Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Weapons of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Grenade launcher
bravoss    4/15/2007 5:13:29 PM
What are cons of the attachable grenade launchers? In units where soldiers can choose every part of their equipment how often is it used, are rifles mostly used with it or without it? What would be the reasons for not using it? Is it harder to shoot with it attached( 2 kilos attached under the barrel must have some kind of effect) ? What is the killing radius of a 40mm grenade ? Does anyone still use grenade launchers separate from the rifles such as M79 ? Thank you.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3   NEXT
mough       4/15/2007 5:26:48 PM
Con's: Added weight to the weapon, along with all the other gadgets you can attach makes it unwieldy, can be awkward to use effectivly in confined spaces, urban op's, can throw the rifle of balance effecting shooting

Pro's: It's alway there and ready, provides far more standoff range then throwing a grenade (Not even Arnie can lob one 150 metres accuratly), range of different muntions for different requirements ect ect

Lethal redius for a 40MM grenade is around 5 metres, your milage may vary


Yes some still use seperate grenade launchers, in fact the M79 is now being issued to SEAL's and Rangers again under a stand alone GL requirement, some guys prefer it to a M203 or the new M320 and updated one with rails for optics ect is under development.


 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       4/15/2007 8:45:47 PM
Anther con is accuracy, at least on the M-203.  There is a rather complex site that swings out on the left side, but I always found it hard to use.  There is a 'flip up' sight on top of the barrel shroud, but it is designed for only area accuracy at certain ranges.  You can use the rifle sites at short range for the grenade launcher, but the ballistics and trajectory of the 40mm round are very different from the 5.56 round, and you will soon find as you get farther away that the grenades are impacting much lower than your point of aim.  You will have to use a little "Kentucky windage" in order to get your rounds on target.  This is hard to do if you are trying to put a round through a window at ranges of one hundred meters or more.  This shortcoming can be alleviated through training, but it is still a factor.  I've always heard that the M-79 was considerably more accurate than the M-203, but a soldier armed with a M-79 would have to carry a rifle or submachine gun for close up protection. 
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       4/16/2007 7:38:53 AM
The grenade launcher seems to be popular mainly with the American forces, allies that use the M16s, and strangely Russia and China with their own GP 30s.

The rest or mainly european equipped armies (includes the Eastern european states that have their own version of rifle grenades that launch from their AK 47s) often have the option of using rifle grenades. now that there are newer bullet trap types which allow u to fire the grenades using normal ammunition (without the need for using blanks), these rifle grenades seem to be even more flexible than the M203 kind of greanades that are launched like mortars. Especially if u need to attack point targets, the flat tragectory is an advantage here. It will not affect the marksmenship of the user or require extensive modifications to the rifle. All u need is to screw on the bullet trap when u need it, after u launch it, u can immediately continue to fire the rifle as per normal. Not only for the user, it also makes it very flexible for issuing to the all rifle armed troopers as and when needed.

However, because the size of the grenades are not limited by a barrel, some of those grenades have now evolved with  range extending rockets motors and now weigh up to 1.5 KG or more and will be a real bitch to lug about. (I have seen some supposed effective anti tank rounds  almost the size of RPG7 grenades, well quite effective if your enemy is only riding around with T55s) But even the US army is looking in to these now, and should be deploying their own door breaching round for the M16.

I do recall that the M79 has a special buck shot round that was a real man killer, but I don't seem to recall this round being available for the M203.

 
Quote    Reply

Lawman       4/16/2007 2:23:07 PM
The main attraction of the 40mm grenades is in terms of weight, i.e. c.0.5lb, and the ability to fire at a specific target, which isn't practical with a normal hand grenade (not being point detonating). It is arguable that the mix of 40mm grenades and M72 LAWs could be replaced with a mix of 40mm grenades and rifle grenades (since you could carry four or five rifle grenades in place of one M72) for some purposes. It has long been felt that it is reasonable for most troops in a squad to carry at least one M72 (when they are actually available!), so it would be perfectly reasonable to have a four man fire team carrying two LAWs and eight rifle grenades! That is a heck of a lot of firepower, and yet only weighs in at about 20-25lbs, which can be carried easily by two guys in addition to their regular kit - add in a grenadier with two dozen grenades (which would only weigh about 12lbs), and you can put any enemy in a world of hurt!!!
 
Quote    Reply

Yimmy       4/16/2007 7:06:54 PM

but a soldier armed with a M-79 would have to carry a rifle or submachine gun for close up protection. 


Why?  Just issue them some fletchette rounds for close in fighting, which are far more effective than a rifle round.  If I were a section commander, I would much rather my grenadier be fireing grenades (and carry more grenades), than be wasting his time with a rifle, and so delivering far less firepower.  Equaly, if I were issued an M79, I would far rather only have to carry the M79, than juggle with another rifle in addition.

 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       4/16/2007 7:07:04 PM
 

 

The grenade launcher seems to be popular mainly with the American forces, allies that use the M16s, and strangely Russia and China with their own GP 30s.
Grenade launchers are generally superior weapons to rifle grenades, which explains their popularity and why they have largely replaced rifle grenades in well equipped militaries.
The rest or mainly european equipped armies (includes the Eastern european states that have their own version of rifle grenades that launch from their AK 47s) often have the option of using rifle grenades. now that there are newer bullet trap types which allow u to fire the grenades using normal ammunition (without the need for using blanks), these rifle grenades seem to be even more flexible than the M203 kind of greanades that are launched like mortars. Especially if u need to attack point targets, the flat tragectory is an advantage here. It will not affect the marksmenship of the user or require extensive modifications to the rifle. All u need is to screw on the bullet trap when u need it, after u launch it, u can immediately continue to fire the rifle as per normal. Not only for the user, it also makes it very flexible for issuing to the all rifle armed troopers as and when needed.
 
You have this backwards.  Rifle grenades do not have flatter trajectories than 40mm grenades, they have more arced trajectories and even lower velocities (simple physics -- take the muzzle energy of an AK round or 5.56mm round and apply it to a 500-1500 gram projectile and you just don't get much).  They are notoriously inaccurate and hard to score hits with, even with HE/Fragmentation projectiles.  Recoil of the things is such that one is usually supposed to ground the but of the weapon, rather than shoulder it, while firing. 
 
Poor accuracy is the main reason why rifle grenades have fallen out of favor with almost all users.  In the West you have the underbarrel or seperate 40mm grenade launcher, in the East you have copy-cat systems plus a preference to use RPGs rather than rifle grenades for sort of general anti-armor, anti-personnel and anti-everything else roles.
However, because the size of the grenades are not limited by a barrel, some of those grenades have now evolved with  range extending rockets motors and now weigh up to 1.5 KG or more and will be a real bitch to lug about. (I have seen some supposed effective anti tank rounds  almost the size of RPG7 grenades, well quite effective if your enemy is only riding around with T55s) But even the US army is looking in to these now, and should be deploying their own door breaching round for the M16.
 
The breaching rounds are about the only real application I see for rifle grenades where they are preferable to a 40mm system.  And even then, the rifle grenade is inferior to a basic rigid linear charge except in those cases where you can't get personnel close enough to emplace the charge -- but the rifle grenades are cheaper than training competent breachers in every infantry platoon and squad.  How you're assaulters are supposed to enter a structure when you can't get close enough to place a charge kind of eludes me . . .
 
I do recall that the M79 has a special buck shot round that was a real man killer, but I don't seem to recall this round being available for the M203.
 
It is still available, I guess, but kind of pointless.  It was only issued to provide M79 grenadiers with a defensive round in near ambush and other close contact scenarios.  When you've got 30 rounds of 5.56mm in the same weapons system, a low-velocity buckshot round is kind of redundant.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Horsesoldier       4/16/2007 7:19:37 PM

Anther con is accuracy, at least on the M-203.  There is a rather complex site that swings out on the left side, but I always found it hard to use.  There is a 'flip up' sight on top of the barrel shroud, but it is designed for only area accuracy at certain ranges.  You can use the rifle sites at short range for the grenade launcher, but the ballistics and trajectory of the 40mm round are very different from the 5.56 round, and you will soon find as you get farther away that the grenades are impacting much lower than your point of aim.  You will have to use a little "Kentucky windage" in order to get your rounds on target.  This is hard to do if you are trying to put a round through a window at ranges of one hundred meters or more.  This shortcoming can be alleviated through training, but it is still a factor.  I've always heard that the M-79 was considerably more accurate than the M-203, but a soldier armed with a M-79 would have to carry a rifle or submachine gun for close up protection. 



They've got a laser rangefinder/ballistic computer unit for the M203 now that addresses accuracy issues.  Kind of a PITA in some ways (kind of bulky, and the method of mounting leaves something to be desired), but does help with accurate fire.
 
Quote    Reply

Rasputin       4/17/2007 10:37:42 AM
Well there are a couple of new generation of bullet traps now, I am not sure if the American door breaching round is a bullet trap or a blank cartridge launcher?

Below is some mention of these newer generation rifle grenades, I have seen other pics where the rifle grenades require special sight attachements, though the claims below say that there is a direct fire range of 100m from some slightly older generation grenades.

Seems like the Israeli army does deploy rifle grenades and are sometimes used by other special forces as well. Though there is no mention of the Israeli army  currently fielding M203s (they might be doing so ) I chanced upon an interesting mention that the new Tavor rifles have been succesfully tested with a "Turkish" made M203 and "Singapore" made M203 grenade munitons.
http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/telgren2.jpg" alt="Many thanks to philip petersen for permission to use his photo of the grenades" align="left" hspace="15" vspace="10">
    
  


















EFP (Explosively Formed Penetrator) grenade. This technology has begun to be offered for RPG-7 rounds. The rocket warhead detonates about 30m after launch and creates a slug of metal moving at around 2,800m/s. Due to its short time of flight the projectile has a very high hit probability and is not effected by countermeasures such as RPG cages/Slat armour. EFP offers the infantryman considerable capability against Helicopters. This technology has been used for some artillery delivered sub-munitions but to the best of my knowledge hasn't been tried with rifle grenades. One Russian EFP round for the RPG-7 has a detachable segmented “splitter ring” assembly. If the round is fired with this in place the slug of metal is shattered into a shower of fragments for anti-personnel use. In effect this converts the round into a “Flying Claymore”.

        Alongside the designs suggested above a number of large-caliber rifle grenades similar to the Energa and Norinco Type-67 should be made available. These grenades typically are 70mm to 75mm in caliber and weigh between 1½ and 1¾ lbs. Fired by a rifle round they have a launch velocity of 42-75m/s, a direct fire range of up to 75-100m and a high trajectory range exceeding 250m. Penetration for the South African copy of the Energa is given as 375mm of RHA, nearly 15". The
Rhodesians often issued these to the point man of a patrol, giving him RPG level firepower during an encounter without the back-blast and added weight of a launcher.
        Such grenades have obvious applications for anti-tank ambushes in urban terrain where engagement range is often less than 100m. Destructive capability is similar to an M72 but the grenades are lighter and can be launched without back-blast or from confined spaces.
        Many of the more recent designs incorporate some from of rocket assistance or booster charge to increase range. An interesting possibility is to instead use such technology to reduce the time of flight of the round during short range engagements and therefore increase the chances of a hit. Being able to launch the round with a standard ball round rather than a ballistite cartridge would be desireable and it is possible that an EFP warhead could be used.

        Another form of Rifle grenade that should see wider use is the Israeli IMI ARG/AP-50. This is a form of "rifle grenade" that does not leave the muzzle but instead projects a cloud of flechettes. These have proved very useful for firing through chain-link fences erected to protect from RPGs. The 53mm calibre round weighs 640gms and fires 160 flechettes in a 10° arc with a range of 50m. Such a weapon would be useful for any situation where the enemy was likely to be encountered at close range. Carlton Meyer coined the phrase "Rifle-Claymore" for a weapon of this type.

 
Quote    Reply

andyf    idea   4/17/2007 10:49:49 AM
how about a metalstorm cartridge for 40mm gls?
say with 12 barrels with 6 bullets in each, electronics could be inside the base of the cartridge. some sort of 'duration of trigger pull' to control burst length
short range super smg power that you dont have to hump around a whole weapon for
 
i love the efp rpg idea, thats really clever.
i wonder if its possible to make the warhead of a manpads sam in a similar fashion?
 
Quote    Reply

smitty237       4/17/2007 9:46:14 PM




but a soldier armed with a M-79 would have to carry a rifle or submachine gun for close up protection. 




Why?  Just issue them some fletchette rounds for close in fighting, which are far more effective than a rifle round.  If I were a section commander, I would much rather my grenadier be fireing grenades (and carry more grenades), than be wasting his time with a rifle, and so delivering far less firepower.  Equaly, if I were issued an M79, I would far rather only have to carry the M79, than juggle with another rifle in addition.


I agree.........to a point.  Sure, the M-79 is most valuable when it is being used in its intended roll as a grenade launcher, but I was considering Murpy's Law when I suggested that the grenadier would need to carry a rifle or submachine gun.  The M-79 can be an effective close quarters weapon when loaded with buckshot or flechette rounds.  In Vietnam M-79 grenadiers often carried buckshot rounds in their M-79s while on patrol.  If the squad encountered the enemy the grenadier would fire a load of buckshot at the enemy, hopefully killing or wounded a few and giving the squad a chance to seek cover and regroup.  The grenadier would then switch to HE rounds.  The problem with the M-79 was that it was a break open, single shot weapon that took several seconds to load, which would suck if you're being overrun.  For that reason most grenadiers were armed with .45 caliber pistols.  I would suggest that they were be better served if they were armed with an Uzis or MP-5Ks, which over more firepower and range than a pistol, but are lighter and easier to carry than a rifle.  The whole purpose of the M-203 was to alleviate the M-79's shortcomings in this regard. 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2 3   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics