XM25 "good enough"

[Fuchs]

Can anybody explain to me why the excessively heavy M3 Carl Gustav (still not exactly lightweight in its most recent version) is so very popular among anglophones?

Nothing, absolutely nothing in its published specs points at a superiority over the likes of the already phased out LRAC F1 STRIM* and similar weapons.
Is it all about the (recently developed) fancy munitions?

For example, the U.S.Army finally introduced the M3 CG for general infantry and promotes this fact as if they had invented something great, but the marines already had their equivalent already for three decades (an Israeli 70's design).

Sometimes it seems as if the people's capacity to think about weapons and munitions cannot reach beyond a few marketing stars, ignoring more than 90% of what's actually available.


* An export success story in the francophone world.

[TAH]

Saw the story the other day. IIFC, the major point was that it had greater range over the disposable AT-4s currently being carried.

Ammo for it is also "in the system" as our rangers got it back in the 90s.

I had recommended it as a replacement for the old 90mm recoiless rifle when I worked at the Engineeer Center. My thoughts were it was more flexible then the 90mm because it also had the capability to fire both smoke and illum rounds. Nice options for a combat engineer as part of a breaching effort, smoke to screen and illum for thermal marking.

They went with the Javilin ATGM instead. Go figure.

TAH

[Fuchs]

Saw the story the other day. IIFC, the major point was that it had greater range over the disposable AT-4s currently being carried.

That's a function of barrel length and munitions, which are about identical.
The effective range is coined by the aiming device, and as Germany shows with its Panzerfaust 3IT-600, you can also attach an electronic fire control system to a disposable ammunition tube. In fact, the U.S.Army could have adopted the Dynarange sight 15+ years ago and simply attached it (with slightly adapted dimensions and computing variables) to its AT4s.

The trade off between reloadable and disposable is rather the fixed weight (launcher) and weight per shot (less for reloadable).

[Compost]

Can anybody explain to me why the excessively heavy M3 Carl Gustav (still not exactly lightweight in its most recent version) is so very popular among anglophones?

It’s a result of the ABCA association which – nuclear concerns notwithstanding - effectively includes NZ as per http://www.abca-armies.org/

The hierarchy in terms of population and military power is ABCANZ. Taking Australia as an example, defence force development and procurement elements are enmeshed in a public service system that is concerned with process before purpose. Hence with some notable exceptions such as the Bushmaster IMV, Oz defence procurement tends to delay and ultimately to follow a lead established by A or B and preferably also C. Then the alpha order resets with Aus followed by NZ, or NZ followed by Oz.

Believe Carl Gustav is somewhat unusual in that B and C preceded Aus and NZ with A in last place. But Saab/FFV has been fortunate because its product should have been dumped in the 1960s when Sweden withheld CG spares and ammunition from ANZ in SVN.

[SJPONeill]

Changing the name from ABCA to ABCANZ was mooted for about 30 seconds when NZ became a full member in 2006 but it was correctly considered the name change would just be an administrative overhead offering little value thous the organization remains ABCA http://www.abca-armies.org

Your statement wrt Australian and New Zealand acquisition processes is incorrect and one only has to look at the orbat of either nation to see this. both nations have steered their own courses for some decades although there IRS some obvious benefit to common equipment.

The attraction of the CG 3 is its flexibility and portability. It has a good rangeo of ammunition types and is relatiively simples to train and use...simply, if it ain't broke...

[Compost]

SJPONeill

Post 81 noted that ABCA is effectively ABCANZ and did not propose need for a change of name.

You maintain that orbats show planning and procurement for the Aus army does not tend to delay nor follow " A or B and preferably also C ". And that NZ army does not behave similarly and follow or sometimes precede Oz army. A list of such principal equipments with approx dates would be useful.

There were and are French and West German alternatives to Carl Gustav. When support was denied ANZ - and later ABCA - should have got rid of it. Instead of sending a clear message to all would-be suppliers ANZ continued to follow Britain and Canada. That was seemingly ABCA at work, although it might have been at government insistence because some AusGovs have been strangely keen to procure from Sweden. (Procurement of RBS70 was another poor message, and it is one for your list.)

Fraternal relations and common doctrine can be useful. But British and Canadian land forces are not active in SE Asia, Oceania or the South-West Pacific and are unlikely to budge on ANZ account in either a geographic or procurement sense. Similarly Australia and NZ are unlikely to deploy West of Suez or into the NorthEast Pacific. Equipment commonality with the US and France and with Singapore, Korea and possibly Japan (if ever ..) could be more productive. Possibly also China for a variant of the QLB-06 / QLZ-87B.

[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).

[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.