SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > Small Wars Participants & Stakeholders > Trigger Puller

Trigger Puller Boots on the ground, steel on target -- the pointy end of the spear.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-01-2009   #41
Firn
Council Member
 
Firn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
One per fire team was the official plan for the OICW.
Really? I guess I crossread it with the new Korean rifle. Anyway this makes of course much more sense.

Another thoughts.

A 25x40mm grenade should weight only around a third of a 40x46mm or something like 80 g instead of 230 g. Thus you can carry a lot of them, especially if the Grenadier can do away with another long weapon and maybe even the pistol thanks to some "defensive" rounds (slugs, buckshot, AP).


Firn
Firn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009   #42
Kiwigrunt
Council Member
 
Kiwigrunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 464
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn View Post
A 25x40mm grenade should weight only around a third of a 40x46mm or something like 80 g instead of 230 g.
So how effective can such a small grenade really be, assuming it will air-burst a few metres away from the target? I assume an advantage of this air-burst over the 40 mm is that no energy is lost in the ground. Or, come to think of it, into the back wall of a room after firing it through a window.

Also from Firn:

Quote:
So it covers quite some needs.
I'm not sure that all the examples you gave can really be seen as needs. Some seem more of a justification to help warrant it's existence. For instance, a buckshot or flechette round seems to me a heavy, bulky and expensive alternative to 5.56 or 7.62. A breaching round however could have merrit.
__________________
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

ONWARD
Kiwigrunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2009   #43
Firn
Council Member
 
Firn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
S
I'm not sure that all the examples you gave can really be seen as needs. Some seem more of a justification to help warrant it's existence. For instance, a buckshot or flechette round seems to me a heavy, bulky and expensive alternative to 5.56 or 7.62. A breaching round however could have merrit.
We will have to wait and see if the XM25 can fulfill it's core and much advertised function, taking out people behind cover through a precisely placed air-bursting round.


Let us talk about the possible functions and the needed ammuntion:

a) Rapdily eliminating or suppressing enemy targets on open ground and in defilade from short to long distances with a low risk of collatoral damage and relative lightweight rounds. The small burst radius should allow a short (10m?) arming range-> HEAB

b) Defeating or stopping lightly armored targets, such as vehicles or personnel behind cover at short to long ranges.-> AP (HEAT?), HEAB

c) Killing enemies at close range, for example while clearing a house or a trench Essentially selfdefense, this task is better left to other soldiers. -> Sabot Slug ( good range, good, safe penetration power), Buckshot/Flechette ( very short range, medium penetration), not armed HEAB

d) Breeching doors. -> Breeching round

e) Crowd/Riot control. Less-than-Lethal rounds -> bean bags, soft slugs. I'm generally sceptical about their use, but it should be possible to create some sensbile ones to give trained hands an important toolset.

f) Training. -> Training round


All in all the 25mm grenades won't replace the 40mm, as it will still be for many uses (smoke, illumination, WP, disposable camera, sheer bang) the better choice.


Firn

P.S: It seems that the XM25 with solid rounds is somewhat between downloaded 6- and 8-bores favorite big game rifles of the 19th century. A thinner sabot will result in less weight and more muzzle velocity.

Last edited by Firn; 12-01-2009 at 12:01 PM.
Firn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010   #44
Tukhachevskii
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn View Post

Let us talk about the possible functions and the needed ammuntion:

a) Rapdily eliminating or suppressing enemy targets on open ground and in defilade from short to long distances with a low risk of collatoral damage and relative lightweight rounds. The small burst radius should allow a short (10m?) arming range-> HEAB

b) Defeating or stopping lightly armored targets, such as vehicles or personnel behind cover at short to long ranges.-> AP (HEAT?), HEAB

c) Killing enemies at close range, for example while clearing a house or a trench Essentially selfdefense, this task is better left to other soldiers. -> Sabot Slug ( good range, good, safe penetration power), Buckshot/Flechette ( very short range, medium penetration), not armed HEAB

d) Breeching doors. -> Breeching round

e) Crowd/Riot control. Less-than-Lethal rounds -> bean bags, soft slugs. I'm generally sceptical about their use, but it should be possible to create some sensbile ones to give trained hands an important toolset.

f) Training. -> Training round
g) Coudln't the XM25 provide a very useful small unit (plt level) air-defence weapon against small tactical UAVs (not the UCAV though) with its flachette rounds?


The Swedes have been busy too; The Swedish Squad Support Weapon Programme

Last edited by Tukhachevskii; 07-21-2010 at 09:43 AM.
Tukhachevskii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010   #45
Tukhachevskii
Council Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 589
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tukhachevskii View Post
g) Coudln't the XM25 provide a very useful small unit (plt level) air-defence weapon against small tactical UAVs (not the UCAV though) with its flachette rounds?


The Swedes have been busy too; The Swedish Squad Support Weapon Programme



p.s. if link doesn't work search for SSW Presentation at ESAS 2003 on google or a search engine of your choice
Tukhachevskii is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2010   #46
Kiwigrunt
Council Member
 
Kiwigrunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Auckland New Zealand
Posts: 464
Default

It's coming.
__________________
Nothing that results in human progress is achieved with unanimous consent. (Christopher Columbus)

All great truth passes through three stages: first it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
(Arthur Schopenhauer)

ONWARD
Kiwigrunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2010   #47
DMR
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NY
Posts: 4
Default

12 pounds?

Ok let's ask a few questions:
1. What are the dimensions and weight of one mag. How many can a soldier carry before they bulk out=basic load.

2. At twelve pounds plus basic load their is no way the soldier is also going to have a M-4. Pistol becomes a manditory addition. This = Army has to buy more pistols or transfer pistols from someone that has them now.

3. 1 per fireteam would seem to mean either the M-203/320 or the Rifleman have to go. That position will become the XM-25 gunner.

4. At least in the current generation it is two bulky to "tuckaway" somewhere so a soldier could at least carry an M-4 with one or two mags to defend them selves.

So we end up with a every specilized weapon that may go bing for ammo in the average fire fight very quickly and the soldier is running around (you would hope) with at least a M-9 to defend themselves.

If they add them to the current MTOE's in a Arms Room fashion, ie. I'm going to leave the M-320's at home today because we will be operating mounted, then maybe, but for the oppertunity cost I would have to say no thanks.
DMR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010   #48
TAH
Council Member
 
TAH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 115
Default Loss of 5.56 too

Quote:
Originally Posted by DMR View Post
12 pounds?

Ok let's ask a few questions:
1. What are the dimensions and weight of one mag. How many can a soldier carry before they bulk out=basic load.

2. At twelve pounds plus basic load their is no way the soldier is also going to have a M-4. Pistol becomes a manditory addition. This = Army has to buy more pistols or transfer pistols from someone that has them now.

3. 1 per fireteam would seem to mean either the M-203/320 or the Rifleman have to go. That position will become the XM-25 gunner.

4. At least in the current generation it is two bulky to "tuckaway" somewhere so a soldier could at least carry an M-4 with one or two mags to defend them selves.

So we end up with a every specilized weapon that may go bing for ammo in the average fire fight very quickly and the soldier is running around (you would hope) with at least a M-9 to defend themselves.

If they add them to the current MTOE's in a Arms Room fashion, ie. I'm going to leave the M-320's at home today because we will be operating mounted, then maybe, but for the oppertunity cost I would have to say no thanks.
It also means two fewer Soliders in each rifle sqaud capable of shooting 5.56 in support of the operation. 6 fewer per Plt and 18 fewer per company. Adds up quick!
TAH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010   #49
Rifleman
Council Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 499
Default

Seems like one per squad would be a better idea.

And since trying to conduct an enveloping attack with one fire team in a nine-man squad is a usually a fantasty anyway it won't matter that the fire teams aren't balanced.

Maybe a different story if the squad is reinforced but usually they're understrength.
__________________
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper
Rifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010   #50
120mm
Council Member
 
120mm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Wonderland
Posts: 1,284
Default

Note that in the article they are calling for 36 per battalion. It should be easy enough to figure out at what level they are being deployed based on that number.
120mm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010   #51
Rifleman
Council Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 499
Thumbs up Good!

For light TOEs 36 per battalion sounds like one per rifle squad plus three unassigned in the company arms room.

One weapon like that per fire team is just too much in small Army squads. Too many suppression weapons equals not enough riflemen to clear with.

Now, if the Army squad would just get rid of one of the SAWs. One light machine gunner, one grenadier and six or seven riflemen would be better. Balanced fire teams made better sense in the days of the BAR and M1, especially in big USMC squads.
__________________
"Pick up a rifle and you change instantly from a subject to a citizen." - Jeff Cooper

Last edited by Rifleman; 10-15-2010 at 06:37 PM.
Rifleman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010   #52
TAH
Council Member
 
TAH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 115
Default GLs in an Infantry Bn

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rifleman View Post
For light TOEs 36 per battalion sounds like one per rifle squad plus three unassigned in the company arms room.

One weapon like that per fire team is just too much. Too many suppression weapons equals not enough riflemen to clear with.
According to the May 2010 version of the Fort Knox Special Manual on BCTs,

An Infantry Bn has 15 M320 in its HHC, 20 M320s in each of three rifle companies and 16 in its Wespons Co, for a total of 91 in the Bn.

So, it is clearly NOT a 1 for 1 swap.
TAH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-15-2010   #53
Uboat509
Council Member
 
Uboat509's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: CO
Posts: 681
Default

It looks like one per squad but I still don't see the point. According to Wikipedia the system weighs 14 pounds but it doesn't say if that is loaded or empty. I am guessing empty. It gives the weight of the Target acquisition/fire control but does not say if that weight is included or not. Logic would suggest that it is included in the weight of the system but since this data apparently comes from the company who is trying to market it to the military, logic may not apply. There is no weight given for the ammo. There has been no data that I have seen on the effective burst radius of the round. I also have questions about what will happen when the highspeed optics fail. I would like to know what secondary weapon the gunner is supposed to carry. Most importantly, I would like to know why we need this. This appears to be a very narrow niche weapon. It appears that it can only really do one thing that the M203 can't. Is it really worth the cost or could that money be better spent elsewhere?
__________________
“Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.”

Terry Pratchett
Uboat509 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2011   #54
Firn
Council Member
 
Firn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcustis View Post
You know, it need not...all it would take is a graduated level that could attach to the side of the mil-std 1913 Picatinny rail. Our current M224 60mm has that built into the firing assembly. It just needs to be small, lit by a tritium ampule, and could clip on via any number of attachment means that are already in use for side-mounted sling swivels.

A couple rounds to get the thing zeroed and locked down with Loctite, and there you have it. No need to fiddle with a sling marking system that would rely on the grenadier to pause and adjust it to the appropriate length for use. There would be slight variation due to the surface the buttstock rests on (sand, gravel, boot tip, etc.). The only thing limiting this setup would be the degree of accuracy required in the requirement document, as it related to mounting the sight to the rail, adjusting the rail in relation to the launcher receiver, etc.

We might never get there due to tight tolerances required by whomever would generate the specifications, but my light bulb just clicked on.
Somebody's light bulb clicked on a little earlier, and designed the (rifle ) grenade sight T59, for the use of low-angle and high-angle fire. It could be fitted to pretty much every US WWII rifle and carbine.

Slings were already marked with tape in WWII, usually with the aid of a clinometer. When used in the high-angle role, an additional, rimmed .45 propulsion cartridge was inserted into the launcher tube.

The interesting thing about rifle grenades was the broad range of uses, already in WWII. Here are just some of the lesser known ones:

- After removing the detonator, a 30-yard cordtex (explosive 1/4 inch cord) was tied to the (Mills) rifle grenade and shot across the minefield, clearing a long and 8-inch narrow path. By using two such paths 10 feet apart, a cordtex net could be dragged across the minefield to open a 10-feet street (Source: British Commandos, Nr.1 of the often mentioned Special Series)

- "Grapnel" Grenades were first improvised to clear from a covered position trip-wire up to a 100 yards away. A simple AT rifle grenade got almost completely stripped down and a wooden plug with three inserted hooks got fixed with a screw as new head. A heavy 150 yard chalk line was attached and coiled up. ( Combat Lessons 4, WWII series)

- In a similar way com. wire was layed across streams, to up to 130 yards. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- 60mm Mortar bombs were attached by wire and pliers to the grenade projectors M7 and M1 and fire to up to a range of 110 yards. Used to clear houses and hedgerows. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- WP (smoke) rifle grenades with reduced WP charge were used by grenadiers to mark hidden targets, especially for the supporting tanks. (The reduction of the WP avoided the concealment by the very smoke) (Combat lessons x, WWII series)

- Some German rifle grenades could also be thrown by hand, lightening the combat load. This was considered to be very useful for mobile, light units operating far from the next base. ( Other countries had also special rifle adaptors for hand grenades) (Small unit action in Russia)

All in all it seems that the rifle grenade can still be useful in some "odd" or special jobs which need an odd or oversized warhead shape. Breeching, Mine-clearing, Grapnelling are just some of them.

The 40mm grenades at one side of the spectrum and the shoulder-fired weapons on the other seem to cover the big rest well enough. We will see how well the 25mm grenades widen that spectrum.
Firn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2011   #55
SJPONeill
Council Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Near the Spiral, New Zealand.
Posts: 134
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwigrunt View Post
So how effective can such a small grenade really be, assuming it will air-burst a few metres away from the target?
Efficiencies in fragmentation rounds can be realised by hyping up the technology and quality control in the fragmentation shell so that it fragments reliably and consistently over the required pattern...just like the original hand grenades had a cast sheel that might even shatter into a even spread, or simply just break into a small number of large chunks...5-6 years ago, Denel reckoned that it had made the frag pattern of its new 105mm round consistent and reliable enough to offer the same spread as the 155mm rounds of the time...
__________________
The World According To Me
SJPONeill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2011   #56
JMA
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
So the XM-25 is to address that specific application? This is problematic to put it mildly. One per fireteam?
It seems it needs to be supplied with a bipod and possibly a standing aiming rest. It weighs 14lbs (6.35kg) unloaded and that means most soldiers will have a problem aiming and carrying it with sufficient ammunition. Base camp defence?
JMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2011   #57
JMA
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Durban, South Africa
Posts: 3,902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Coldstreamer View Post
...but are there not significant Positive ID issues with an munition like this?
The requirement for a positive ID before firing is the best reason why the leading Western countries (US, UK) should make more use of proxies to fight their wars for them.
JMA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-07-2011   #58
B.Smitty
Council Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 33
Default Some XM-25 AAR discussion over at KitUp

http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/in...ghanistan.html

Quote:
The XM-25 has fired 55 rounds in nine firefights between Dec. 3 and January 12, when the formal Forward Operational Assessment ended. Officials say the weapon “disrupted” two insurgent attacks against an observation post, destroying one PKM machine gun position in one of those attacks. That is where the ”usually our engagements last for 15-20 minutes. With the XM-25 they’re over in a few minutes” line came from.

The XM-25 also “destroyed” four ambush sites during engagements on foot patrols or movements to contact. In one instance, the 25mm HE round exploded on a PKM gunner and he was either wounded and fled or scared and fled, but dropped his machine gun, which Soldiers later recovered.

Two units within the 101st Airborne have used the XM-25 since November. The first unit fired 28 rounds in four TICs, the second unit fired 27 rounds in five TICs.
B.Smitty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011   #59
Firn
Council Member
 
Firn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 1,281
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firn View Post
Somebody's light bulb clicked on a little earlier, and designed the (rifle ) grenade sight T59, for the use of low-angle and high-angle fire. It could be fitted to pretty much every US WWII rifle and carbine.

Slings were already marked with tape in WWII, usually with the aid of a clinometer. When used in the high-angle role, an additional, rimmed .45 propulsion cartridge was inserted into the launcher tube.

The interesting thing about rifle grenades was the broad range of uses, already in WWII. Here are just some of the lesser known ones:

- After removing the detonator, a 30-yard cordtex (explosive 1/4 inch cord) was tied to the (Mills) rifle grenade and shot across the minefield, clearing a long and 8-inch narrow path. By using two such paths 10 feet apart, a cordtex net could be dragged across the minefield to open a 10-feet street (Source: British Commandos, Nr.1 of the often mentioned Special Series)

- "Grapnel" Grenades were first improvised to clear from a covered position trip-wire up to a 100 yards away. A simple AT rifle grenade got almost completely stripped down and a wooden plug with three inserted hooks got fixed with a screw as new head. A heavy 150 yard chalk line was attached and coiled up. ( Combat Lessons 4, WWII series)

- In a similar way com. wire was layed across streams, to up to 130 yards. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- 60mm Mortar bombs were attached by wire and pliers to the grenade projectors M7 and M1 and fire to up to a range of 110 yards. Used to clear houses and hedgerows. (Combat lessons 6, WWII series)

- WP (smoke) rifle grenades with reduced WP charge were used by grenadiers to mark hidden targets, especially for the supporting tanks. (The reduction of the WP avoided the concealment by the very smoke) (Combat lessons x, WWII series)

- Some German rifle grenades could also be thrown by hand, lightening the combat load. This was considered to be very useful for mobile, light units operating far from the next base. ( Other countries had also special rifle adaptors for hand grenades) (Small unit action in Russia)

All in all it seems that the rifle grenade can still be useful in some "odd" or special jobs which need an odd or oversized warhead shape. Breeching, Mine-clearing, Grapnelling are just some of them.

The 40mm grenades at one side of the spectrum and the shoulder-fired weapons on the other seem to cover the big rest well enough. We will see how well the 25mm grenades widen that spectrum.
Der Kampf der Infanterie, the fight of the infantry, a swiss army movie of 1976 is interesting for a couple of things I noticed. Of course the Swiss German makes it rather hard to understand the talking of the soldiers, even for fluent German speakers.

Rifle grenades are featured very often both while defending and attacking, against infantry and AFV.

1) An strongpoint gets attack one of the defender calls out the range, and another adjusts his bipod with engraved range scales on it. Later you see how different defenders engage out of the trench the attacking infantry with massed indirect rifle grenade fire.

2) Armored infantry advances through forests and meadows in alpine terrain and,while still mounted, get attacked by various AT-weapons, like mines, ATM and rifle grenades.

3) Airmobile infantry inserted behind the frontline get counterattacked by infantry supported by MGs, mortars. Some riflemen get tasked to support the advance by using their rifle grenades in the same mini mortar-like role as seen in 1).

The rifle grenades were quite heavy and thus the recoil was wild, making it quite (un)popular in soldier stories. In direct fire the shooter had to be careful to follow the correct procedure.

Overall the greater ease of use of the 40 mm GL as well as the spread of ATM might have been key factors in the decline in popularity of rifle grenades. With training time ever limited it certainly is sensible to focus it on weapons expected to be widly in use.
Firn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-14-2011   #60
Fuchs
Council Member
 
Fuchs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,189
Default

The UBGL is essentially an (almost) always ready-to-fire version of WW2-era rifle grenades that used muzzle cups (such as German Schissbecher).

Modern rifle grenades are descendants of those WW2-era rifle grenades that used a rather stokes-like principle (sitting on the muzzle).


The UBGL and stnad-alone GL designs add (just like the Schiessbecher) a certain fixed cost of mass. No matter how many grenades you carry, you gotta carry those 1-4 pounds of weapon.

Thus we have today the choice between
* rifle grenades with zero fixed costs (mass) thanks to ladder sights on the grenade itself
OR
* grenade launchers with fixed costs (mass), which in present GL designs is somewhat outweighed by less slow use (I wouldn't say 'quick' as long as you need to flip up sights or carry a carbine in ready position but have to switch to a stand-alone GL). The variable costs (mass per shot) is also smaller.

Recoil as a problem rather favours rifle-attached solutions, for the additional weight reduces felt recoil. A given warhead mass and a given trajectory (~muzzle velocity) will yield about the same recoil all else equal (weight and thus recoil differences between fin and spin stabilisation may occur, though).


In the end, today's rifle grenades have two niches:

(1) Whole small unit grenade salvo without many heavy GLs
(2) Large calibre grenades (see the Simon doorbreacher rifle grenade)

GLs have other advantages

(1) Potential exploitation of Medium-low pressure principle.
(2) Can be carried ready for fire in UBGL
(3) Can be a multi-shot weapon (revolver or pumpgun principle usually)
(4) already standardised
(5) No need for bullet trap or special ballistite blank cartridge
(6) Can be used on weapons of different calibres without aiming issues
(7) The limitation to few soldiers inherently leads to higher practice standard by specialisation in practice
(8) Propellant power is independent of rifle/carbine calibre and barrel length.

The French, Israelis and some other countries make still much use of rifle grenades.
Fuchs is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
On PBS: The War Tom Odom Historians 29 10-04-2007 10:57 PM
Here's the Good News SWJED Media, Information & Cyber Warriors 4 06-19-2007 06:04 PM
'Good News' from Northern Iraq SWJED The Whole News 0 05-23-2006 05:47 AM
Good News From Iraq DDilegge The Whole News 4 11-03-2005 01:25 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation