an earlier iteration of the SSW (second photo below).

More recent photos show what looks like the FCS-TRB (first photo below, right) mounted on the latest iteration of the SSW (third photo below).

Someone should ask Rheinmetall to design a 60 rds magazine for the XM5...

EmericD said:

Someone should ask Rheinmetall to design a 60 rds magazine for the XM5...