US sending tanks to Afghanistan

[Waylander]

There are lots of different engagement scenarios in Afghanistan because there is a lot of different terrain. The long range engagement is more typical of the mountain, high valley and desert areas of Afghanistan. But a lot of Afghanistan’s populated areas is what is called the “Green Zone” and here it is a highly dense, close terrain with lots of obstacles caused by the intensive agriculture. Walls, dikes, thick growth, mud brick farm shacks and the like abound and at very close proximities. In this kind of areas grenade launchers are very important and the enemy use a heap of RPGs.

The XM25 is just another grenade launcher. Compared to the 40mm grenade it sacrifices hitting power for accuracy (via velocity). I would prefer a MGL six shot 40mm with digital TA/FCS personally because of the more flexible and harder hitting family of grenades.

I know that especially in the green zone TICs occure on rather short ranges. But there again one faces the problem of very thick and sturdy mud walls. I just wanted to highlight that ISAF forces in Afghanistan face alot of problems which limit the usefullness of the XM.

I also wonder why it has to be a 25mm launcher. I can understand the Koreans with their 20mm launcher as they combine it with a 5.56mm AR but the XM is a standalone system anyway.
A 40mm MGL as described by you seems attractive to me, too.

 

[Firn]

A noteworthy article on the issue of the tank deployment

The small war council has also a quite interesting discussion about the XM25, just ignore Firns ramblings.

It is pretty certain that a great part of the usefulness of this system depends on the proper, accurate fuzing of the small 25 HEAB grenade and the effectivness of the said airbust. If it works out well, there is no reason why we shouldn't see a similar system for a 40mm grenade launcher, especially for a mulit-shoot system or a vehicle-born one.

A 40mm launcher with said system would still be able to perform a lot of important roles with the very widely available and diverse "stupid" ammo and goodies.

 

[fozz]

Well said Firn and thanks for the Articles!!

If they did adapt the XM25 into a 40mm version that would be a huge leap forward in the arena of launchers.

From all I have seen - the airburst has been very effect and the range and detonation has been spot on during all tests and evaluations. I guess we will have to wait and see when some field results come in.

 

[Waylander]

Making airburst capabilities small and affordable enough for man carried and crew served weapons is defenitely a huge step forward.

Bigger airburst rounds have demonstrated their usefullness, be it 3P for 40/57mm autocannons or 105/120mm APAM.

The same applies to modern TIs which finally got small and affordable enough to be distributed to platoons and squads without the need for them being vehicle born.

I have always emphasized the importance of modern TIs on AFVs and how vehicles which don't carry them will be at a severe disadvantage.

Do come back to Afghanistan. The TIs of the tanks in Afghanistan are an important part of the big picture.

The combination of 2+ TIs per vehicle coupled to the high accuracy and hitting power enables them to dominate an area like no other system and offer some important extra advantages to the fire support assets which are currently in place.

One can make an example of this by having a look at the coax.
The Leopards in theater feature MG3s as coax weapons. Nearly the same models like the ones used by the infantry or other vehicles.

But the fact that they are slaved to a FCS and very capable optics/TI while having the ability to deploy it fast under heavy armor protection make them much more lethal than other infantry or vehicle born GPMGs.
The same applies to modern IFVs. The CV90s, Marders and Warriors in theater offer this too up to a certain degree.

 

[SASWanabe]

An impressive weapon for a sniper, but not much use on the average patrol. Hauling enough ammo for an extended fire fight is real problem.

You also have to be acutely aware of the backstop for the target. Shoot at target in front of a mud brick wall with a 5.56mm round and it stops there, use a .50 BMG and you need to worry about what might be behind the wall, and often several more walls, and everything in between, as well. I read one report from an armored unit in OIF that claimed 120mm HEAT was preferred over the .50 coax when engaging targets in multistory apartment blocks because the damage usually stopped in the second room (i.e. the room next to where the shell detonated), whereas .50 BMG rounds would usually rip through 6 to 12 apartments before they stopped. Puts and interesting spin on the concepts of collateral damage and over-kill.

thats a good point, i remember hearing penetration for .50bmg AP is about 32" reinforced concrete at 1200m

 

[Firn]

Making airburst capabilities small and affordable enough for man carried and crew served weapons is defenitely a huge step forward.

Bigger airburst rounds have demonstrated their usefullness, be it 3P for 40/57mm autocannons or 105/120mm APAM.

Reliable and precise airbursts with the widely available VT-fuzes were one of the (many) reasons why the German army considered the US artillery to be by far the most effective arm of the (Western) Allied ground army. Airbursts can be indeed a huge improvement in lethality for HE warheads, increasing the effectivness (and efficiency) of the ammunition against certain types of targets.

 

[My2Cents]

Well said Firn and thanks for the Articles!!

If they did adapt the XM25 into a 40mm version that would be a huge leap forward in the arena of launchers.

From all I have seen - the airburst has been very effect and the range and detonation has been spot on during all tests and evaluations. I guess we will have to wait and see when some field results come in.

Airburst designs for the high velocity rounds used in the big auto-grenade launchers is ongoing. Not sure if any have been fielded outside of Singapore.

I believe that applying this technology to low velocity infantry launchers is more difficult because of:
1. The weight of the sight/rangefinder/control module. Which may be dropping to an acceptable value.
2, The low velocity requires more muzzle elevation at a given range, requiring an articulated sight mount to achieve the necessary accuracy. The final result might look a bit like a sextant.

I also wonder why it has to be a 25mm launcher. I can understand the Koreans with their 20mm launcher as they combine it with a 5.56mm AR but the XM is a standalone system anyway

The original design was for a a 5.56mm rifle combined with a 20mm 5 shot airburst grenade launcher in the OICW. But after reviewing performance during testing it was decided that and increase 25mm, which would use the same projectiles as the OCSW in a shortened case, was necessary. The OICW was eventually cancelled due to complaints about cost and weight (8.2 kg loaded) in the user trials.

South Korea is making another go at it, probably hoping that improvements in design, materials, and electronics can result in an acceptable weapon. Weight is down to 6.1 kg. It is apparently being field test in Afghanistan.

Australia is also having a go using a Metalstorm stacked projectile design for the grenade launcher. Not sure if the caliber has been decided, or if it will have airburst capability.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Airburst designs for the high velocity rounds used in the big auto-grenade launchers is ongoing. Not sure if any have been fielded outside of Singapore.

I believe that applying this technology to low velocity infantry launchers is more difficult because of:
1. The weight of the sight/rangefinder/control module. Which may be dropping to an acceptable value.
2, The low velocity requires more muzzle elevation at a given range, requiring an articulated sight mount to achieve the necessary accuracy. The final result might look a bit like a sextant.

Low weight sights for hand held weapons do exist and have for over half a decade and they have the look down field of view to support effective fire of lower velocity 40mm grenades out to range. The Australian DSTO trailed integration of TA/FCS with hand held 40mm five years ago with the AICW. Albeit using a slightly higher velocity 40mm grenade (95 mps vs 75 mps of standard 40x46mm) but the principal should work with lower velocity (though Milkor offer a 125 mps 40x51mm that can be loaded in the same chambers as 40x46mm).

Firearms secret projects
Reply #37 for more info on AICW.

There is no reason such a capability couldn’t be integrated on something like the Milkor MGL. The TA/FCS for the XM25 is available as a stand along sight for other weapons and there are a few airburst 40mm grenades on the market (Mk 47 has this capability).

 

[kato]

Rheinmetall is actually now offering a 40x53 HV airburst munition that can be programmed in flight - including from off-weapon systems, meaning you can effectively fire it from any pre-existing 40x53 weapon without modifications. In a ballistic application, a separate observer would even be able to program incoming grenades from multiple weapons for optimal burst pattern on target. Presented last month.

 

[My2Cents]

Firearms secret projects
Reply #37 for more info on AICW.

Whatever was there, I cannot see it.

Low weight sights for hand held weapons do exist and have for over half a decade and they have the look down field of view to support effective fire of lower velocity 40mm grenades out to range.

Including a laser rangefinder and automatic aim point selection (i.e. elevation)? The rangefinder is essential, providing the aim point less so, but airburst grenades are pretty hard to use effectively without it.

The Australian DSTO trailed integration of TA/FCS with hand held 40mm five years ago with the AICW. Albeit using a slightly higher velocity 40mm grenade (95 mps vs 75 mps of standard 40x46mm) but the principal should work with lower velocity (though Milkor offer a 125 mps 40x51mm that can be loaded in the same chambers as 40x46mm).

Was the test successful, or are they now looking at something smaller than 40mm for shoulder launched?

Trials do not equal success, or we would be using the OICW and OCSW in Afghanistan.

There is no reason such a capability couldn’t be integrated on something like the Milkor MGL. The TA/FCS for the XM25 is available as a stand along sight for other weapons and there are a few airburst 40mm grenades on the market (Mk 47 has this capability).

As I said, there are high velocity airburst rounds. The Mk47 uses high velocity grenades. The airburst version is the Mk285. You might check out the design of the sight, it weights over a kilo.

The question is not whether a design could be created for a working shoulder fired 40mm airburst grenade launcher, but whether it would be practical and useful enough to field. I suspect that the answer might be yes for a multi-shot design like the Milkor, but not for a single-shot under-barrel design.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Whatever was there, I cannot see it.

Sorry about that you need to be logged in to see attachments there. Because of file limits for .pdfs I have uploaded it here page by page and reduced resolution for the images. This article should answer most questions about his program.

As I said, there are high velocity airburst rounds. The Mk47 uses high velocity grenades. The airburst version is the Mk285. You might check out the design of the sight, it weights over a kilo.

40mm airburst grenades can be used in low velocity applications. Lobbing of grenades at high angles is no problem because the TA/FCS can be mounted on a pitch adjustable mount. Just like current red dot grenade sights.

The question is not whether a design could be created for a working shoulder fired 40mm airburst grenade launcher, but whether it would be practical and useful enough to field. I suspect that the answer might be yes for a multi-shot design like the Milkor, but not for a single-shot under-barrel design.

Quite a few users are working on such. The XM104 TA/FCS is being planned for quite a few 40mm single shot grenade launcher applications. This is to increase accuracy with PD grenades and enhance ISR. So air burst is just an additional integration challenge. The new Australian EF88 has a weapon electrical system and can be fitted with a TA/FCS and in the GL version will be able to fire air burst rounds.