Keep it Simple

Submitted by Eric Daniel

You know, it’s been said that the U.S. Army is the best equipped force in the world but I’m really more amazed by what we don’t have that other armies do than what we do have, or what we want to have that others don’t.

Take, for example, the four shot 25mm XM25 Counter Defilade Target Engagement System currently in the works (the XM25 is itself an offshoot of the doomed XM29 OICW thingie).  It’s supposed to be effective out to 500 meters against point targets, will have a built in multi-spectrum electro-optical sight, and will have the ability to individually program the burst time on the launched projectiles so that they explode behind or over the target, thus defeating any frontal cover the target might have.

Sounds good on paper, and I’m sure there’s no other Army out there trying to develop a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover, but the reality is, we haven’t got one of these either (yet, and I don’t see these getting issued soon either), and there are a lot of really simple weapons currently in service which could just as easily perform this mission. 

Rifle grenades:  What’s wrong with rifle grenades?  We, the American army, used the hell out of them in WWII and Korea, but they went away after that.  Were they not high tech enough, or was this one of those “no guns on jet fighters” decisions, where we decided that the types of wars we’d be fighting in the future would render these weapons obsolete?  There are any number of designs out there now that could immediately enter service with the US military as short range (<300m) anti-personnel, anti-tank (ok, anti-APC), dual purpose, individually fired munitions, yet we haven’t got any.

I understand that we have dedicated grenade launchers like the M203 now that can fill the role of the rifle grenade, but the 203 is an individually assigned weapon, and in the standard infantry squad there are only two (one per team) and in the Army’s table driven organizational scheme, if your unit isn’t authorized any (like mine) then you just go without.  With a rifle grenade, on the other hand, everyone in the unit has the capability of carrying one or two, and they can be fired by anyone (this capability would enable a commander to stockpile the grenades in a defensive position, or with a support by fire element, without disrupting unit organization by shifting grenadiers around.)

Shoulder fired weapons:  Next to the AK-47, the most common weapon carried by the insurgents is the RPG-7.  Introduced as a shoulder-fired anti-tank weapon in 1961, it is now the most prolific such weapon in the world.  What is the US equivalent?  The single shot AT-4 (M136.)  The US used to have a reloadable shoulder fired weapon, the M1-M20 series rocket launchers (a.k.a “Bazooka” and “Super Bazooka”) but the Bazooka was retired from service during the Vietnam war and replaced by the M72 LAW (tanks and the new ATGMs like the TOW and the Shillelagh would eliminate the need for a short ranged infantry based AT weapon) and later the AT4. 

While designed as anti-armor weapons, as the insurgents can attest to, they also serve admirably as “pocket” artillery, and what I wonder about is why we don’t use something similar. We have a number of similar weapons (the Marine Corps has the SMAW and the M3 Carl Gustav is in service with SOCOM forces) in our inventory.  The exclusivity of the M3 especially bothers me. Of a similar weight and size of the AT4, it presents a significantly greater capability in that you can reload it and you can fire a variety of munitions through it.  Again it would be a lot easier for an infantry platoon to carry a pair of M3s and 40 seven-pound HE projectiles than it would be to carry 40 AT4s.  Yet its use is limited to SOCOM, while the regular Army has to settle for the AT4.

Battlefield Illumination:  As a tanker, one of the things I missed most about going from the M60 to the M1 was the elimination of that 2.5 million candlepower searchlight.  Yes, I know the M1 had thermal sights and did not need a light source, but there are times where having a way to light up the battlefield is nice, like when you’re working with dismounts, who don’t have thermals, and you want to point out something to them.  Battlefield illumination, I think, has become a lost art. We have become so used to, or maybe even dependent upon, night vision devices, that we simply don’t do things at night if we cant see anything with our NODs (night vision, as you know, multiplies ambient light; if there’s no ambient light to magnify, they don’t work very well.)  We have a number of parachute flares of all sizes in the inventory, but few commanders, that I’ve seen, make use of them (no grenadier I encountered carried 40mm parachute flares and while most NCOs carried red star clusters for medivacs, none carried illum rounds, so if your unit did then I envy you.) One of the things I think folk forget is that the use of illum can have a significant impact on the enemy’s ability to maneuver.  If visibility is limited, popping parachute flares downrange can light up the battlefield, denying the enemy the ability to move freely in the open.  Unfortunately, flares are neither sexy nor expensive, so I don’t think the Army is very interested in using them.

Mind you, I’m not advocating the elimination of any existing weapon system.  All the stuff we currently have does, in fact, work.  What I would like to see though, is for us to expand our capabilities by add some existing low tech weapons to our arsenal to give commanders the ability to better tailor their firepower to the mission, rather than just do without until the wonder weapon we’ve always dreamed about comes on line 20 years from now.

Comments

[Eric]

Just read the army is looking for a new sub machine gun, I've heard the grease gun was a great weapon and cheap as hell (.45 ammo is already in stock) and reasonably easy to make (even in the garage). But like it says, maybe too simple an option.

[Jeff the Baptist]

"...and they can be fired by anyone"

This generally wasn't the case. Typically rifles meant to fire grenades were modified to shoot them with additional sights and in many cases reinforcements and attachments to the gun. So you still have the same problem as the M203.

[SKIPPO]

You should get your hands on an M-79. They are far more accurate than the 203, and can be used a mortar. I think the only group using them are the navy seals.
When I carried one as a grunt in I corps in 1968, I found it to be extremely accurate

[Andy]

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/RifleHandgrenades.html

Would this not fit the bill perfectly? Even just the telgren without the proposed mods.

[Eric Daniel]

Jeff, In WWII and Korea that was true. Now there exist a number of rifle grenades that can be fired using standard ball ammunition and without modification to the rifle.

[Jason]

It was my understanding that "Thumper" M-79 was replaced by the M203 for it WAS more accurate and usable at closer range

[CT_Woods]

You have left out the M-32 grenade launcher, which carries 6 40mm grenades in revolver feed. It was acquired by the USMC back in 2006; something like 2,000 or 3,000 weapons were purchased. Have neither seen nor heard feedback on how it has performed in the field, if indeed it has been deployed down range. Find an operator and get report!

[OldMack]

Rifle grenades were not only ineffective, virtually worthless except for illumination of a target for the anti-tank gunners armed with 2.36" or 3.5" bazookas. They were ineffective as anti-personnel weapons, required a crimped blank cartridge for propulsion--you had to load the cartridge in the chamber before firing the grenade, and not all riflemen were issued a launcher or the ammo, so there was only one Grenadier per Marine Fire Team. The M-79 was a more accurate and effective weapon in all respects.

That searchlight mounted on the cannon of the Sherman tank once proved its merit. During the Chicom counter attack on our perimeter on Hill 122 (aka Bunker Hill) my buddy and I were beyond the perimeter, dug in behind us some 50 yeards. A brave tanker came out, pulled the nose of his Sherman up into the draw to our right, shined his light on the enemy coming down the hill towards us and opened up with his coaxial .30 light machinegun. His light lit up the enemy withing hand grenade range, and we used our BAR and M-2 carbine to pick off those well lit attackers; their bodies were pulled closer and formed a berm around our shallow, prone foxhole. Soon after that tank withdrew, aircraft began kicking out parachute flares which lit the battlefield bright as day. What might have been a victory for them became a turkey shoot for us. (12-13 August,1952).

[Sean Valdrow]

All of you opposed to the rifle grenade as useful field weapon need to read up on the German rifle grenades used in WWII. Many of the later variants could be fired with live ammunition from the shoulder and were widely used in city fighting. And we need not resurrect an old bad system; we do have modern technology to design superior rifle grenades.

[Cat-Instructor]

I flipping love hearing/ reading you all talk/blog about things that are actually important!

What has our world come to today? When the only thing that matters is what the new fad/style is? When the most important thing is knowing what is going on in the stars lives, not caring about the soldiers dying for our country!!!

[Sandy]

When I was a SEAL plt cdr, my guys ALL carried a 203 (other than my M-60 guys)....this is a good suppression/counter-ambush technique, but it gives a lot more flexibility and redundancy in your weapons system. The HEDP rd is a great rd, and I carried at least 8 with 8 illum rds...my guys would carry more hedp as my job was command/control. Hope they come up with a replacement that has that flexibility.

[Will]

1) There is another army that is developing a weapon specifically designed to attack a target behind cover. The 30 mm cannon that will go on the German Puma infantry fighting vehicle will fire a round similar to the 1 for the XM-25. The 30 mm round is much bigger so the electronics don't have to be as small. The German round is therefore more likely to actually work.
2) FN has been selling "gas trap" rifle grenades around the world for years. They can be used with any ammo, even armor piercing. There's a tube in the center of the grenade that's sort of like an extension of the gun barrel.
3) The German PzF 3 is another alternative to the RPG-7, the Carl Gustav & the SMAW. It can be fired inside of enclosed spaces, which you can't do with any of those weapons.

[TAngo6]

I originally started a long, rambling essay that began on topic. Fortunately operator headspacing caused a button mis-push and it went away into thhe cyber ether.

The point at which I was aiming, I think, was that we develope things that work [at the time at least], maybe even fulfill an unforeseen need. However, when the emergency passes, possibly distracted by that ancillary use, we go off and invent something new instead of building on what we already know. Or, what is known by oothers, but not homegrown.

There are certainly folks out there who are smarter and more knowledgeable than I, as I am amply demonstrating here. However, there are several concepts at work -- which seem to be always ignored in the process: KISS; re-inventing the wheel; answering questions that were never asked, and; the law of unintended consequences. And one I believe Gen.Patton recognized: "The perfect can become the enemy of the good."

All we really need is something light, portable, deployable for use by a single operator -- remote control maybe better -- destroys only enemy combatants and leaves everyone else content. Even this probably wouldn't satisfy the hardcore pacifists, but we've come a long way so far.

I apologize if this seems to be going toward the sarcstic or the facetious, but isn't this all like arguing about "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." when we are being successfully engaged by an enemy just spittin' distance away from the Stone Age, who live in caves and can conterfeit your M4 on a bicycle-powered forge, make bombs out of fertilizer and triggers from our own cell phone technology?

If we don't start using the greatest weapon - the mind - the military-industrial complex will prosper right down to end of our civilization.

[Jim Harris]

One of the above posts said that the M-79 could be used as a mortar (true), but it was said in a way that implies that the M203 cannot.

Why can't the M203 also be used as a mortar? It's would seem that any grenade or rocket launcher could be so used. It's a matter of calculating and marking angles for shooting (even if just a marked sling), and practice. In fact, there are firing tables for machine guns firing 7.62 or larger ammo, and the technique has been known (if not widely used) since at least WWI.

[Jim Harris]

I hasten to add that I understand the issue with rockets and backblast, etc.

But our enemies solved that problem in SOmalia. They attached a tube to RPGs, so the backblast traveled along the ground. Then they used them to shoot down helicopters.

[Nitro]

Eric, I completely agree with your basic premise. The amount of time and money that we expend on the latest fad technology is ridiculous, when simple proven capabilities are available if we just adapt and use them.

A few minor points though. There are some modern rifle grenades, for example the Israeli Simon for door breaching, but they have one heck of recoil, so they are kind of hard to use. Still, we should have the technology to fix this.

On shoulder launched weapons I could not agree more. Having a lighter more flexible weapon, using proven technologies in a family of rounds, would be huge for the squad or company capability. However, again just a point of fact, the M3 Carl Gustav (MAAWS to the SOCOM boys) weighs a LOT more than the AT4. The M3 launcher itself is about 24 pounds, and that is with standard day optics and no laser rangefinder. Also, while some of its simpler rounds weigh 7 pounds, the other more effective rounds weigh as much as 10-11 pounds. So, ready to fire you can will looking at 30-40 pounds, a lot for Soldiers already overloaded with body armor, water, ammo, etc. etc. The SMAW is a much better choice. the current launcher only weighs 16.5 lb. Even more importantly, the USMC recently started a program to upgrade to the SMAW II. This launcher will only weigh 10-12 pounds and will include digital fire control, thermal sighting, and new ammo that can fire from inside buildings like the panzerfaust. All of this is being done with existing technology proven in other fielded weapons.

Its hard to understand why the Army is so married to their single shot disposable shoulder fired weapons. Its not like they don't field Javelins as a crew/team weapon, they could do the same thing with SMAW or M3.

[mod contracts]

I can only really echo the sentiments of the original article and what Nitro has said in the comments. Speaking as a Brit, im constatntly amazed that we are not equipping our soldiers with what are actually quite basic weapons, particularly in theatres such as Afghanistan - we need to become as flexible as the enemy.

[Eric Daniel]

Sandy, I would be perfectly content to have a 203 GL for my M-4. In fact, like you, Id like to see every member of my four man team equipped with one. Unfortunately, Im bound by the TOE that the Army came up for me, and that doesnt include any, so Im screwed. Instead, I think we were given a SAW, and the troop has a 60mm mortar section (what a dismounted recon troop, that doesnt operate as a stand alone force, is going to do with a mortar section is beyond me, but we do have one.)

[Eric Daniel]

Nitro, your points are well taken and thank you for commenting. I wasnt advocating for the M3 per se, but rather using it as an example of whats out there, and, as you point out, I would agree with you that the SMAW (or SMAW 2) would be a better solution to the pocket artillery needs of the infantry than the heavier M3 (though I believe that two M3s with 20 rounds weigh less, and take up less space than do 20 AT4s.)

My primary point was, the RPG is a prolific weapon system, and there has got to be a reason for that (namely its cheap and it works) and why is it that we cant come up with an equally simple, cheap, and effective system (hell, for that matter, I think the old M20 3.5 super bazooka, with modern ammunition (never mind the optics, thermals, and laser range finder) would be a viable option.) The closest thing we have to a common issue re-loadable infantry launcher is the Javelin, which, though very effective against tanks, weighs a ton and I think is a bit over-kill when all youre doing is shooting at buildings.

[Jls]

KISS is not a bad idea, conceptually; it can be taken to excessive levels, however.

RE: Rifle Grenades;

Bullet trap grenades allow for launch from the muzzle with normal ammunition; by deriving their stability from aerodynamics rather then rifled action upon their acceleration, they require greater relative dimensions. Also, there is a less efficient use of comparable amounts of propellant, due to the lack of enclosing chamber.

RE: Shoulder fired rocket systems

The AT4, M72A3 LAW, SMAW, SMAW-D, MAAWS, Javelin, Predator\SRAW, and Stinger all have their respective niches in our modern arsenal; their historical contemporaries had theirs as well. Its not a matter of them being deleted from the inventory, but that there niches are recognized and existent for a reason.

RE: Illumination for CSW's

Surefire Hellfighter, it is that good, it does exist, and it is an NSN item. My Company, last deployment, did test fielding on several different brands of field rugged CSW tac light systems. The Hellfighter was hands down, the best.