Grenades,both rifle and hand, and 40mm...

[V40]

The title says it all. I have been debating this issue of which two out of the three are the best for our Military for years and years. Proponets of the 40mm will always state out loud that it is much more accurate and it has a hefty punch to it. Some will almost go as far as saying she is better than the ordinary hand grenade (HHHHmmm, evidentley they have not seen the the UK's new grenade or the DM series from Germany).

To be honest with you, I have never been a big fan of the 40mm even with these new rounds that are either out already or still being tested. There is only so much you can cram inside these 40mm diameter rounds. The only other alternative is to increase the length of the device. I have seen a few companies have already done that (The name of one company escapes me). The problem then goes to weight. Back during Vietnam the M79, XM148, and the XM203 were all used to propel the tiny 40mm. If you were in the Marines you used a bunch of 6 round bandoliers that were in the form of holding the projectile donwards and were called Egg-holders by some, mostly Marines. The Army and the Air Force both used a vest that held I believe around 26-29 rounds. Now days it is considered eccessive weight in the heat of the Desert. So for are soldiers, they aren't issued them the vest to carry allot of 203 rounds for them to really make a difference. He uses his MOLLE gear issued, (no more A.L.I.C.E gear) and in order to get a few more rounds round holders for himself is either difficult to get or are they short of rounds to be used. I am not sure how or why the Government looks at it but I know for one thing, particulary with our military is that everything that the soldier needs in the battle like extra ammo, water and the superior radio is back in the Hummer. That has been going on ever since Desert Storm. One shot and the hummer goes up with a RPG or a hand grenade. SIDE NOTE: I asked a Lieutenant this past summer before he was going to Afghanistan what would he do if he runs out of ammo? His repliy was go back to the Hummer and pick-up more. I then asked him what he would do if his HUMMER became a BUMMER and was on fire and smoking. He couldn't answer then.

Now back to business as the way I see it. AND MY OWN OPINION ON THE FACTS THAT I KNOW THAT ARE TRUE AND ACCORDING TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT HAVE BEEN THERE, SOME AT LEAST TWICE with two of them being 203 gunners!

So I believe that now days a M203 launcher and around 11 rounds are the norm because everything else is either in the Hummer or it was that this one sodier was able to carry or worse yet the Government steps in and starts limiting your load like they did here with Hand Grenades.

40mm's

Pros and cons from what I see

Pro's

1) it is small and light in wheight
2) It has "Kill" radius of 5 meters
3) You can carry allot of them if you are determined to do so.
4) They do a good job at clearing a room, that is if your target window is facing outward and you are back far enough to allow it to arm.
5) They are equiped with dual functions now such as HE and hollow charge topackaged together.
6) You have to have either a seperate firearm or an attachment in order to launch one. Thus increasing your load.
7) It will take out lightly armed vehicles from a short distance and maybe take a few helicopters along with it.

Any more pro's?

cons:

1) It is awkward two carry your weapon with a 203 mounted.
2) the more rounds the heavier it becomes, naturally.
3) It needs a certain amount distance to go along with the certain amount of times it has to rotate in order for it to become "LIVE"
4) I'm not sure of this one though, so it should be both a pro and a con. The 40mm has allot of dedicated rounds for it. Anywhere from smoke to HEDP and illum rounds
5) The Flechette rounds weren't that great in Vietnam and...
6) Neither were the "Shotgun" rounds for itwhen it was used as a shotgun.
7) Some of them now have small micro chips in them that control performance.
8) How long before the battery(ies) run out or are fried.
9) They have a short maximum range when fired by 203 or similar sytem. Although they have a longer range thru a MK-18.
10) I have left room for more cons if I have missed some already?


More to come tommorrow,

the next topic will be about rifle grenades



V40

 

[V40]

The title says it all. I have been debating this issue of which two out of the three are the best for our Military for years and years. Proponets of the 40mm will always state out loud that it is much more accurate and it has a hefty punch to it. Some will almost go as far as saying she is better than the ordinary hand grenade (HHHHmmm, evidentley they have not seen the the UK's new grenade or the DM series from Germany).

To be honest with you, I have never been a big fan of the 40mm even with these new rounds that are either out already or still being tested. There is only so much you can cram inside these 40mm diameter rounds. The only other alternative is to increase the length of the device. I have seen a few companies have already done that (The name of one company escapes me). The problem then goes to weight. Back during Vietnam the M79, XM148, and the XM203 were all used to propel the tiny 40mm. If you were in the Marines you used a bunch of 6 round bandoliers that were in the form of holding the projectile donwards and were called Egg-holders by some, mostly Marines. The Army and the Air Force both used a vest that held I believe around 26-29 rounds. Now days it is considered eccessive weight in the heat of the Desert. So for are soldiers, they aren't issued them the vest to carry allot of 203 rounds for them to really make a difference. The soldier now uses a different system of load bearing equipment called MOLLE gear (no more A.L.I.C.E gear) and in order to get a few more rounds round holders for himself is either difficult to get or they are short of rounds. I am not sure how or why the Government looks at it but I know for one thing, particulary with our military is that everything that the soldier needs in a firefight like extra ammo, water and the vehicul mounted radio is back in the Hummer. That has been going on ever since Desert Storm. One shot from a rifle grenade and /or RPG's and the hummer goes up in flames. SIDE NOTE: I asked a Lieutenant this past summer before he was going to Afghanistan what would he do if he runs out of ammo? His repliy was go back to the Hummer and pick-up more. I then asked him what he would do if his HUMMER became a BUMMER and was on fire and smoking. He couldn't answer then.

Now back to business as the way I see it. AND MY OWN OPINION ON THE FACTS THAT I KNOW THAT ARE TRUE AND ACCORDING TO FRIENDS AND FAMILY THAT HAVE BEEN THERE, SOME AT LEAST TWICE with two of them being 203 gunners!

So I believe that now days a M203 launcher and around 11 rounds are the norm because everything else is either in the Hummer or it was that this one sodier was all he could carry or worse yet the Government steps in and starts limiting your load like they did here with Hand Grenades.

40mm's

Pros and cons from what I see

Pro's

1) it is small and light weight.
2) It has "Kill" radius of 5 meters
3) You can carry allot of them if you are determined to do so.
4) They do a good job at clearing a small room, that is if your target window is facing outward and you are back far enough to allow it to arm.
5) They are equiped with dual functions now such as HE and hollow charge (HEDP).
6) It will take out lightly armed vehicles from a short distance and maybe take a few helicopters along with it.

Any more pro's?

cons:

1) It is awkward two carry your weapon with a 203 mounted.
2) the more rounds the heavier it becomes, naturally.
3) It needs a certain amount of distance ie., so many rotations before it is armed.
4) I'm not sure of this one though, so it could be both a pro and a con. The 40mm has allot of dedicated rounds for it. Anywhere from smoke to HEDP and illum rounds.
5) The Flechette rounds weren't that great in Vietnam and...
6) Neither were the "Shotgun" rounds for it when it was used as a shotgun.
7) Some of them now have small micro chips in them that control performance.
8) How long before the battery(ies) run out or are fried.
9) They have a short maximum range when fired by 203 or similar sytem. Although they have a longer range thru a MK-18.
10) You have to have either a seperate firearm or an attachment in order to launch one. Thus increasing your load.
11) I have left room for more cons if I have missed some already?
More to come tommorrow,

the next topic will be about rifle grenades


I am looking at the modern day examples because I do not know anything about the WWI devices. So please be patient with me. The rifle grenade has been around for a long time and over this "long Time" it has been modified to near perfection. The Belgiums and the Israelis come to mind first. You could have your rifle grenade in any flavor you wanted. In the begining they used just the GLB/Ballistite cartridge but in the future it seems to be a bullet-trap R/G that would become the the greatest thing on the battlefield. In my opinion since everybody could carry some and with "Practice" could become deadly to light and sometimes heavy armor (by luck?). Some of my personal favorites are the: "Mecars, All of the Israelis R/G's, and the USA's versions. Janes's 1987-88 lists at least 10 different varieties made by IMI.

Building a rifle grenade from scratch you would use plastic, a fuze, some sort of fin section, a detonator assembly, explosive and either a hollow charge and/or a type of anti-personel device for greater effect. Using the bullet trap method there would no longer be a need to be changing the gas cylinder setting, remembering which cartridge goes in the chamber using a cetain magazine for the GLB's/Ballistite cartridge. Then when finished you have to remeber to turn it all back to normal to shoot. This way (bullet-trap) you just stick on the right lightweight rifle grenade and fire it at your target.

Or one could build a launcher around that Countrys main hand grenade so that it could be lauched further than it is thrown. Looking at these rifle grenades here in Jane's and comparing to some of them to grenades is a lesson in itself. More than %70 of the rifle grenades weigh less than their hand thrown relatives. Go figure. Plus, I'd rather have one rifle grenade that can kill within a 20 meter area than a 40mm that can only do it within 5 meters and some newer models up to 10 meters. Makes sense to me.


I was able to shoot practice 40mm grenades at a local full-auto shoot called the "Bulletfest" not to long ago. I was not impressed at all. Although, it was fun to shoot it and it is more accurate than I probably was with the 203 mounted underneath a M16A1. He gave me a round when we were done and I had said my many Thank You's to him and sat down about a 100 yards down on the line wating for my chance on the Ma Duece I began to think about that little projo and what she could do to me right now if she was real and somebody shot it near me in my direction. I couldn't justify her existence over a well made rifle grenade or a launcher that a grenade could be placed on. The enemy, if he should have captured a 203 with some rounds were to let go on where he thinks I might be, I might just suprise him from the rear of the building and drop one right on his face. One more member of the "Rifle Grenade Club".



THIS IS JUST AN EDITORIAL BASED UPON MY OPINIONS ONLY WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY FAMILY AND FRIENDS WHO HAVE GONE AND CAME BACK ALIVE.



WHAT IS YOUR OPINION ON THE SUBJECT?

 

[dano1917]

good reading

Great reading Mark. I was enthralled by the reading content. You editorialized it to perfection. Congrats. on great story...Dano

 

[V40]

Thanks Dano, I really appreciate it my friend.

 

[E-tech]

Got one more con for you-
It can be a pain to get the thing "up" in a turret with all the body armor and gear we have to wear- there is barely enough room for the weapon, and with the M203 on it, it won't fit in the racks the turret has built-in.

Solution-
There is NO "safety" device that keeps an M203 from firing when removed from the weapon (M4, M16, etc). Using some tubing or rebar, you can make a "pistol grip" for the M203, so you can bring it up faster in a turret, or hand it off to someone who has a better shot at the target.

Why use tubing and rebar when a few companies make a special pistol grip for the M203?
Cost- $500 to $2500 for a commercially made version!!

 

[gijunkman]

V40 Intresting thoughts, My only question is, Is the M16/M4 capable of sustained firing of rifle grenades? I know there were keeper springs that went behind the flash hider early on, but I am not sure about now. After pulling out my big blue M31 and fealing its empty weight, I wonder if the M16 is strong enough to launch a "modern" AT rifle grenade. I know that grenade techonolgy has improved since the U.S. issued it's last rifle grenade, but so has the armor of tanks and other such veicles. I do like the bullit trap design as it eliminates the need for a launcher cartridge. Anyway just some thoughts to add to this perplexing question.:tinysmile_twink_t:

 

[V40]

gijunkman,

The short answer about the armor (reactive armor, especially) is no. although you might be able score a hit get a "mobility kill (MK)" on the tracks on a tank using an old A/T rifle grenade, but now you would have a well armed pill box. Back in the 40's through the the 70's armor on a tank was still bare so to speak, and that made them vulnerable to to the A/T rifle grenades. Right after WWII the R/G for use against armor really came to age with advances in fuzes and piezo crystals and accuracy for good detonation of the grenade. The modern rifle from the USA was able to be used with R/G's was the M1 Garand and the M-1 Carbine (with very limited use) with the M8 R/G launcher on the end. The M-1 had the M7 series of launcher with which each succsessive model being better than the first with the culmination of the M7A3 for use during the Cold War.

On the R/G's useage on the modern battlefield the simple answer is yes, the M16 family with few exceptions can take it. The use of the "keeper spring" as you so stated can indeed still hold on to the R/G of today. Since then there were a host of modern changes to the M16 series rifle begining in the mid 60's for it to be able to launch R/G's without much damage to the rifle. I say "without much damage" becuase there were no real tests to see how many it could fire in a row to see when damage would start to occur. Even earlier tests acclaimed that the M16A1 could fire the Energa R/G with advertisements showing the Energa next to the rifle. False advertising maybe, then maybe not. When we changed to the M14 (which everybody knows what I think of this rifle) was supposedly well built enough to sustain in the field constant use of R/G's. In fact the Marines back then (Vietnam) are shown with WP R/G's on their rifles and even flares. The Marines came very close to adopting the R/G for many years to come. They were side tracked withe M79 and XM148 and the Army's willigness to try the 40mm. The Marines still wanted to hold to their R/G's as a supplement to the M79. Again, the 20 meter kill radius of the R/G's against the puny 40mm meter kill radius of 5 meters.

The R/G's useage would be excellent in the use of any kind of terrain or climates. I say this because it would be much better to use it in the jungles of SEA than the 40mm, wherby the heavier charged (explosive and framentation) of the R/G could still do more injury via concussion. The only problem with that is if you are under triple canopy jungle such as is present in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. If the usage of the M79 thru the 203 was excellent for the jungles in SEA then why couldn't the R/G do the same? I also personaly believe that r/g would be a better use as a mortar round instead of the 40mm. I am not saying it was better than the an actual mortar but I am saying is that the r/g with it's availabllity on the L1A1 and its gas selector or the M1 Garand, which was used throughout Vietnam by Indig and ARVN soldiers almost to the end of the war, were able to be placed on the issue launcher up or down the laucher for shorter range or all the way down for longer range. The angle from which it is fired can also determine range.

E-Tech,
I believe you on that subject of the mobility of the 203 in close quarters in such vehicles. The solution would be to have the designated r/g man to launch up through the turret to get the bade guy(s).

Now the Mk19 is a whole diffrent ballgame in its self. I see the only advantages to this weapon is rate of fire and range. A rocket assisted R/G such as the: " E-RFL 55 LR BTU M287 Mecar R/G" which has a range of approximately 650 meters can be even modifed length wise to have farther range by adding a more powerful rocket motor could make it closer in range to the Mk19. Plus one would believe that the Mk19 with its rate of fire can put multiple rounds close to each other to include a larger kill zone. Not by it's modern HEDP which takes away space from for the extra small explosive it could use, maybe just to gain another 1-4 meters kill radius.

Another plus for the rifle grenade is that of which we used in Korea and Vietnam. Adaptors for the modern grenade to which it can change from a hand grenade to a rifle grenade in a matter of seconds. There is not one grenade that I have ever seen that couldn't be fitted with an adaptor.

Again, I am in total belief that the rifle grenade can out do a Mk19 with it's limitations known. And I honestly believe that every man in a rifle squad should be equipped to fire a rifle grenade, and be equipped with r/gs in either a on their MOLLE Vest or thier rucksack. Say for example, one rifleman can carry up to 4-6 r/g's in their packs with some soldiers not prepared to fire one and have them as your true rifleman. Have another few have their rifles with r'g's with "bullet-Traps" for either immediate suppresive fire for in the defensive role whereby the enemy could ether be under trees or in the open. The reason for eveyone having to carry a of r/g's on their person would be that if they wanted to get into the action of an enemy out in the open and retreating. This could also mean extra rounds for the rifle grenadiers. Also, everyone should have the ability to launch if they choose to do so along with with the designated r/g men. I also believe that everyone on the battlefield be required to carry launch adaptors for their own grenade(s) so they too can be launched with minimal effort. This would give a rifle platoon and squad level Infantrymen to put out some serious hurt on the enemy and can be done under cover in a fox hole, behind buildings, over just an immediate obstacle, or fighting position. I would also like to see each r/g have a short delay inside to self destruct say after four seconds and no longer than that. It would also be equipped with a almost any angle detonator fuze which is very simple. In fact the rifle grenade could be made from the lightest of materials and using different size ball bearings for your fragmentation. Another feature of r/g's is that they
can almost be of any diameter and length within reason. You are not confined to 40mm that is 5-8" in length (the newer expeimental rounds). Israel for example has a 64mm in diameter r/g named as the BT/AP-APERS-HEAT. Even the HEAT-RFL-75 Super Energa has a diameter of 75mm. I also believe that are own M31 has either a larger diameter or at least close to the Iraelis diameters.

Everything I have stated so far, either facts and/or my beliefs are from years of personal studying rifle grenades and adaptors throught WWI through today and having me think that their is very little use for the 203 weapons system. You can have one present in a platoon or rifle squad, jee, maybe more, for pin point acuracy. The same you can do with a rifle grenade if the infantrymen has had plenty of training behind him/her.



V-40

 

[E-tech]

Actually- anyone with a -203 is usually never placed in a turret. The turret gunner is one source of heavy weapons fire, and a dismounted -203 shooter allows a (sort of) heavy weapon that is a LOT more maneuverable.
Having both the organic heavy weapons locked into one position is a bad idea- especially when an ied can take out the vehicle mounted gear at the very start of an ambush.
Your views on the Mk19 are dead-on. Here's why:
Just saw a house that got lit-up by a Mk.19. 4 HEDP grenades hit one wall (very tight grouping), and there were 8 people inside the building.
Only one was injured- he had some light metal frag in his face- nothing that took him out of the fight.
All we get for the Mk19 is HEDP rounds (there is a case of 32 of them within reach of my left hand as I type this)- and I HATE them!! what we need is a REAL grenade that throws frag!! or at least has the H.E. payload to cause fatal overpressures!! HEAT rounds are USELESS unless the enemy actually has armor!
The guys around here are tough- I've watched them stand in the open and calmly reload their weapons as a .50cal kicks up the dirt at their feet. Direct gun fire doesn't bother them. But, A Mk.19/M203 round or two lands within 50 feet of them, and they are GONE. (they also tend to favor recoiless rifles and HE rounds- got rid of a cache of 80 RR rounds a couple of weeks ago.)
The M203 is handy (I wear/carry mine like a pistol, though), but it is NOT the same as, say, an RPG or well-designed rifle grenade. Something bigger for both a HEAT, and simple HE effect would be VERY usefull out here.

A piezo-electric fuzed HEAT, and a graze-sensitive fuzed HE rifle grenade each equipped with a 5 second pyrotechnic self-destruct would be simplicity itself to field- all the technology is mature, and well known.
The self-destruct might limit the range of the rifle grenade in the indirect fire role, however (lobbing it like a mortar), but if you really need a mortar, you should have brought one. (guess what I keep in the trunk of the humvee?). And, as for the HE rifle grenade- will someone PLEASE show the US military-industrial complex developers the numbers on how much more effective pre-formed frag IS when compared to any other form of fragmentation control!!!!!!
(even my hand grenades are starting to irritate me- yes, they do have 165grams of HE, but all that does is throw metal frag the size of a grain of rice at the enemy- if blast doesn't kill him- he will still be able to fight!!! I now throw three of the damn things at once to try and get a 'cluster-bomb' like effect!)

 

[gijunkman]

V40, The bigest disadvantage that I see to firing rifle grenades off the M1/M14 is the need for a seprate launcher, M7a3 or M76. At least the flash hider on the M16 is 7/8" or 22mm so that Nato standard grenades will fit over.

 

[V40]

Your right on with that comment. But, we are looking to fire rifle grenades from the M16 series of rifles and maybe quite a few soldiers who could be issued in Afghanistan with one. I know that SF may be using a different type of rifle in .308 caliber. This was stated years ago during Iraqi Freedom. It was a DSA type FAL rifle. Again the 5.56x45 round in an M4 Carbine was not sufficent enough to strike targets more than 250 meters away. The m16A2-4 gives you a little bit more ballistics at 450 meters. You can still use the r/g retaining spring right behind the flash suppressor. Also, You would be using a "Bullet Type catcher in the r/g. There for no need for a rifle grenade to be fired by a rifle grenadier with a GLB anymore, he/she would use Ball, tracer, and aromor piercing rounds now. You will also have more kinetic energy for firing a round into the bullet trap. This is because of the energy produced at the end of the barrel and the bullet hitting in the catch and the gas that is directly behind the round giving more power to the r/g. This would mean that the r/g would have more distance than the 203 rounds. This is only therotechnical. Mind you in my opinion. I will have to get out the scientific books that can explain it better tonight.

 

[gijunkman]

I follow you so far, My experiance on this subject is limited to U.S. rifle grenades and launchers of the past. World war 2 to the late 60's. But I can see the need to fill the gap.

 

[V40]

gijunkman,


What was your experience during those days "WWII - Vietnam" ? What did you shoot as far as rifle and rifle grenades?