NATO Standardizes FN's 5.7x28mm Caliber

[spyderco monkey]

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?

No, never served in the military. Weapons, and especially emerging weapons technology, is simply something I'm interested in and spend a good bit of time researching. Which in this case seems to have lead to a bit too much enthusiasm for the topic on my part.

In terms of airbusting grenade launchers, other then the troops who fielded the XM25 briefly in Afghanistan that I linked to earlier, I'm not aware of any other fielding of those weapons. Experience with 40x51mm Airbursting is likely restricted to the engineers at Rheinmetal, as this is a pretty recent development of the last few years. The very first fielding of 40x51 Medium Velocity (non airbursting) was this year, to South Africa, for use in the Ripple launchers.

Outside of that, it would be the engineers at the STK who have developed their own 40x46 LVER airbursting round, and the researchers at the army working on developing the 40mm HEAB XM1166 airbursting round for the regular 40x46.

So this is really a technology where the pool of experience is pretty limited, which really limits discussion for the most part to informed speculation based on what little open source data is available.

Hence why if you have information to support that airbusting grenades don't work / work worse then impact initiated grenades against armored opponents, I'd certainly like to hear more.

[spyderco monkey]

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.

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.

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.

Thank you for the info vis a vis grenade loadout. The 24 figure was based on either this study, or another, on soldier load and weight.

https://www.cnas.org/publications/re...s-heavy-load-1

In terms of the 'super grenadier' being a single point of failure, that is true. With 3x M320's you have 3x potential grenadiers. The downside is none of those grenadiers is as capable as the super grenadier (2x the range, with a larger shell, and some multi shot ability.)

A similar mode of failure is present with the MAAWS/Carl Gustaf. Theres only one per squad. A more redundant approach would be to issue multiple LAWs or AT4 single shot disposable weapons. The downside with that approach is that these single use weapons lack the range and accuracy provided by the Carl Gustaf. In that case, the increased performance was deemed to outweigh the risk of the CG being disabled. I would say a similar tradeoff would be worth it for the enhanced grenade launcher, but in both cases theres an argument to be made for the lower performance but more redundant multiple launchers.

In terms of MAAWS loadout, I'm not trying to skew the results, but rather point out the fact that a full size HE weapon + full rifle loadout is extremely heavy, which is why a PDW may be attractive for those carrying these enhanced HE systems.

In the lightest configuration, carrying an empty M4 CG + Optic - with no ammo - is still +18lbs for the rifleman to carry. Paired with a rifle loadout thats very heavy, akin to a rifleman carrying an empty M249 strapped to their back.

Ultimately increasing HE loadouts beyond the current 3x 40mm status quo is going to present a pretty hard tradeoff. Either the 'HE Guy' (MAAWS, Super 40mm, some other system) is going to end up burdened like a pack mule carrying a rifle + this heavy HE system. Or he will end up having to ditch the conventional rifle in order to save weight, and carry a lighter PDW of some sort plus the new HE system. For the later option, thats where I see a role for a 5.7 PDW.

[TGS]

In terms of the 'super grenadier' being a single point of failure, that is true. With 3x M320's you have 3x potential grenadiers. The downside is none of those grenadiers is as capable as the super grenadier (2x the range, with a larger shell, and some multi shot ability.)

They don't need to be. It's a solution in search of a problem, since that need is fulfilled by other weapons systems.

A similar mode of failure is present with the MAAWS/Carl Gustaf. Theres only one per squad.

Except that isn't a weapons system you can issue to every fireteam within a rifle squad, whereas a GL is, and a GL per fireteam addresses that need adequately. Apples and oranges.

When we issue out 6 recoilless rifles to a group of 13 Marines, we call that an Assault Section, and it's located in the Weapons Platoon of the Company. Well, used to be....with the fielding of the MAAWS at the squad level, we got rid of the 0351 Assaultman MOS and moved that asset (Mk153 SMAW) to the Combat Engineers. It's still there, however, if the METTC and mission dictates it. The individual rifle squad does not always need to be loaded for bear as if their MAAWS is the only one in existence to address that need...it's simply organic to the squad for flexibility's sake and provides an upgrade in firepower that any GL could never even dream of touching.

At this point I feel like I've said everything I can, based on my training and assignment of 40mm HE grenade launchers in two different careers/types of work. I'm just repeating myself at this point. Not saying this to be a dick (I enjoy random weapons discussions as much as the next guy), just being frank: Take a look at what the people in the thread who've been involved in the doctrinal training and development, employment, and evaluation of HE weapons systems are trying to tell you, and consider that what we're saying isn't based on having read a wikipedia article or two out of curiosity.

[rcbusmc24]

The problem you are having is that you do not seem to understand how we employ these weapons within the rifle squad, or what fire teams are, or how combined arms employment works during the fight. Everybody in the world seems to be in love with the idea that we need to be able to engage out further but all I am concerned with for personally carried weapons is 400 meters and in, the infantrymans quarter mile...... for further out you use supporting weapons
such as machine guns,, mortars, arty and CAS while maneuvering to your final assault position. If I do my job right and the terrain allows then I should be able to close within 250 or so meters of the before I have to shift or cease my fire support.

[Caballoflaco]

The problem you are having is that you do not seem to understand how we employ these weapons within the rifle squad, or what fire teams are, or how combined arms employment works during the fight. Everybody in the world seems to be in love with the idea that we need to be able to engage out further but all I am concerned with for personally carried weapons is 400 meters and in, the infantrymans quarter mile...... for further out you use supporting weapons
such as machine guns,, mortars, arty and CAS while maneuvering to your final assault position. If I do my job right and the terrain allows then I should be able to close within 250 or so meters of the before I have to shift or cease my fire support.

Do you think the integration of drones at lower levels also fills the supposed gap/requirement that people have been trying to fill since the 1960’s with the ubergrenadier?


Question for the thread: is a weapons system that was designed to defeat the soviet soft armor of thirty years ago still relevant when near peer armies are issuing hard armor now?

[rcbusmc24]

Do you think the integration of drones at lower levels also fills the supposed gap/requirement that people have been trying to fill since the 1960’s with the ubergrenadier?


Question for the thread: is a weapons system that was designed to defeat the soviet soft armor of thirty years ago still relevant when near peer armies are issuing hard armor now?

Things such as switchblade have a lot of promise for the squad going forward. The Ravens and quadcopters can help some but at the expense of speed and stealth. Any company level or down operated SUAS is going to compromise due to the noise and low altitude they operate at currently. We have been able to use then though during PEXs to confirm or deny enemy locations and then strike them using IDF or CAS. This allows of a economy of force and refined patrolling efforts.

So to answer the question, I do think that drones will and do allow us to get eyes on stuff out further than before, and once that PID is established I would still be using traditional supporting arms to engage rather than trying to use a internal to the squad asset. The one exception being a switchblade type SUAS/ attack munition if they are ever fielded.

[TGS]

Question for the thread: is a weapons system that was designed to defeat the soviet soft armor of thirty years ago still relevant when near peer armies are issuing hard armor now?

I think that's an excellent question, but I think the answer is still yes. Most nations outside wealthy western nations that compose NATO are either not issuing hard armor to all of their troops; or, if they are issuing hard armor to the majority of their line grunts, it tends to be steel plates or poor condition ceramics that were provided as part of an aid package at some point in time but not subject to any lifecycle replacement. So, while the penetration ability is certainly curtailed, it's still there if even at a reduced range.

Also, keep in mind that these PDWs need not be judged to the same stringency as an entry team and capability for rapid incapacitation. Historically, the standard for effective suppression against the average quality soldier is measured as rounds impacting within 1 meter of the target. Even if we have reduced armor penetrating abilities, I would argue that the high magazine capacity, high ROF, and crazy low recoil are still other substantive reasons for the use of these PDWs in their appropriate context. These PDWs need not accomplish the same thing as a carbine optimized for an entry team or infantry squad. They need to give a high ROF, low recoil and high ammunition capacity so the personnel in danger can get off the X.

Those attributes still give an armored vehicle crew, air crew, etc the best second chance they're going to get for what they need to do. The only other weapons systems in the same size as these PDWs are higher recoiling, lower capacity 9mm SMGs which won't penetrate anything, and LVAWs which are even lower capacity, even higher recoil, and have zero potential against hard armor. The new USAF GAU-5A is an interesting solution, but is a takedown rifle and takes a few minutes to retrieve from stowage and put together......not a great solution for a vehicle crew that might have just taken an RPG, MANPADs or mine and is in the process of bailing out with troops closing in, or is hopping out of the vehicle to forage, work on the apparatus, or take a shit. If the only option is a break-down rifle like the GAU-5A, it's going to get left behind.

[BWT]

My question to folks in the field would be.

Does something like a H&K MP7 make sense in that they have a big pistol they can optionally put a flush fitting magazine in and carry on a thigh make more sense? Spare magazines could be full capacity and extend past the body of the pistol grip.

Or does having 50 rounds in the P90 that can be pretty easily carried but probably a bit more off body when crawling around in a tank or something of that nature. It seems a single point sling is what’s used there which isn’t great for carrying tightly to the body.

What’s the group thoughts? Obviously 50 rounds is better than 20 or 30.

That’s where an MP7 shines over the P90 and vice versa.

[TGS]

@BWT I think that's the trade-off that was originally looked at on paper, but I don't think it has really played out that way. AFAIK most users of the MP7 in a way that is practically interchangeable with the P90 (stowed next to your seat as a vehicle crewman, or in a protective locked box for motorcycle police).

The holsters for the MP7 are pretty cumbersome, since the gun is rather large to carry holstered. The HK MP7 thigh holster reportedly costs $700 to the US LE market, if that's any indication of how widespread its use is; I imagine the price wouldn't be so outrageously high if it was in widespread use. It can also be carried as a shoulder holster or on the chest like how a pilot or hunting guide carries a handgun, and neither of those methods have really caught on. The AKS-74U was originally conceived to be carried in a thigh holster by crewman, and it was comically large and got ditched in the early years of the Afghan-Soviet war.

The only PDWs that I've seen which can actually be carried in a holster with any feasibility are the Russian PP-2000 and the B&T MP9. Here's pictures of the MP9 and MP7 being used in such a manner, you can see that even though they're miniscule size in terms of shoulder fired weapons, there's still a pretty substantial size difference between the two:

[rcbusmc24]

Either one would need to be slung. Holsters big enough to fit a MP7 don't fit in .mil equipment. Having shot both I think that I would prefer to have a P90 over the MP7, and that does have to do with mag capacity some as both designs are intended to be used to squirt bursts of bullets at targets. However, either would be preferable to being on the field with only a handgun for self defense. In no way would I advocate one as a replacement for a rifle, except as I have previously mentioned before.