The Roles and Weapons with the Squad

[William F. Owen]

And here’s the MetalStorm 3GL 40mm Grenade Launcher.

Cool. Does add a bit more weight than a 203 though. And more length to an M4.

...if it works or when it works? Note the Video showed no down range effect. I've watched MetalStorm for 7 years now, and talked to them several times. As of now, I am very unimpressed, but I keep an open mind.

Might be good it we could just get 40mm MV into service!!

[Kiwigrunt]

Might be good it we could just get 40mm MV into service!!

Found these thoughts on Metal Storm by Anthony G Williams here:

2. Switch from the LV to the new medium-velocity (MV) rounds (which MS is already working on). These double the maximum range to 800m, but more importantly halve the trajectory height and projectile flight time to any range, providing far greater practical accuracy.
3. The only downside with MV ammunition is the increased recoil, since the muzzle velocity is raised to 105-120 m/s. It has been calculated that a weapon firing MV ammunition should weigh at least 5 kg to reduce the recoil to a level which the average soldier will find tolerable. A typical conventional single-barrel 40mm LV launcher, with stock, weighs around 2.5 kg, give or take a bit.

Could that be a reason why no one is yet acquiring the MV-rounds? A UGL under a rifle would just about come to 5 kg but would current UGLs like the M203 be able to deal with that increased recoil without falling apart? I recall being told that the standard scope on the Steyr drifts off by a few clicks after firing a number of rounds fired from the 203. That would no doubt be more profound with MV rounds and may not be limited to the Steyr.

[William F. Owen]

3. The only downside with MV ammunition is the increased recoil, since the muzzle velocity is raised to 105-120 m/s. It has been calculated that a weapon firing MV ammunition should weigh at least 5 kg to reduce the recoil to a level which the average soldier will find tolerable. A typical conventional single-barrel 40mm LV launcher, with stock, weighs around 2.5 kg, give or take a bit.

Huh? The whole point of MV is that it can use existing launchers. In fact it has been proven, and the recoil is well within limits, as is the chamber pressures. In fact the developers at MEI "de-tuned" MV to ensure all this. MV exists. It's not theory.

I'll defer to Tony Williams when it comes to aircraft guns but I tend to disregard his writing on things infantry. He wrote an article for Jane's, about British infantry weapons in Afghanistan, which was less than great in terms of evidence, argument and conclusion.

[Fuchs]

(Para)militaries with Eastern bloc equipment tend to use the RPG-7 instead of BG-15/-25/-30, so basically a reloadable M72 LAW equivalent instead of the 40x46mm equivalent.

The larger warhead certainly helps in some cases, and I wonder whether they're up to a good idea.

There are quite lightweight 40mm HE-frag rockets (no supercalibre warhead) available for the RPG-7 and improving the RPG-7 in details and weight isn't too tough either (especially getting rid of the sustainer rocket in some rounds to minimize the visual signature).

The RPG-7 can be used with warheads in a range of 40 to 110mm (Panzerfaust 3 warhead, has been developed for the Polish Army), that should cover the whole range from grenadier to short range & cheap AT duty.


This might be worth some calculations and trials.


Btw, there's a little known Western weapon, it's a kind of reloadable M72 (range, calibre, weight): The French SARPAC. I think it's the most weight-efficient weapon in the ~67mm calibre range beginning with 2nd shot (unless you consider rifle grenades).

[Firn]

There are quite lightweight 40mm HE-frag rockets (no supercalibre warhead) available for the RPG-7 and improving the RPG-7 in details and weight isn't too tough either (especially getting rid of the sustainer rocket in some rounds to minimize the visual signature).

The RPG-7 can be used with warheads in a range of 40 to 110mm (Panzerfaust 3 warhead, has been developed for the Polish Army), that should cover the whole range from grenadier to short range & cheap AT duty.


This might be worth some calculations and trials.

It might very well be worth. It would be a relative light, dedicated weapon system with ammunition tailored for quite some needs. For the small warheads a reusable tube would be rather neat. That Sarpac sounds like an interesting take on the issue.

Wasn't the original Panzerfaust also used to a considerable extent as a very poor man's short ranged artillery?


Firn

[jcustis]

And here’s the MetalStorm 3GL 40mm Grenade Launcher.

Cool. Does add a bit more weight than a 203 though. And more length to an M4.

In that video, the weapon is firing caseless, almost one-off rounds, right? I didn't see a case extraction process.

I'm curious how the firing sequence works.

Rig that setup in a special-purpose wpn the size of a M79 that I can sling over my shoulder, but not interfere to much with my primary carbine usage, and then we'll be talking. In it's current configuration, it is not practical.

[Kiwigrunt]

Huh? The whole point of MV is that it can use existing launchers. In fact it has been proven, and the recoil is well within limits, as is the chamber pressures. In fact the developers at MEI "de-tuned" MV to ensure all this. MV exists. It's not theory.

Thanks for that link Wilf. And that does actually indicate that the 203 struggles with MV. The HK, seems to fare better.
Some quotes from that article:

That is something you can do with some, but not all 40 mm launchers. There are some launchers that can’t take higher recoil to fire up to 700–800 meters. We have teamed up with the companies who are developing new launchers to make sure that [our MV] system is the most flexible solution.”

He adds that ensuring the launcher can cope with the recoil forces is only part of the issue. “There has always been a question mark as far as the effect of recoil forces on thermal sights. There is more testing needed to say that it works, but as far as the launcher is concerned, it works.”


MEI had developed MV technology but had hitherto lacked a suitable soldier-level firing platform, due to recoil effects on the shooter and the M203’s inability to handle higher chamber pressures.

[jcustis]

“There has always been a question mark as far as the effect of recoil forces on thermal sights. There is more testing needed to say that it works, but as far as the launcher is concerned, it works.”

Interesting point. The use of certain thermals on M240 models was terminated because of the beating the optics were taking.

[Fuchs]

In that video, the weapon is firing caseless, almost one-off rounds, right? I didn't see a case extraction process.

I'm curious how the firing sequence works.

The rounds get the firing signal electrically. The forwardmost round is triggered, fires - and is propelled forward completely. Nothing stays behind except the later cartridges.

I only saw exmun, but the cartridges are most likely not caseless. They look (at least the exmun) a lot like all minie balls. The front is convex, the rear is concave - with the same shape. They fit into each other. The design of the exmun was conical.

[William F. Owen]

Thanks for that link Wilf. And that does actually indicate that the 203 struggles with MV. The HK, seems to fare better.
Some quotes from that article:

Yep, I did see that, but the guys at MEI and Chemring have developed MV to work in current issue launchers. The requirement for the UK is the AG-36 launcher. The whole issue for the development was to use existing launchers. The M-203 may "struggle", but until it's been deemed "un-safe" I suggest the pressures and forces are within limits.

[Firn]

Seems that the British infantry gets a new tool, a new sharpshooter rifle in 7.62.

Some ideas on how this will be used and integrated?


Firn

[William F. Owen]

Seems that the British infantry gets a new tool, a new sharpshooter rifle in 7.62.

Some ideas on how this will be used and integrated?


Firn

AAAAGH!!! I was told about this when I was back speaking in the UK last week!! I was told the plan is to put one in every deployed infantry fire team.

The weapon itself is OK, but all accounts, but I never cease to be amazed how the British Platoon manages to pile error upon error in a constant struggle to get it right and fail.

[SethB]

How so, Wilf?

I would have recommended a 5.56 weapon, but that's just me.

As an aside, a friend of mine was a consultant for LMT on the design of that rifle and he is the reason that it wasn't designed with a gas piston. Although I suspect the debate will rage on for a lot longer...

[Kiwigrunt]

I was told the plan is to put one in every deployed infantry fire team.

So what’s going to make way for it? The LSW? That is currently their default DMR in 5.56 but with a barrel nearly twice the length of this new one.
Their 8 man section is getting a bit small to fit all these different weapons in.
2 x L85
2 x L85 with UGL
2 x LMG
2 x LSW
2 x DMR
1 x GPMG (I read that’s back at section level in A-stan? So something would already have had to go)

Something’s gotta go and there aint many IW’s to begin with.
So I would assume that they may drop the LSWs and the GPMG???

[Fuchs]

Isn't it strange how infantry armament seems to move towards long range combat? Open terrain is generally not considered to be good infantry territory...

[Ken White]

and more lethality and shoot-through minor barriers (and shoot through in heavily wooded or jungle terrain where the 5.56 fails miserably) -- plus mountains (as in in Afghanistan where the west has its only current fight) also require added range. All that leads to two points:

The 5.56 was never and will never be a good combat round and is living proof that theorists should not have the final say on equipment purchases. *

The posited 200m combat rifle range which was and is fine for NW Europe is not universally applicable.

* (while the M4 is proof that Asst Cmdts at The Infantry School should never have the say on weapons purchases)

An allied point is that the light weight of the 5.56 only encourages profligate use of ammunition as does the dumb three round burst or full automatic option for most infantrymen. The Russian and later German use of lighter and smaller ammunition made sense for mass conscript Armies at the time. Unfortunately, the WW II Allies picked up the wrong message from that. Instead of focusing on small and lightweight, they should have focused on mass and conscript. Professional forces have significantly different equipment requirements.

They also have significantly different training requirements...

[Firn]

I wonder how this rifle will work out in practice in the current fight. We already discussed the issue of the caliber quite at length, perhaps we will see if the cons or pros gain in the set circumstances mostly the upper hand.

@Kiwigrunt: I think the LSW will make way, albeight the use of this rifle might be highly depend on the specific METT-T. One per fire team seems to be a bit of a rigid concept.


Firn

[William F. Owen]

and more lethality and shoot-through minor barriers (and shoot through in heavily wooded or jungle terrain where the 5.56 fails miserably) -- plus mountains (as in in Afghanistan where the west has its only current fight) also require added range. All that leads to two points:

The 5.56 was never and will never be a good combat round and is living proof that theorists should not have the final say on equipment purchases. *

The posited 200m combat rifle range which was and is fine for NW Europe is not universally applicable.

Strangely while we agree on almost all else, this is where I slightly diverge from Ken White. - as a theorist!!! - but also former Infantryman though less experienced than Ken.

- Yes, 5.56mm is not a great round, but infantry rounds are as much about trade-offs as tank and aircraft design. Personally, I think the role of IW calibre is much over-stated in dismounted combat. Even back in the days of bolt action SMLEs, most UK infantrymen knew their rifle made very little contribution to winning the firefight. However, projected HE and MG fire did.

The real problem is that most infantrymen cannot hit targets under-stress and training has very clear absolute limits. You cannot train out the bodies physical reaction to fear,which is what degrades marksmanship at 100m by >90%. Regardless of operational conditions, 99% of the infantry cannot hit anything much over 200m, when using handheld IWs.

So what’s going to make way for it? The LSW? That is currently their default DMR in 5.56 but with a barrel nearly twice the length of this new one.
Their 8 man section is getting a bit small to fit all these different weapons in.

That's the problem! The new L129A1 is supposed to engage targets out to 800m - well so is the LSW, and so is the GPMG, and both are proven to do so. - so WHY?
The bolt action 7.62mm L-96s were supposed to graduate down to the platoons, as the 8.59mm L-115A3 had become the BN Sniper Rifle - but apparently the soldiers don't want to patrol with a bolt-action rifle - capable of shooting to 1,000m.

[kaur]

"Increasind small arms lethality in Afganistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer"

A Monograph
By
Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
United States Army

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/show...ename=2516.pdf

[William F. Owen]

"Increasind small arms lethality in Afganistan: Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer"

A Monograph
By
Major Thomas P. Ehrhart
United States Army

http://cgsc.cdmhost.com/cgi-bin/show...ename=2516.pdf

The ability of the infantryman to deliver precise fire that incapacitates targets beyond 200 meters is limited by current equipment, training and doctrine.

This is opinion unsupported by data. The limitation of hitting targets over 200m under operational conditions is entirely human. It's nothing to do with equipment or doctrine. Yes, a magnifying optic sight and a bipod makes hits on the range more likely at longer ranges, but it will make no difference to combat behaviour.

First, the 5.56-mm cartridge has proven to be ineffective beyond 200 meters.

Again, opinion. No evidence and not true. "Ineffective" compared to what?" SS-109 5.56mm punch CRISAT at well over 300m dependant on barrel length! That will kill anyone hit in the head or chest, most of the time. There is a vast amount of casualty data to support this. Most knife wounds in the chest do less damage than 5.56mm yet are almost always fatal. Immediate incapacitation (highly relative) is not required at long range. At 500m you are not worried about someone still charging towards you with a machete!

The adoption of a conscript-Army mentality of marksmanship training, modeled for a defensive fight in Europe, fails to prepare soldiers for actual combat that could occur anywhere in the world.

True, but only if it done badly by stupid people.

Finally, a general lack of emphasis on appropriate small arms doctrine, written by subject matter experts, has resulted in poorly trained soldiers and leaders.

If he means most soldier do not understand infantry weapons or their employment, I would strongly agree! However some simple testing can very simply rectify this. It's been done and been ignored.