Bunker and tank busters at section/squad and platoon level

[Schmedlap]

Javelins are like everything else, a pain to carry when you're on foot -- but literally vital when they're needed.

Agree regarding the presence of enemy armor. I guess I was reading the discussion as suggesting that we need to be toting these things around just in case we stumble upon a bunker, or on the off chance that some bad guys decide to start shooting at us from the roof of a concrete building.

[Firn]

METT-TC applies to Javelins just as it does to everything else. Guys in the late 40s used to complain about carrying the "heavy and clumsy" M9 RL -- until they tried to shoot T-34s and found out they didn't stop 'em.

The only thing worse than carrying a heavy weapon is to haven't it when you need it.


Said that the "new" Bunkerbusters and GL do certainly influence the way you handle bunkers and fortified positions. But certain things don't seem to have changed much, just as Suppress, blind, destroy - 3:30

An interesting detail of the whole movie is that only once you saw somebody shooting with his IW, and that after he smacked the opponent down with the rifle butt. Of course a huge emphasis on thourogh preparation, coordination and surprise as well as bunker-busting with rifle/pistol grenades, hand grenades, staff demolition charges, smoke grenades, flame throwers supported by automatic weapons, light artillery and mortars. The panzerfaust was certainly later quickly adopted for such roles.


Firn


P.S: The Leuchtpistole/ Kampfpistole/ Sturmpistole was completely off my radar.

[Tukhachevskii]

From “Iraq: Italian Lessons Learned”, Military Review, March-April 2005;

...the Italians employed the Panzerfaust antitank weapon (with 15 rockets) and the Milan Antitank Guided Missile System (with 4 missiles) to neutralize Mahdi Army positions.(p.59)

The Italians fired five or six Milan missiles to neutralize four enemy positions, but a deluge of fire stopped their advance. One Centauro had two ripped wheels, and eight Mahdi RPGs (luckily loaded with antipersonnel instead of antitank explosives) hit two VCCs armoured carriers.(p.60)

[Firn]

@Fuchs: Btw, as far as I know all Breda "Folgore" launchers are stored after having been hardly used and cost a considerable sum.


Firn

[Nevyan]

First any new weapon system must be lightweight. If an Infantryman cannot carry it up a mountain it is useless. If he needs to use a vehicle to transport the weapon system it is useless.

Second, it must not be a single shot weapon in the way of the AT4, M72E10 or SMAW-D. If an Infantryman cannot quickly reload the weapon and engage the next target it is useless weight to him.

Third, if it uses a separate sighting system this usually means it will require additional power sources. This is more weight that the Infantryman must carry. This prevents further logistics problems forcing a trade-off between more batteries (already too many in one squad or a platoon) or more ammunition. Fewer batteries means shorter time between needing a resupply and less time to be independent in accomplishing the mission.

Four, the effective power of the weapon system must be able to handle a wide range of targets. This either means several TYPES of weapons systems each fulfilling a need (M72, AT4, SMAW-D, Javelin) or one weapon system that is able to utilize different re-loadable ammunition mixes that are chosen based on the mission.

Five, the cost. First to develop such a weapon system will cost money. Then fielding the weapon will cost more money. The cost of ammunition, maintenance and training will deplete more funds. Army leadership will look at these costs versus already present weapon systems and most definitely keep the older paid for systems.

In the end though the five things I just covered are already found in one weapon system. In fact it is an entirely flexibile system that is easy to use and that an American company has already adopted and modified improving it's range, warheads, weight and without adding significantly to cost. That weapon system is the lowly RPG-7.

With a mix of ammunition it can act as an anti-armor weapon (PG-7V Tandem HEAT), anti-personnel weapon (OG-7V HE Frag), indirect fire weapon (airburst rounds) and bunker buster (TBG-7V Thermobaric). It allows one Infantryman to have a single weapon system with a flexible quiver of rounds to use as the situation develops.

Western ingenuity can increase the accuracy and range of the weapon. Western ingenuity can increase the power of the warheads. And Western ingenuity can come up with numerous tactics to utilize this weapon system against enemy forces that already have adapted it to mountain warfare, urban warfare and anti-armor warfare.

The American company Airtronic has already done the work for us. We just have to have Big Army swallow a little pride.


----

http://www.airtronic.net/datasheets/airtronicrpg7.pdf

[Ken White]

and range, an equally broad array of ammunition (plus an Illum and IR Illum round), is capable of indirect fire and is already in the inventory: LINK. Neither is perfect.

One can carry ten LAWs for the same weight as the RPG-7 launcher or the M3 RR alone, not counting ammo -- and the LAWs can be spread among the Squad or Platoon. Of course, the LAW isn't perfect either...

The search continues...

[Kiwigrunt]

One can carry ten LAWs for the same weight as the RPG-7 launcher or the M3 RR alone, not counting ammo -- and the LAWs can be spread among the Squad or Platoon. Of course, the LAW isn't perfect either...

The search continues...

Before someone comes along and listens to what you say as opposed to what you mean (I get people doing that to me all the time) …….. 3 LAWs……..if it was 10 than the search might have ended there.

Just for interest, came across this photo demonstrating backblast on an M72.

[Nevyan]

and range, an equally broad array of ammunition (plus an Illum and IR Illum round), is capable of indirect fire and is already in the inventory: LINK. Neither is perfect.

A PG-7V will travel 920 meters before detonating. As an Indirect weapon that's good range. In 1975 the Army conducted tests using recently acquired Soviet RPG's and found their accuracy and range were not that great. However this weapon system has undergone dozens of refinements in the preceding 35 years and it has become a more accurate and powerful weapon.

Now an American company is trying to improve it even more.

One can carry ten LAWs for the same weight as the RPG-7 launcher or the M3 RR alone, not counting ammo -- and the LAWs can be spread among the Squad or Platoon. Of course, the LAW isn't perfect either...

The search continues...

What happens to the LAW tube once it's been fired? If you abandon it the enemy will use it against you. It will be filled with explosives as an IED, it will be left in a field for the local people to find and so that the enemy can set up an ambush on it.

Or your 1SG and Company Commander will tell you that when you fire an M72, AT4 or SMAW-D you need to bring the tube back (true story). Great now I have a Soldier walking around Afghanistan with an expended rocket tube on him...

Or, I have a Soldier carrying just the launcher and 5 rocket rounds and expending his rounds he has with him and supported by an ammo bearer with extra rounds. Or we split additional rounds up between the Platoon the way my unit did with 60mm mortar rounds and linked 7.62.

Example:

Airtronic RPG launcher -- 15 lbs
OG-7V HE Frag -- 4 lbs x 4 = 16 lbs
TBG-7V Thermobaric -- 9.9 lbs x 1 = 9.9 lbs

Total weight 40.9 lbs... heck that's comparable to an Automatic Rifleman in my light infantry platoon (17 lbs M249 + 28 lbs 800 rounds linked 5.56 = 45 lbs).

To get even as much combat effectiveness out of using the M72 variants you would have to have 4 soldiers with M72E10's using the HE Fragmentation warhead and still be short on anti-structure capability since the only option would be the M72A6. But in order to use the M72 a soldier would have to do the following:

1. Stop firing his primary weapon
2. Remove the launcher assembly from his back/pack/ruck etc
3. Engage the target

The above is also dependent on if he has the proper rocket configuration for the task, unless we want to start trying to shoot through qalat walls with HEAT rounds...

RPG-7 -- Low cost and flexible.

[Ken White]

What happens to the LAW tube once it's been fired? If you abandon it the enemy will use it against you. It will be filled with explosives as an IED, it will be left in a field for the local people to find and so that the enemy can set up an ambush on it.

Totally true. Four choices, all proven then to work. (1) Put a golf ball sized chunk of C4 in each tube and detonate it [not recommended, labor intensive but does work]; (2) Beat it into submission [CAUTION: Do NOT use an M-16 or M4 to do this -- a 240 will work. Simplest solution is two big rocks]; (3) Haul 'em out on the log bird (Sorry if you don't have one. You should...); (4) Pop a Frag in the tube (s) [not a good idea of you're out in the boonies, too noisy...]; (5) Carry the tube back with you -- been done before, hundreds if not thousands of times and in a lot of places.

Since it's empty, it only weighs about two pounds, a day's meal...

Or, I have a Soldier carrying just the launcher and 5 rocket rounds and expending his rounds he has with him and supported by an ammo bearer with extra rounds. Or we split additional rounds up between the Platoon the way my unit did with 60mm mortar rounds and linked 7.62.

Yeah. Isn't it hilarious that old stuff and ideas still work?

Total weight 40.9 lbs... heck that's comparable to an Automatic Rifleman in my light infantry platoon (17 lbs M249 + 28 lbs 800 rounds linked 5.56 = 45 lbs).

IMO another dumb weapon but we have a few...

As an aside, I hope you aren't having that poor SAW gunner carry all 800 rounds. I'd ask why carry so many but I know the answer.

To get even as much combat effectiveness out of using the M72 variants you would have to have 4 soldiers with M72E10's using the HE Fragmentation warhead and still be short on anti-structure capability since the only option would be the M72A6. But in order to use the M72 a soldier would have to do the following:

1. Stop firing his primary weapon
2. Remove the launcher assembly from his back/pack/ruck etc
3. Engage the target

The above is also dependent on if he has the proper rocket configuration for the task, unless we want to start trying to shoot through qalat walls with HEAT rounds...

In order:

Not necessarily on the four and / or on the A6.

The RPG gunner has it as a 'primary weapon' so your net rifle firepower doesn't change.

The remove / employ bit take only a few tens of seconds with halfway decently trained people.

Carry the variants that the mission seems likely to require.

Depends on how thick they are and whether or not the locals have reinforced them with anything. HE will punch a hole in most, so will a few careful bursts from a 240. Satchel or pole charge may be better, area specific.

The RPG 7 has merit, so does the CG / M3 or the LAW. All also have shiortfalls.

Problem is that we have to work with what we have, not with what we'd like to have. Best solution I've found is to give what's available and what's required some thought and you'll generally work out some decent compromises.

As I said, the search for perfection continues...

[Backwards Observer]

There was a video of a North Korean RPG squad or platoon firing in unison at the range a while back. Also some photos of all-RPG squads in Cambodia if I recall correctly, like a foot-tech katyusha.

[William F. Owen]

In the end though the five things I just covered are already found in one weapon system. In fact it is an entirely flexibile system that is easy to use and that an American company has already adopted and modified improving it's range, warheads, weight and without adding significantly to cost. That weapon system is the lowly RPG-7.

Do you have shares in that company?

Airtronic do seem to have made a nice launcher, but that's a "so what" compared to the PG-7 grenades, which are the important bit. I remember the RPG being a squad weapon in the IDF. It isn't anymore. Why, I'm not precisely sure, but my guess is there is some sound reasoning behind it... or maybe not.

From a tactical applications stand point, I cannot really see a reason to rush out buy an RPG-7 system right now, as I can't see the need. Nice launcher though.

[Polarbear1605]

I skimmed the tread (I may have missed it) but I have to ask the question, especially if your looking at going to the RPG-7; what about the old 3.5 Rocket Launcher (Bazooka). The 3.5 RL had a couple differnet warheads (WP, AT); it packed a punch (it would get a enemy machine gunners attention real quick), accurate, relatively inexpensive, and direct fire (something a Company Commander has to have IMHO). I also thought the ammo was a bit more reliable when compared to the LAAW. (or am I stilling venting because when they exchanged the 3.5 for the LAAW as a Company CO I felt short changed ?)

[Fuchs]

I skimmed the tread (I may have missed it) but I have to ask the question, especially if your looking at going to the RPG-7; what about the old 3.5 Rocket Launcher (Bazooka). The 3.5 RL had a couple differnet warheads (WP, AT); it packed a punch (it would get a enemy machine gunners attention real quick), accurate, relatively inexpensive, and direct fire (something a Company Commander has to have IMHO). I also thought the ammo was a bit more reliable when compared to the LAAW. (or am I stilling venting because when they exchanged the 3.5 for the LAAW as a Company CO I felt short changed ?)

There are much better weapons of that kind now. The M3 Carl Gustaf, the SMAW (B-300), RGW90, ...
The greatest advantage of the RPG is that it doesn't wrap a full barrel around every single grenade as the German weapons and can use overcalibre warheads unlike M3 Carl Gustaf and SMAW (although I have seen info about a prototype 120mm HEAT munition for M2 CG; a project of about 1980 +/- 5 years iirc).


So basically we might think about a 50-60mm barrel to be muzzle loaded (with potential for overcalibre warheads obviously) and a good range of munitions (AP & AT, including confined spaces versions with minimised firing signature ~Armbrust). A folding grip and a rail interface for different day/night/computerised sights.


The problem is that this would be a portable assault gun for short range (300-600m) grenade support. It would not suffice as a real anti-MBT weapon even in the short range.
Its grenades would need to stand a comparison test against 40x46mm MV HEF.

[Tukhachevskii]

According to Spiegel; German Soldiers Face New Enemy in Kunduz Taliban forces opposing German units are equipped with TBG-7V thermobaric RPG rounds and are being supplied by the Islamic Army of Uzbekistan.

The militants who killed three German soldiers in Kunduz on Good Friday were equipped with much more modern weapons than is usual for the Taliban. Members of the feared Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan are providing arms and training to their fellow fighters in Afghanistan, but Germany is struggling to find adequate answers.

[Firn]

Going back to the rifle grenades, which could be part of the solution under specific circumstances.:

German AT rifles were converted for long-range rifle grenade fire in the midst of WW2.

Rifle grenades can have a sustainer rocket like RPG, but accuracy (or lack thereof) and possibly a rocket smoke trail may rule it out.

Indeed, although I'm not sure if the grenades could stand the full power available through that large cartridge. Wiki states that they only were sighted out to 150m, which would support this line of thought. But why convert then at some cost a bulky rifle into a role which could have been taken by a simple K98k?

American units did also use mortar bombs as improvised rifle grenades for (very?) short, devastating punch in urban combat.

Use of 60mm mortar shell

"The 60-mm mortar shell was extensively used for direct fire through windows. The shells were launched from rifles by wiring them to the grenade projector adapter, M1."

Overall a very considerable deal of rifle grenades were produced in WWI and WWII. Several variants of them could still be use today, but can not to replace the 40mm or larger shoulder-fired weapons.


Firn

[GI Zhou]

American units did also use mortar bombs as improvised rifle grenades for (very?) short, devastating punch in urban combat.
Firn

The Moro Islamic Liberation Front in the Philippines have mounted a 60mm HE mortar bomb on the tail of the PG-2 grenade for use with their RPG-2s built in jungle factories. A great weapon to break contact with.

[Firn]

Taking the 40mm and a the heavier AT weapons (AT-4, Pzf 3) for granted it seems to me that rifle grenades still have some uses.

A grenade or shell fired from a rifle has these principle advantages compared to a hand-thrown grenade:

• Rifle grenade warheads can be projected from a rifle to a much greater distance than typical grenade launcher rounds.
• A rifle grenade can carry a larger, heavier payload a greater distance than a hand-thrown grenade.
• A rifle grenade is more accurate than a hand-thrown grenade, and is much more accurate when used against distant targets.
• A rifle grenade has the advantage of detonating upon impact, as compared to a hand-thrown grenade which commonly uses a timed detonation.

Offsetting these strengths are the heavier weight and bulk of rifle grenades compared to most hand grenades, combined with very high levels of recoil.

In comparison to a dedicated grenade launcher, the rifle grenade has four advantages:

• Rifle grenades can use a variety of different sizes and shapes of warheads and payloads.
• Rifle grenades can be projected from any infantry rifle with the appropriate muzzle
• Rifle grenades weigh less than an under barrel grenade launcher.
• Training rounds are re-usable.

Disadvantages of modern rifle grenades:

• Relative inaccuracy compared to a dedicated low-velocity grenade launcher
• Use of the rifle grenade also temporarily disables the normal use of the rifle in combat.

The development of the rifle grenade is quite interesting, as are the old tactical solutions for the different tactical settings. For example the French used later in WWI 4 out of 16 soldiers in their demi-platoon as dedicated grenade launchers. The German Skitroop manual says it is desirable the squad of 11 has at least 1 scoped rifle, 1 grenade discharger, 2-3 semiautomatic rifles and 2 submachine guns. (It says that half of a large raiding parties should have SMG and semiautomatic rifles with as many telescopic sights as possible. Yes the scoped rifles should be semiautomatic.)

German assault troops in WWII did have as most nations in WWI also dedicated rifle grenadiers, with a wide array of ammunition. The grenade discharger was semi-permanent. Several HEAT and HE grenades (up to 61mm), smoke and flash were (sometimes) available.

Today the rifle grenades might still be of use as specialist weapons even if the squad has already 40 mm UGL. Medium and heavy rifle grenades (0.5-1kg) with and without rocket booster (SuperEnerga) could provide much bang for the weight and be also tailored with greater ease for specific tasks, like the SIMON. A lot of different warheads could be employed. While every member of the squad can make use of them a dedicated grenadier with good, specific training and a modern LRF/FCS sight could get in most situations the most out of them.

RÉPERTOIRE DES PRINCIPALES GRENADES À FUSIL TIRABLES AVEC LE FAMAS

Grenade à fusil mixte APAV de 40 mm Mle F1
Poids : 500 g
Tir vertical à 450 :
Portée : 125 m à 335 m
Ø d’efficacité : 10 m
Éclats dangereux jusqu’à 100 m
Tir tendu AP(anti personnel) ou AV (anti véhicule):
Portée : 100 m
Perforation : 12 cm d’acier 36 cm de béton

Grenade à fusil antipersonnel de 34 mm Mle 52/60
Poids : 500 g
Tir vertical à 450 :
Portée : 145 m à 400 m
Ø d’efficacité : 10 m
Éclats dangereux jusqu’à 100 m

Grenade à fusil fumigène de 47 mm Mle F3
Poids : 517 g
Tir vertical à 450 :
Portée : 130 m à 355 m
Émission de fumée : 45 s

Grenade à fusil antichar de 58 mm Mle F1 PAB
Poids : 537 g
Tir tendu AC :
Portée : 75 m
Perforation : 25 cm de blindage sous incidence nulle

Grenade à fusil fumigène
de 50 mm Mle F4
Poids : 535 g
Tir vertical à 450 :
Portée : 145 m à 400 m
Émission de fumée : 40 s

Grenades à fusil

Firn

[JMA]

First any new weapon system must be lightweight. If an Infantryman cannot carry it up a mountain it is useless. If he needs to use a vehicle to transport the weapon system it is useless.

Maybe the converse should also be considered?

If an infantryman can't carry a particular weapon up a mountain HE is useless. etc etc

We are talking more and more about how overloaded the modern infantryman is. Where is the benchmark? We used to do training and competions such as "march and shoot" or "approach marches" where a section (or whatever) of infantry (in full batledress) would be required to march 5 or 10 miles to the range when they would be required to go through a shooting sequence.

I say that the weight must be benchmarked for hot, cold, wet enviroments and soldiers must train under the applicable weight conditions.

[William F. Owen]

We are talking more and more about how overloaded the modern infantryman is. Where is the benchmark? We used to do training and competions such as "march and shoot" or "approach marches" where a section (or whatever) of infantry (in full batledress) would be required to march 5 or 10 miles to the range when they would be required to go through a shooting sequence.

We did in my day and they still do.

I say that the weight must be benchmarked for hot, cold, wet enviroments and soldiers must train under the applicable weight conditions.

There is literally tons of research done on this, showing how weight and temperature degrade performance, going back to the 1870's.
The problem is that is it wilfully disregarded because of things like 16kg of body armour!
Put bluntly we have all the answers. We just decided to ignore them.

[B.Smitty]

I recall reading somewhere about a Dynamit Nobel program to build a guided version of the Pzf 3. Anyone know if there has been any progress on this?

It seems like they could have the makings of a pretty flexible weapon system if they could use the same base fire control unit with guided/unguided Pzf 3 and Bunkerfaust rounds, and maybe expand it to fire the RGW 90mm and 60mm rounds. A 1200m range, guided 60/90mm round could be very handy in Afghanistan.

Also, does anyone know how their new Wirkmittel 90 hopes to achieve any kind of reasonable hit rate at 1000m with an unguided round?