NATO Standardizes FN's 5.7x28mm Caliber

[Bucky]

I really wasn't expecting to learn this much about grenade launchers when I opened the 5.7 thread.

Forgot where you were?

[spyderco monkey]

Ah....airburst grenades have proven to be most ineffective against modern armored combatants.

When has anyone deployed airbursting grenades against armored combatants?

And why would they be less effective then impact initiated grenades/shells, given that airbursting increases the % of useful shrapnel? Almost all Anti Personnel shells are now optimized for airburst (Mortars, newer generations of AutoCannon 30mm, new HE Frag for the Carl Gustav and M72, etc. )

The Army has spent the last several years to upgrade 30x113, 30x173, 40x46 and 40x53 to airburst.
https://ndiastorage.blob.core.usgovc...nt/Seacord.pdf

https://asc.army.mil/web/portfolio-i...mmunition-mca/

No fragmentation weapon will go though modern hard armor, so its a function of hitting the extremities. Of which air bust would be more likely due the higher % of fragments in the air vs being blasted into the ground, which increases the number of fragments per m2.

The difference in air burst effectiveness is most clearly articulated in the presentation for the new Air Bust M72 LAW; 12m effective radius for impact vs 15-20m effective radius for airburst:



And the army, in the midst of its anti-armor NGSW system, is relaunching the hunt for an airburst grenade launcher just this year:

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/army...nisher-weapon/

Point being that if airburst 40mm is ineffective, then its time to ditch the 40mm entirely as the impact initiated shells are certain to be ineffective.

[spyderco monkey]

Not only that, but what happens when the squad's one "super grenadier" gets tagged? What about when the single Milkor in the squad, on which so much hinges, ends up going down due to the known reliability issues?

A single shot grenadier per fire team (so 3 per squad in the USMC, dunno what the Army does) is more flexible and has greater force economy in terms of both resiliency as well as likelihood of being in the right place at right time. The MAAWS, even with its limited ammunition, is apropos for targets beyond the range of the M320 but not appropriate for mortar fire, much more effective at obtaining casualties at those extended ranges than a 40mm, while also giving the squad a greatly enhanced capability for other uses over what simply the Milkor offers (how's that Milkor work against bunkers and armor compared to the MAAWS?).

In the new 15-man USMC infantry squad, there's plenty of manpower for carrying requisite MAAWS ammunition. If the MAAWS goes down, you still have your 3 grenadiers, and you still have your Squad Systems Operator who can drop HE on you with a drone.

In the end, it's almost like there's a reason the USMC experimented with both concepts and dropped the Milkor while deciding to field the MAAWS at the squad level.

Replacing the 3x Grenadiers with 1x 'super grenadier' allows for those 2x Grenadiers to use the 'weight budget' of their previous 40mm system to carry other equipment and weapons for the squad (or alternatively be lighter and more mobile)

Weight budget:

HK M320 irons = 4.8lbs
24x 40x46 grenades = 12.62lbs
Total = 17.42lbs

Alternatives for comparable weight:

15x extra PMAGS (450rd) for the Squad =16.5lbs

2x Carl Gustaf HE 441D @ 6.83lbs = 13.66lbs
2x Carl Gustaf HE 441D @ 6.83 + 4X30rd PMAGS = 18.06lbs
3x Carl Gustaf HE 441D @ 6.83lbs = 20.49lbs

2x M72E10 Fire From Enclosure Anti-Structure @9lbs = 18lbs

Theres an argument to be made that any of the above would be a more useful use for the 17.42lbs currently dedicated to the M320+24 grenades. I personally think having them carry either more CG ammo, or the 2x M72 Anti Structure rounds, would be the most useful.

In terms of the Milkor, as I mentioned in post #43:

That said, while the Milkor currently the only off the shelf 40x51 option, there certainly room for improvement in 40x51mm launchers. A FCU equipped 40x51mm 3+1 pump action might be a good option, similar to the Russian GM94 that they seem to be using pretty often in Syria. A 5 shot, slimmer and lighter Milkor might be another option.

To fire 40x51 MV (250m point accuracy, 800m area accuracy) a heavier launcher then current single shots are required due to the increase in recoil (250g x 100ms vs 185g @ 76ms.) And there are a variety of alternatives that could be pursued.

At the simplest, a double barrel grenade launcher + hyrdaulic recoil buffer may be possible. This launcher is 6.5lbs, assume 7ish if a hydraulic buffer were employed. Addition of a FCU would bump that up to ~8.5lbs.



Pump action with 3+1 capacity ala China Lake or the more extensively used GM94 is another option:



Rheinmetall, maker of the 40x51mm, is developing a ~10lb semi auto grenade launcher known as the Hydra.



I personally think the magazines would be impractically large, but a tube fed variation of the Hydra might work nice. The STK SSW uses a tube fed semi auto system, although it is a 40x46.



Of those options a pump action 3+1 40x51 seems the best blend of firepower and simplicity. Although the time it takes to pump will reduce the ability to 'salvo' multiple grenades so that they detonate within a second of one another to increase fragmentation coverage and increase hit probability at range (this being the primary benefit of a multi shot.)

Getting back to the subject of PDWs and your topic of the MAAWS, it will be very interesting to see how the Marines are able to field the M4 Carl Gustaf (MAAWS) with the soldier also carrying an M27 given the weight; a M4CG + FCU + 1 round is 24.91lbs, on top of the 18.45lbs devoted to the M27 + 7 mags. Thats 43.36lbs. Carrying 3 rounds thats 57lbs.

[TGS]

Replacing the 3x Grenadiers with 1x 'super grenadier' allows for those 2x Grenadiers to use the 'weight budget' of their previous 40mm system to carry other equipment and weapons for the squad (or alternatively be lighter and more mobile)

Still totally sidesteps the reality of force economy. There's no reason to centralize a capability on a single guy to be so easily taken out of commission, or be in the wrong place at the wrong time, when it can be spread among the squad, instead.

Theres an argument to be made that any of the above would be a more useful use for the 17.42lbs currently dedicated to the M320+24 grenades.

The other items you mentioned are split among the rest of the squad. The Grenadier does not need to carry an M72 and M27 mags instead of a GL when there's other dudes in the fireteam who can carry it instead. It's not like the grenadier is the only dude there where if they need more mags or an M72, it must go to him.

I don't think USMC grenadiers have carried 24 rounds for some number of decades, either. It's usually half that or less, since there's three grenadiers per squad. Maybe it's changed since I've left, but when I left, grenadiers were issued a belt to hold 12 rounds. Individual unit open purchases might see the use of pouches that hold even less.

Getting back to the subject of PDWs and your topic of the MAAWS, it will be very interesting to see how the Marines are able to field the M4 Carl Gustaf (MAAWS) with the soldier also carrying an M27 given the weight; a M4CG + FCU + 1 round is 24.91lbs, on top of the 18.45lbs devoted to the M27 + 7 mags. Thats 43.36lbs. Carrying 3 rounds thats 57lbs.

Just gonna throw this out there; I don't believe the guy carrying a MAAWS carries all the extra ammo for it. Extra ammo for the MAAWS is one of those things that is split among the fireteam and/or squad, just how you mentioned with the extra ammo or M72. I'm just guessing on that, since I haven't been trained on the employment of the MAAWS, but that would make the most sense instead of reducing things to the absurd as you've done here and placing everything on one human being to make a point.

[DocGKR]

spyderco monkey--have you ever served in the military?

Have you used any of these weapon systems?

Have you seen the effects of these weapons systems in the field?

Or is this just an academic exercise for you?

[Wake27]

Think about what you've just said here:

-Marksmanship drills in the 70's [20 years after hit probability became a serious concern in SALVO and SPIW] was poor, and that if anything marksmanship training is now worse today, decades later and after 20 years of rifle centric warfare.

-Marksmanship training is actively disparaged by senior leadership aka those in a position to fix this marksmanship training.

-->

Problem: Infantry rifle fire has a historically low hit probability, and the US Military has a decades long history of mediocre rifle marksmanship training despite being well aware of the problem.

Possible Solutions:

Option A: Continue to make everyone in the 13-man Squad carry a rifle, and hope that somehow this decades long trend of mediocre marksmanship will be reversed, despite little evidence to suggest that it will.

Option B: Recognize the mediocre marksmanship problem is unlikely to be solved, and instead issue 1 man out of the 13-man Squad a smart grenade launcher that requires dramatically less marksmanship in order to be effective.

Given the historical data, plus the points you've just made, Option B seems like the pragmatic choice.

The last 20 years have not really been rifle centric. Pretty sure it’s been decades since we were rifle centric. Just about everything revolves around MGs and air.

Now, if we’re at war with Russia, that air superiority will be far more contested, but I’m still not trying to trade a real gun for a PDW, regardless of the reasoning. I’ll take a MK18 all day both personally and across the formation.

Granted I’ve never lived in a tank or cockpit but MATVs and JLTVs don’t have lots of space inside either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[El Cid]

The last 20 years have not really been rifle centric. Pretty sure it’s been decades since we were rifle centric. Just about everything revolves around MGs and air.

Now, if we’re at war with Russia, that air superiority will be far more contested, but I’m still not trying to trade a real gun for a PDW, regardless of the reasoning. I’ll take a MK18 all day both personally and across the formation.

Granted I’ve never lived in a tank or cockpit but MATVs and JLTVs don’t have lots of space inside either.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is where I think folks get off track a bit. PDW’s like the P90 and MP7 were designed to replace pistols, not rifles. If I was going to a fight and you let me choose a rifle or PDW, I’ll take the rifle. But if my choice is PDW or handgun I’ll take the PDW (even if the pistol has a red dot).

[TGS]

This is where I think folks get off track a bit. PDW’s like the P90 and MP7 were designed to replace pistols, not rifles. If I was going to a fight and you let me choose a rifle or PDW, I’ll take the rifle. But if my choice is PDW or handgun I’ll take the PDW (even if the pistol has a red dot).

I'll take that one step farther and add the condition, "on a battlefield versus armored opponents".

If all that will fit is an SMG sized weapon, then I'll take a 9mm SMG any day of the week if we're talking COIN/low-intensity conflict. If we're talking conventional warfare where the theoretical air crew, armor crew, etc is bailing out from their vehicle against opponents wearing body armor, then the not-worst option out of generally sucky options is the MP7 or P90. If a Mk18, M4 or M16 can fit (like S-staff donkeys, arty, etc who can stack their rifles), then that's the obvious answer.

__________________________________________________

Russia has approached this same problem by issuing overpressure 9mm tungsten sabot ammunition....crazy hot ammo, 147gr@1500fps and 124gr@1900fps. The tungsten penetrator is still only 4mm or so, so there's no greater wound cavity than our Western options while being more expensive and complicated to produce. Here's a cool youtube channel, I'm assuming from Russia. It'd be way cooler if there were English subtitles, but we at least can see some shooting of the guns, as well as some basic functions and manipulations (for instance, it's obvious he's critiquing the safety on the AEK-919 at one point).

Tangential, but hey it's closer to the topic that grenade launchers Enjoy

PP-2000


AEK-919


SR-2

[Wake27]

This is where I think folks get off track a bit. PDW’s like the P90 and MP7 were designed to replace pistols, not rifles. If I was going to a fight and you let me choose a rifle or PDW, I’ll take the rifle. But if my choice is PDW or handgun I’ll take the PDW (even if the pistol has a red dot).

Sure, but that was more in response to the thread drift about dropping rifles for PDWs and GLs.

[rcbusmc24]

Replacing the 3x Grenadiers with 1x 'super grenadier' allows for those 2x Grenadiers to use the 'weight budget' of their previous 40mm system to carry other equipment and weapons for the squad (or alternatively be lighter and more mobile)

Weight budget:

HK M320 irons = 4.8lbs
24x 40x46 grenades = 12.62lbs
Total = 17.42lbs

Alternatives for comparable weight:

15x extra PMAGS (450rd) for the Squad =16.5lbs

2x Carl Gustaf HE 441D @ 6.83lbs = 13.66lbs
2x Carl Gustaf HE 441D @ 6.83 + 4X30rd PMAGS = 18.06lbs
3x Carl Gustaf HE 441D @ 6.83lbs = 20.49lbs

2x M72E10 Fire From Enclosure Anti-Structure @9lbs = 18lbs

Theres an argument to be made that any of the above would be a more useful use for the 17.42lbs currently dedicated to the M320+24 grenades. I personally think having them carry either more CG ammo, or the 2x M72 Anti Structure rounds, would be the most useful.

In terms of the Milkor, as I mentioned in post #43:

That said, while the Milkor currently the only off the shelf 40x51 option, there certainly room for improvement in 40x51mm launchers. A FCU equipped 40x51mm 3+1 pump action might be a good option, similar to the Russian GM94 that they seem to be using pretty often in Syria. A 5 shot, slimmer and lighter Milkor might be another option.

To fire 40x51 MV (250m point accuracy, 800m area accuracy) a heavier launcher then current single shots are required due to the increase in recoil (250g x 100ms vs 185g @ 76ms.) And there are a variety of alternatives that could be pursued.

At the simplest, a double barrel grenade launcher + hyrdaulic recoil buffer may be possible. This launcher is 6.5lbs, assume 7ish if a hydraulic buffer were employed. Addition of a FCU would bump that up to ~8.5lbs.



Pump action with 3+1 capacity ala China Lake or the more extensively used GM94 is another option:



Rheinmetall, maker of the 40x51mm, is developing a ~10lb semi auto grenade launcher known as the Hydra.



I personally think the magazines would be impractically large, but a tube fed variation of the Hydra might work nice. The STK SSW uses a tube fed semi auto system, although it is a 40x46.



Of those options a pump action 3+1 40x51 seems the best blend of firepower and simplicity. Although the time it takes to pump will reduce the ability to 'salvo' multiple grenades so that they detonate within a second of one another to increase fragmentation coverage and increase hit probability at range (this being the primary benefit of a multi shot.)

Getting back to the subject of PDWs and your topic of the MAAWS, it will be very interesting to see how the Marines are able to field the M4 Carl Gustaf (MAAWS) with the soldier also carrying an M27 given the weight; a M4CG + FCU + 1 round is 24.91lbs, on top of the 18.45lbs devoted to the M27 + 7 mags. Thats 43.36lbs. Carrying 3 rounds thats 57lbs.

Either you are trying to sell something or the Dunning Kruger here is so high I don't even know where to start....