Showing posts with label Hardware. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hardware. Show all posts

Thursday, 24 January 2013

Grenades grenades grenades!

Alright, back to some military themed posts. There have been a profusion of new hardware gimmicks making their debut on the market, which are aimed towards improving the effectiveness of grenade launchers. Some of these are major leaps forward in capability over what previous designs have been able to provide. Before we embark on studying all the specifics of this, it is worth deliberating over exactly what the true purpose of these weapons are in combat. While the role of traditional hand grenades has been portrayed as that of an area denial weapon, defining a space in which no human being would venture into (which has the useful ability to be safely thrown from behind cover), the handling of a grenade launcher clearly has different elements involved. For example, in order for the operator to acquire a target, he must partially expose himself and become vulnerable to counterfire. Additionally, the added size and weight of the grenade launcher entails a shift in weapon status for its wielder, from secondary to primary. While the greatly increased range and accuracy is a definite plus, the grenade launcher has moved away from its previous status as a risk free weapon of convenience.
 
Now, with that observation out of the way, lets have a look at all the innovative designs at our disposal. There is the milkor M32, metal storm 3GL, QLZ-87B, PAW-20, F2000, and XM-25. The latter two examples introduce remarkable new employment options. The GL1 grenade launcher (mounted composite with the F2000 rifle) features an integrated laser sight, which verifys the range to target. The user only needs to paint the 'object of interest' to activate the ballistic computer, which will provide him with an effortless firing solution: Elevating the grenade launcher in the direction of the target, he will be informed of whether or not it is at the correct firing angle by LED lights mounted on the sight. When considering the curved trajectory of the 40x46mm round, this will allow shooters to easily place shells into enemy dead space. The XM-25, on the other hand, provides the same ability through a considerably different process. Again using a laser rangefinder to determine the distance to the target, this time, the weapons ballistic computer will provide detonation commands to the fuze of a grenade in the chamber. It does this by calculating the number of rotations the round will make on its way to the target! Clever, eh? By virtue of the weapons flat arc, any grenades it spits out will explode at a distance that was pre-set by the user and computer (which, in most cases, would be directly above an enemys head). This allows the saturation of targets in foxoles and trenchs, even without the use of plunging fire (as the F2000 system does).

The QLZ-87B, PAW-20, and XM-25 are all multi-shot weapons, being fed from a stacked magazine in a conventional manner. The fact that they do not need to be reloaded after each discharge is a highly desirable feature. Unfortunately, the latter two examples make use of proprietary grenade calibers, which are small and limited in their potency. The former example, while using full sized rounds, is also quite heavy and inconvenient for a single soldier to carry around. This marginalises their applicability as a grenadier weapon, with the attributes to replace the workhouse M320. What is needed is a system that is fairly lightweight, can fire multiple shots, has an affinity for counter defilade shooting, and also fields the standard 40x46mm grenade rounds. These requirements rule out everything except for the milkor M32, and metal storm 3GL! The imposing EX-41 china lake model (which won so much acclaim in ralph zumbros book) would also be a prime candidate, were it not for the fact that it had a tiny production run, and has been out of service for decades. The question we now have to ask ourselves is, which model has the best characteristics for its role as a primary weapon? Lets go through all the specifics. For size and weight, the M32 is 32 inchs long, and 11.7 lbs in weight. The 3GL, meanwhile, is 30 inchs long, and 5.5 lbs in weight. This clearly gives it the edge, even though its magazine capacity is of three rounds, compared to the mikors six (the difference between three grenades and six is, after all, smaller than the difference between three grenades and one!).

 The EX-41, in all its glory. As paris
hilton would say... Thats hot.

However, the question we really need to ask ourselves now is whether or not the 3GL (in its current form) is worth the cost of acquisition? Although there would not be the difficultys with ammo incompatibility that are faced by the XM-25, it really doesn't seem worth it to go through the trouble of replacing the just recently introduced M320 system... That is, until, you take a look at the untapped potential the 3GL posses'. The metal storm technology this weapon is based on allows multiple rounds to be loaded into, and fired from, a single barrel. This is distinct from those designs which make use of revolver or magazine fed systems, which can be quite bulky when packing many full sized grenades. Additionally, the 3GL has been designed to be within the same tolerances as the M203/M320 and so achieves similar range, velocity & accuracy. It makes use of standard 40x46mm grenade warheads which are inserted into the metal storm ‘tail assembly.’ Again, this would make the system much more attractive to nations which currently use the standard 40x46mm rounds. The modern caseless propellant and gas seals developed by metal storm are clearly secure, and the electrical firing system is much simpler than the earlier efforts. The MS rounds basically use STK projectiles with a caseless propellant and gas seal unit affixed to the back, in place of the usual cartridge case.

With that being the case, there is a specific direction that this grenade launchers design could be taken in, to make it a truly worthy addition to our nations arsenal. Anthony g williams, in his article, some thoughts on metal storm, imagined a new type of grenade launcher which could take advantage of the MS propellant block and gas seal. This allows multiple rounds to be loaded and fired from a single barrel, making for a much more compact weapon than competing MGL systems. By using two barrels, with four rounds in each, it would be handier than the milkor, with a faster rate of fire, more ammunition capacity, and the opportunity to employ multiple different rounds at the same time. One option would be to keep the first barrel loaded, and leave the second free to hand load specialised rounds such as flare, smoke, or video reconnaissance types. This would obviate the need for the operator to employ a personal weapon, as they would have the capability to fire flechette rounds to neutralise point targets. Maybe this would be the opportunity to introduce those canister rounds that g2mil mentioned back in the day. You know, the ones which splinter into multiple segments so as to cover one square meter of space at a distance of 500 meters?

Actually, there are a large variety of special rounds that can be implemented with this design, which would make this double barreled grenade launcher a truly multi purpose weapons system. Even something as wacky as a HEDP round that can be guided towards a moving target through a SACLOS setup. But this is a topic best saved for another post. For now, our objective of investigating the best possible replacement for the M320 that money can buy is complete. The fire control system of the F2000 has especially interesting potential, particularly when considering it can be programmed to take into account the ballistic properties of up to six or more types of grenades... As a final note, just in case some people are still confused about what the squad mission of a grenade launcher is, it is enlightening to look at the results of the vietnam-era Infantry Rifle Unit Study (IRUS). According to it, the M79 pattern weapon was found to be most effective when employed as an area suppression weapon in the attack, but of comparatively little value in the defense. Whether a multi shot design like the EX-41 (which was in service at around that same time period) would suffer from these same weakness' is unknown. Only the future will tell!

Sunday, 16 October 2011

Band tracks

Band tracks

This caught my eye recently. I read about them on mike sparks notorious combat reform website. Its an interesting piece of equipment that has potential. I believe that all vehicles sent into high risk areas should have a strong off road capability, one that just can't be supplied by wheels. Even the humvee falls short in this requirement. [V] Being tied to predictable and exposed road networks, where the enemy can successfully ambush you with militia, is an embarrassing affair. Its what led to that U.S. convoy being destroyed at Nasiriyah, during the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, wheeled vehicles put their occupants at risk when driven into dead ends: Unlike tracked vehicles, they don't have the ability to turn inside their own length and simply drive away. No, these suckers are in a rut now, busy doing a 9 point turn under fire to get out of the tight spot - instead of hauling ass in the other direction. Seconds count in combat! In my opinion, no vehicle that exceeds 10 tons in weight should be using wheels: That a military faux pas. The stryker and LAV are liabilitys that should be replaced by either a lighter wheeled vehicle, or something in the same weight class that is tracked!

Benefits of band track technology

Following are recorded benefits relative to the T130 steel track based on M113 APC testing by TACOM/TARDEC at Yuma Proving Ground, and by United Defense at Pelham Range, Fort McClellan in Alabama.

* Weight - Reduced by approximately 50% of standard T130 steel track. * Cost - 10% less than T130 steel track. * Durability -4000+ miles. * Noise - Reduced by 6 dB (A), interior and exterior (reduction to level comparable to heavy truck). * Vibration Reduced by 30% (70% in actual field use). * Maintenance - Minimal to negligible. There is no periodic replacement of pads, no tightening of pin fasteners, no blocks to replace. * Road damage - Negligible - No metallic components to contact road. * Roadwheel life - Improved - Continuous running surface/non-metallic guides. * Low mass and inertia - Improved acceleration, improved braking. * IR/EM signature - Reduced. * Rolling Resistance - 17% - 35% less than T130 on hard surface. * Aggressiveness - Comparable to steel track; better in mud, snow, and ice. * Bullet-resistant.

Disadvantages of band track technology
There are currently some disadvantages relative to existing steel track, which United Defense/SII are working to mitigate. * Field installation is somewhat more difficult (currently, two soldiers can change a track in about an hour and one half). * Somewhat more susceptible to mine damage (mine resistance has not been yet incorporated into the design -this will occur over time). * There is a new repair limp-home kit that will require different procedures to employ.



[V] For the longest time, steel caterpillar treads served admirably in this capacity, equipping the primitive tanks which broke the deadlock of trench warfare in WW1, and setting the stage for a whole line of vehicles which would be based in its image. Now that something even better is on the market, we have no excuse not to adopt it.