XM25 "good enough"

[Chris jM]

With regards to ABCA procurement I do know that NZ follows the 'pic the best of the bunch' from in-service ABCA equipment. LAV3, MHOV trucks, NH90 helicopters, DMW rifles, LSW machine guns, body armour, etc is all from within the in-service ABCA family. I'm pretty sure that the Australian's main point of difference is that they want to maintain a domestic manufacturing base and that sometimes means a move away from the American/British/Canadian in-service equipment types as the European manufacturers seem more predisposed to licensing arrangements (hence the Steyr rifle and Tigre helicopters).

I've always loved (admittedly it does become a love-hate relationship when I'm carrying the thing) the Carl Gustav but am in no position to comment as to alternative systems or the history with Saab (while the news that they did not support it in SEA is new to me, I do find that revelation interesting). I will say that the CG is a very robust, hard wearing infantry system with a long lifespan and it survives a fair amount of. If the lighter comparable systems lack the same robustness then that could point in the CG's favour.

I would love to see how one of these stacked up against (or complemented) the CG (BLUF: westernised RPG7 launcher): http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...xporter-rpg-7/

End of the day, we could chase a better system but the CG is good enough and suits us fine right now. We need to remember, too, that most of our efforts should be spent on improving the people and organisational aspects in the infantry rather than continuously pursuing the latest and greatest (and lightest) equipment on offer. The CG might have been a good enough system when it was procured back in the day, and the cost of replacement may have never been worth the gains to be had since.

With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

[Compost]

With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

Understand you mean that fire of 40mm MV ammunition would preferably be arranged using AG36 and similar UGLs attached to a specialized and well sighted stock or gripstock, and when UGL is alternately attached to a rifle or carbine it should be employed mostly to fire LV and only infrequently MV grenades. And of course if MV ammunition were procured for such use it would be in service when/if some type of MGL was procured later on.

Such a deliberate two step advance could well appeal to the British and in turn to others in ABCA. Usefully both types of UGL contending for attachment to the EF88/F90 are LV and MV compatible.

[Compost]

Launching a new generation: tracing Asian grenade developments
Grenade launchers and their ammunition are currently experiencing the fastest and most dramatic period of development of any small arms. In NATO armies, the traditional 40x46 mm Low Velocity (LV) and 40x53 mm High Velocity (HV) rounds used in shoulder-fired and crew-served launchers respectively still dominate, although ammunition offered for shoulder-fired weapons now includes LV Extended Range (LV-ER) and Medium Velocity (MV) to provide greater reach [first posted on 30 October 2013]

Para extracted from recent IHS Jane’s Defence News Brief - IDR ( not yet free on website).

[Compost]

British Army infantry to revert to 81 mm mortar
Rupert Pengelley, London - IHS Jane's International Defence Review
04 November 2013

Key Points
• The UK forces' 81 mm mortar is to be kept in service
• The new mortar fire-control terminal enters service in 2014
The majority of the M6-640 Commando handheld and M6-895 bipod-type 60 mm mortars acquired in quantity from Hirtenberger by the British Army to meet urgent operational requirements (UORs) in Afghanistan since 2008 are to be shelved for economy reasons.

According to Major Haydn Jellard, a staff officer from the Dismounted Close Combat section of the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) Capability Directorate Combat who spoke at the Defence IQ Future Mortar Systems conference in London in October, once the drawdown from Afghanistan is complete, the Anglo-Canadian 81 mm L16A2 mortar will again be the only type on issue to standard infantry battalions in Reaction Force and Adaptive Force brigades.

See http://www.janes.com/article/29502/b...o-81-mm-mortar

[David I Evans]

See http://www.janes.com/article/29502/b...o-81-mm-mortar

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

[JMA]

Worse...

Look at the photo and see where the barrel of that soldier's rifle is.

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

[Compost]

so we withdraw the 51mm as no one can see a use for the type, promptly buy a 60mm on UOR as we suddenly discover a use for it and promptly retire the 60mm post Herrick as it doesn't fit some staff planner's clever thinking.

Welcome to the world of joined up thinking

Joined up and pop-centric thinking notwithstanding, “shelved” does not necessarily mean retired and scheduled for disposal. It can and probably does mean the 60mm has been transferred to reserve for issue dependent upon circumstances and physical environment.

[jcustis]

That was what I took it to mean as well. Perhaps going into depot-level stores for proper preservation.

I've always liked the 60. Light, capable of very good accuracy even in hand held mode, and not under-ammo'd when you use the right round and properly match it against the effects you want.

[tankersteve]

...With regards to 40mm systems I am of the opinion, having spoken to a couple industry types and a few experienced weapon armourers, that there are issues in mounting an MV system under a rifle (weapon wear and breakages are problematic enough with a 40mm LV under-barrel system, with the MV being worse still given the additional recoil involved). Additionally, if you want to benefit from the range and accuracy the MV offers you want a decent sighting system and optimal ergonomics in holding steady and sighting it, which in turn points you towards a stand-alone grenade launcher rather than the under-barrel compromise.

With the excellent holsters commerically available to hold the GL, the Soldier is better off keeping the M-320 system separate from his rifle. This enables better accuracy with the M-320 and keeps maximum freedom of movement when employing the M-4. The M-4 will be lighter and handier to employ. A truly dedicated Grenadier may carry a very slick (and lighter weight) M-4 with only a few mags and plenty more Golden Eggs, balancing his load. Having leaders smart enough to employ these systems properly will still be a challenge.

Tankersteve

[Compost]

The forum at www.quarry.nildram.co.uk has a new thread titled " Chinese 40mm grenade launchers ". Its first item decribes two types of 40x53mm GL that have been or are being developed by the mainland Chinese.

If the 'sniper' version does have a fairly accurate range of 1,000 or more metres then it is past time for the XM-25 to be consigned to a scrapheap.