Tag Archives: militariana

US Military Modular Handgun System Update: S&W Eliminated

Posted by

We’ve got some news on the US Military’s Solicitation for the M9 replacement.

First, a brief aside. I am extremely skeptical that this program will actually result in a pistol being procured by the US Military. There have been many, many attempts to replace the M16/M4, and all have failed. At this point, I’m pretty sure the carbines just start laughing at the attempts. So color me skeptical of this XM17.

See, a large part of the problem with replacing the M4 is that its really quite good. There are some perceived flaws, but it’s a great gun. It’s actually really reliable. And it’s in the system. Spare parts, armorer training, the whole lot. So when compared to a bunch of expensive “wonderguns” that don’t live up to the ad copy, or a bunch of slightly different guns that still shoot the same damn 5.56 mm round, it’s no shock that the M4 sticks around.

But what about the M9? Well, here’s my two bits, though it’s not really at issue here. I think it’s a fine gun. I’m also not personally a big fan1. I think the decocker/safety is in an awkward place. I’m not a fan of double action pistols. And you’re basically stuck with the sights its got, though newer models have rectified this somewhat, depending on sight availability. But that’s the opinion of one guy. Who’s a pistol shooter and pistol enthusiast. The M9 is mostly in the hands of guys whose job doesn’t involve lots of shooting. They don’t get a ton of practice with it. Changing the pistol isn’t going to change the fact that they won’t be able to hit a barn from the inside, and they won’t care about their pistols. Now, people who actually care about and frequently use pistols, the elite forces types, get enough training to make it work and have budget items to buy whatever they please. And really, pistols aren’t that important. Since the competitors all shoot 9 mm rounds, I’m not sure this is worth the effort.

But for now, the Army disagrees on that last point. Or perhaps they agree with my earlier point of disliking the M9. So they solicited a new “Modular Handgun” which was a really, really long document when compared to the FBI’s solicitation. We’ve learned one of the entrants has been tossed.

Smith & Wesson.

Now, part of me was surprised by this. S&W had partnered with General Dynamics Land Systems for its offering. And GDLS is one of the biggest American contractors, with lots of experience getting contracts in Washington. I thought this was a great business move for them, work with someone who has experience in dealing with the Pentagon. But it wasn’t enough. They’re out.

And now, time for some rampant speculation!

First, who might we expect in the downselect? Glock, of course. Especially after winning the FBI contract. Glock is the big, obvious, 800 pound gorilla in the room. They’ve also been selected by SOCOM, so those guys whose job involve lots of faceshooting seem to like them. I might also expect SiG to go far, and then possibly FN or Beretta, since FN is a big weapons contractor, and Beretta makes the current pistol. We’ll see from there.

Now, let’s talk about the S&W entrant, the M&P. I’ve got some time on an M&P40. It’s a solid gun. Of course, the US Army is interested in 9 mm. And the M&P9s have a poor reputation for quality control and accuracy at range (beyond 25 yards). Not all of the full size 9 mms have the problem, but that’s the rep they’ve got. Maybe there were QC issues with their submission? Maybe there were production concerns?

Note of course that the M&Ps come with a manual safety option, but the Glock, P320, and the Beretta APX don’t. Doesn’t really matter. It’s something that can be added if a competition demands it. I’m also not sure if that’s a requirement of the MHS, or something preferred, or if the US Military has moved on from that desire.

1.) It is, however, quite iconic. The Beretta 92 is the weapon of choice of many wonderful fictional characters, including John McClane, Martin Riggs, and the S.T.A.R.S. team.

Resurrected Weapons: LRAC F1

Posted by

There’s a relatively unsexy class of weapons out there that are critical, but don’t get any of the cool press of ATGMs. Behold, the humble rocket launcher/recoilless rifle. The HE Projector. They’re super useful, because there are plenty of targets on the battlefield that need a healthy dose of prescription HE, but don’t necessarily warrant the trouble of a guided round. Bunkers, for example, have a habit of not moving out of the way in time. These weapons are unsexy because there’s not a lot of room for whiz-bang gadgets. It’s a bazooka. Plain and simple.

A bunch of the use cases are conveniently used by disposable rocket launchers, like the AT4 or the M72 LAW. These tend to be lighter than the traditional recoilless rifle/unguided rocket launcher designs, and a lot less trouble. But they’re not reloadable. And you’re stuck with whatever round is in there; usually it’s a HEAT round. Which would be fine, except that these weapons aren’t going to punch through the front armor of a vanilla T-72, let alone a modern T-90 with ERA on the front. Other rounds might be more desirable. And here, the old recoilless rifles and rocket launchers still shine. Let’s look at one you might not be too familiar with: the French LRAC F1.1

The LRAC F1 is a reusable 89mm rocket launcher. The tube is mostly fiberglass, which keeps the weight down. It’s a 1970s-vintage design, but the launcher and sight weighs only 5 kg. This is very good, even compared to the modern versions of the venerable Carl Gustav recoilless rifle. The sight is a pretty simple fixed 3x optic with a stadiametric reticle. Gunner does his range estimation and chooses the point of aim by himself and fires. Pretty typical for this class of weapon. Rockets weigh 2.2 kg.

Available warhead types include a HEAT round, rated for 400mm of RHA penetration, which scares exactly no one these days. Oh well. We have Javelins for tank-killing. There’s also a HEAT-Frag Dual Purpose round, a smoke round, and an illumination round. These days, the most useful are the smoke round and the dual purpose round. The major use cases for this are first as a portable, short-range assault gun for infantry support, and second as a way of quickly throwing obscuring smoke a reasonable distance to break contact or hide an attack.

Rocket technology really hasn’t changed since the 70s, so the LRAC F1 is still a competitive system. Or it would be, if the French still used it.2 What changes would we want to make to update it?

Honestly, not many. Mostly produce new rockets, maybe integrate night sighting options. The launcher is plenty light already. The existing rockets aren’t very reliable anymore because of age, of course. Production should focus on the dual purpose rocket and the smoke rocket. Reformulating the smoke round to be infrared screening as well isn’t very hard, and would be very useful. Also, a thermobaric rocket would be an excellent idea. I’m a huge fan of the type. The tubes are rated for 130 launches, so they’d need to be made too. Pretty simple, and we can easily keep the cost down. No guidance system, no exotic materials. No gold plating.

There’s no good reason why the LRAC F1 can’t be successful on the arms market with good marketing. There’s plenty of demand for these systems, and not a lot of types that are still in production. Weight is a constant complaint, especially with the closest western competitor, the Carl Gustav. This does the same thing for about half the weight.

Verdict: Approved for production by the Borgundy Ordnance Procurement Board

1.) Also known as the LRAC 89 or the ACL STRIM.
2.) It’s been replaced by the AT4, a good (though somewhat limited) single-use rocket launcher, and the Eryx, which I’m not a fan of.

M2A3 Bradley Planned Improvements

Posted by

I’m on record as being a huge fan of the Bradley. But it’s a little bit disadvantaged when compared to newer designs. A large part of this is just the nature of upgrades. Newer designs have more headroom for upgrades than older ones. So while the Bradley still provides excellent firepower, and has enough multilayer ERA to get its protection up there with the rest, it’s now suffering from all that extra weight. Plus, it has a lot more electrical systems, which mean it needs more power. Which subtracts further from what you have on the sprocket for the drivetrain. Let’s see how Big Army is thinking of improving the Bradley.

Perhaps the most urgently needed and the most boring are the suspension changes. The M2(A0) Bradley had a design weight of 22,800 kg. This has gone up to 30,300 kg in the M2A3 version, and higher still with the extra applique reactive armor modules of the Bradley Urban Survival Kit. More weight means more load on a suspension that wasn’t designed to take it. Just like when you overload your car, this makes the Bradley sit lower on its suspension. This causes two problems. First, it reduces mobility across rough terrain. Basically, anything that isn’t a good road, you’re going to go slower. Again, you probably figured that out from your experiences in overloading your car. Second, and perhaps less obviously to those who drive, is that you’re more vulnerable to mines and IEDs. There’s less space underneath, and that empty space helps diffuse the blast. Clearly, we’d like to fix this. And so, top of the list of fixes is the suspension system. This means new tracks and a new set of torsion bars. This will restore cross-country mobility and ground clearance. It’s a much-needed fix, even if few people spend time thinking about torsion bars.

A quick side note. The US Army could redesign the suspension system and check a modern buzzword box or two. But why bother? Torsion bars work just fine. And most of the expected areas of operation are pretty flat. We don’t expect to spend the majority of our time driving over mountains. So hydropneumatics would be a waste of money. Ditto uncoupled running gear. Expensive luxury features aren’t worth the trouble. Those lead to budget kills. Smaller, more modest things are the sorts of things you can get approval for in today’s not-Cold War world.

Next up is the engine. Again, your experiences in driving will no doubt lead you to think that more weight means more power is needed. And that’s part 2. The original Bradley had a 500 hp engine. This was upgraded to a 600 hp model as a part of the M2A2 design. More weight, more power would be nice. I don’t have a model yet, but I’ve heard hints of and would expect a roughly 750-800 hp engine to be coming to Bradleys near you.

Next we come to optics. On the docket for the Bradley are the same third-generation thermal optics as installed on the Abrams as part of the SEP V3 package. This is another obvious upgrade. Have a single sort of thermal viewer across both vehicle fleets, only need to stock one kind of spares and train to fix/replace one kind of unit. Again, this means better visibility through smoke and dust.

We can expect an active protection system as a near-future follow-on. Big Army just hasn’t picked one yet. Again, smart money’s on Trophy. It’s relatively cheap, COTS, and proven capable of stopping things. Expect the Bradley to get what Abrams gets in terms of APS. This might come in ECP2, or might get rolled in before.

The other mod that I would expect is TOW-RF support. This enables the wireless version of TOW to be launched. It doesn’t affect compatibility with earlier versions. I don’t know how well it works in areas with heavy ECM. I would prefer a more modern missile, but this would be a positive step. On the other hand, this is a really small change, and I don’t have good information on whether it’s already being rolled out, part of ECP1, planned for ECP2, or planned on a separate roll out.

One thing I’ve heard exactly nothing on is any changes to the cannon. There were several proposals before Operation Iraqi Freedom, but the US Army appears happy with the 25 mm M242 gun in light of combat experience there. I see no reason why they shouldn’t be. Lots of other modern designs (with the notable exceptions of Russian things and K21), have pretty poor capacity for their primary guns, as seen in this handy table:

IFVReady CapacityCaliber (mm)
M2A3 Bradley30025×137
M2 – 30 mm conversion18030×173
CV90402440x364R
CV903016030×173
CV90357035×228
Puma20030×173
K2122440x364R
BMP-250030×165
BMP-350030×165
T-15/Epoch turret50030×165

Some notes on the above. I’m defining “Ready rounds” as “rounds from which you can fire without manual loading”, since these are autocannons. So the CV9040 gets the quick-access rounds counted as ‘stowage’, because someone has to grab them and refill the 24-round ready feed system (three eight-round racks). The K21 gets credit because the 200 rounds it has under the turret basket are connected to the gun via an automatic resupply system. So it has, in effect, 224 ready rounds with its giant autoloader-thing.

Note also that the Russians do not have any rounds stowed separately in any of their IFVs.

The K21 IFV

Posted by

And now for something a little different. Let’s look at the South Korean K21 IFV.

In a lot of ways, this is an old-school traditional style IFV. It’s lightweight, coming in under 26 tonnes. It’s even amphibious. That said, it has some unique construction features. To keep overall weight down given the protection level (which we’ll get to later), the Koreans use fiberglass for the vehicle structure. This is a first for a military vehicle. And while we don’t know a lot about the long-term durability of fiberglass in a military vehicle, it does keep weight down while not jacking the price up too much. It’s a good idea. The K21 also has two (presumably sectioned) rubber inflatable bladders under the vehicle skirts to provide extra buoyancy and stability in the water. This is much nicer than the giant canvas erectable overskirt on the M2(A0) Bradley. And, it means that the K21 can actually cross rivers, like the BMPs. And, just about nothing else these days.

Protectionwise, the K21 is built for the Korean peninsula. It’s got frontal armor against the 30×165 mm APDS threat that’s likely from North Korean IFVs. The rest is protected against 14.5 mm HMG rounds, and the roof is protected against shell splinters. This armor compromise was likely necessary to achieve amphibious capability, but it’s rather marginal by modern standards, as it lacks extensive RPG protection. It should work in the Korean peninsula, and that’s what matters. I don’t know how much more weight the suspension is rated for, so I don’t know how easy it would be to up-armor the K21. But if we can tack a whole bunch of ERA and applique armor on a Bradley, it could be done here, if we wanted.

Okay, I’m not a fan of the armor. I like heavy. But I do like the armament. The K21 has a 40 mm Bofors clone, complete with a modern MBT-grade fire control suite and full stabilization systems. Big punch. Optics for fire control are like those on the K2 Black Panther, so they’re excellent third-generation thermal viewers and modern laser rangefinders. The commander’s sight is, of course, fully independent. Note that the turret is a conventional, two-man affair. Modern MBT fire control with a big 40 mm autocannon? Yes, please.

Let’s talk a little more about that 40. The 40 mm Bofors round means you comfortably outgun just about every IFV in the world. Aside from a few tank-like things like Namer1, you can kill any IFV you want with frontal hits, and you can punch through any MBT’s turret side. Plus, you get a really big HE shell, and the good folks at Bofors have already developed plenty of advanced rounds for you, including the 3P (Programmable, Proximity-fused, Prefragmented). The downside of course is that the rounds are very big. This is the 40x364R mm round, and it’s a beast. Which means ammunition stowage and handling is a massive pain. In the CV9040, the Swedes have a triple-feed ready rack that holds a whopping 24 ready rounds2, and there’s 210 more in various racks with various levels of accessibility. The ready rack has to be topped off from the semi-ready-rack (which holds 48 rounds) by hand, and then the dismounts have to refill the semi-ready-rack from under the turret basket, where most of the rounds are stored. It’s a massive pain, but it’s workable. If the year is 1935, you can’t do better.

The South Koreans took a different, more modern approach with the K21. They still use the 24 round ready rack, but built an autoloader in the turret floor to replenish it. Underfloor storage is about 200 rounds. The system looks like this:

Neat, huh? Way better than that goofy ikea manual reloading process on the CV9040. This is a 40mm system I can get behind. This will actually let you keep fighting for a while, and with a really powerful round to boot. Be still my beating heart.

The K21 also has a 7.62×51 mm coaxial machine gun. It’s a clone of the M60D. There’s also provision for a two-tube launcher for South Korea’s latest ATGM, but I can’t confirm if these have been fitted yet. Or maybe I just don’t have pictures. This missile should be a lot like the Israeli Spike LR, in being a top-attack, fire-and-forget missile. I don’t know if the Koreans had Israeli help, Israeli licensing, built a copy themselves, or just came to the same conclusions Rafael did about ATGM design. Still, it should be a good missile choice. Much like the Puma, if the Germans would get off their butts and finish the integration already, dammit. Seeing as the South Koreans actually have proximate threats, and they spend Real Money on defense, they’re much more trustworthy on such matters. I wonder what ‘Get ‘er done!’ translates to in Korean…

The K21 does not currently feature any kind of active protection system. The Koreans are planning to integrate that as a follow up. Given the threat level on the Korean peninsula, I approve of this plan. Historically, programs that choose not to do everything immediately, and get a working, good enough version in the field and then add on extras tend to do better. There are plans to integrate a hard-kill active defense system on an improved version in the near future. There are also plans to try to reduce the weight further. All in all, this project actually seems well managed for once.

Dismounts are another area where the K21 shines. It holds nine. NINE! That’s a squad! How can they do this on a 6.9 m long vehicle? Simple, they compromised. Given that the most likely confrontation is a conventional war with North Korea, who’s not likely to bury giant IEDs, the South Koreans stuck with old-school bench seats in the back. They’re not fancy shock-absorbing, blast-resistant seats, but they’re more compact. So you can keep the protected volume (and hence, weight) down, and still carry an actual, usable squad of dismounts. Good on you, Korea! Here’s to real wars and not stupid COIN-y “police actions”.

A word on costs. The K21 costs $3.95 million. Given the electronics, this is a very good price. Almost like good project management helps you come in on budget.

There are some other variants out there that you might be interested in as well. There’s a “medium”2 tank version available with a crew of three and a 105mm low-recoil gun. Perfect for your assault gun needs. It also gives you something with a reasonable gun that can cross rivers with your infantry carriers.

So, what do we think? Well, but for the protection, it’s great! And if it had a hard-kill APS, it might be a reasonable compromise on protection, given that it can float. Armament is great, as is dismount capacity. We’d probably prefer to forget about amphibiousity and load it up with a modern, multilayer ERA kit like what’s on Bradley, and call it good. That gun system is really hard to argue with, especially when you add the ATGM capability. This thing rocks.

1.) Not technically an IFV, but you get the idea.
2.) I would call it a light tank, but medium tank probably looks better in the ad copy. It’s the same weight as a regular K21 and is just as amphibious.

Remote Turret: Russian Epoch

Posted by

We’ve spent some time earlier talking about remote turrets in our analysis of the Land 400 finalists. The German Lance turret is a pretty solid design. The Russians have a fancy new remote turret too. They don’t need to make a design with a bunch of different option s for export, so they settled on a somewhat different feature set. It’s in use on the T-15 Armata Heavy IFV and the Kurganets 25 IFV, so let’s take a look.

Unlike most other remote turrets, this new turret, called the Epoch, is pretty big. Russian big. It also contains a whole bunch of lessons from Russian experiences in Chechnya, as well as American experiences in Iraq. Epoch holds ATGMS, a 30×165 mm cannon and a 7.62x54R mm machine gun. And it’s loaded with ammo. The Bradley’s designers would be proud and jealous. There are 500 (no that’s not a typo) ready rounds of 30 m ammo, plus 2,000 ready rounds of 7.62x54R. Lots of ammo is good. The Russians have tended towards large ammo capacities, and just in case they had second thoughts, watching the American Bradleys go Rambo with their 300 rounds of 25 mm in Iraq convinced them that combining an HE firehose with staying power is aweseome. Reloading is for chumps. For the 30 mm, there’s a 340 round magazine and a 160 round magazine, and a dual-feed system for the 24A2 autocannon. We’d expect the bigger magazine to hold HE.

The autocannon and the coaxially mounted machine gun are both biaxially stabilized, and the turret is electrically driven. More interestingly, the Epoch is designed for high angle fire. This isn’t for indirect fire, this is because the Russians remember insurgents in Grozny hiding on the upper floors of buildings. That’s no place to hide now.

Additionally, the Epoch has provision for four Kornet-EM launchers, with two tubes on either side of the turret. I’m somewhat torn here. On the one hand, these are modern missiles, and four is the right number of missiles. More is better. On the other hand, while it has a relatively large tandem warhead, the Kornet is a laser-beam riding, SACLOS-guided missile that takes a direct flight path. It isn’t top-attack, and that’s just lame. Javelin or Spike would be better here. Even the newest TOW model, the TOW-2B, has an overflight top-attack profile. I really don’t like the idea of directly attacking enemy armor, now that the turret might automatically be rotated to present the strongest armor, and how light composite arrays and multilayer ERA arrays are getting. We’ve just had a nasty urban warfare campaign in Iraq which has convinced everybody to augment the side armor of their tanks. Time for some cleverness in your missile design, KBP.

The Epoch has two obvious sighting units, one for the gunner and an independent one for the commander. They appear to have day and thermal viewing units plus laser rangefinders. I don’t know the magnification levels, and I also don’t know how good the thermal viewers are. Historically, this hasn’t been something the Russians are good at. I don’t know if the sensors are quietly being provided by the French, or if the Russians have finally figured things out. This is probably not a dealbreaker though; as I mentioned in the T-14 review, it’s easy enough to change these out.

Moving on to other questions, the protection levels aren’t published, and don’t appear to be all that heavy. Probably good against machine gun fire and shell fragments, but not much else. This is acceptable, given that it’s unmanned. More protection would be better so a support fires kill by enemy IFVs is harder to achieve. It’d be hard to augment it much further given how many systems are externally mounted.

Overall though, this turret is a really good design. I like built-in combat persistence, and most of my serious gripes would be easy enough to work around. Here’s another good, modern design.

M1A2 Abrams SEP v3: Upgrade Time

Posted by

Well, the Russians have a new tank. And, for all its failings, the US Army is poking General Dynamics Land Systems for some Abrams upgrades to keep pace. Let’s see what they look like.

A brief aside: A separate program, and therefore not included in the SEP v3 upgrade package is a new anti-armor round. It’s the M829E4 round. It’s an APFSDS-T round, and it uses depleted uranium. It’s awesome, but very classified. Interestingly, I saw this a couple weeks after the T-14 was unveiled in a parade, which I find to be interesting timing. Connect two facts…

Anyway, SEP v3!
GDLS has added an under-armor auxiliary power unit (the UAAPU). It’s in the rear left quarter, replacing part of a fuel tank there. This should help with the inefficiency of the big AGT 1500 when it’s idling. Judging by the exhaust the UAAPU probably uses a very small gas turbine. It’s a good application for one, since turbines are small for their power and reasonably efficient under load. It should also help with providing all of the power needed for today’s fancy electrical systems. The UAAPU should provide enough power to run the turret (and everything in it) with the engine off. About time.

The SEP v3 also brings out the armor upgrades. The turret face and the front hull are better than they were before. How much better? Classified. Hooray for a new composite armor array though. I’m not sure if either section has gotten thicker, since I don’t have time up close with the SEP v3 and older v2 units. But the front armor is better now.

The Abrams has gotten some changes to its roof-mounted remote weapons stations. Tank crews in the field complained that the existing units tended to block their view a lot when the buttoned up. Also, they’re quite large, which makes going under bridges and things annoying. So there are new remote weapons stations that are lower profile and placed better to not obstruct the view as much. Happily, there are two RWSes as standard: one with an M2 for the tank commander and one with an M240 for the loader. I always approved of the number of machine guns on the Abrams. It takes advantage of that fourth man to operate another machine gun if he’s not slinging shells for the main gun. This is a big plus in urban areas.

The Abrams finally sees an upgrade to the M256 that lets it interface with guided rounds. There’s a new breechblock that can now perform this task. So integrating gun-launched missiles (such as the Israeli LAHAT) or airburst rounds can actually proceed. About damn time. The Israelis and the Germans have been able to do this on their 120 mm guns for years now. There are also plans to integrate a new airburst round to replace some other antipersonnel and demolition rounds that are currently in the inventory.

The thermal sights on the SEP v3 have been improved to be ‘third generation’ units. So they can see in both long-wave and mid-wave infrared. This allows for better images on the screens as well as better ability to see through obscurants like smoke or fog. Obvious capability win.

Finally, let’s talk about what’s not included: a new gun. It is not clear to me that the Abrams needs one, given the new round and the changes to the M256 to enable linking with smart rounds. They could deploy the XM360E1. They could also field a new 120mm/L55 gun, though this would require some upgrades to the stabilization system.1 If they’re going that far, they might wait to see/opt for the Rheinmetall 130 mm gun. We shall see. For the foreseeable future, I don’t think this is a huge concern.

No side armor changes have been announced. This is unsurprising to me. It is not feasible to provide protection from MBT main gun rounds on the sides. The concern you can do something about is RPG-type attacks, and the Abrams already has an excellent armor kit for the hull skirts and turret sides from the Tank Urban Survival Kit program.2 These systems are tough and combat proven. No more is needed. The TUSK program also added some optional belly armor to counter the IED threat. Again, more isn’t likely needed in the immediate future.

The SEP v3 still lacks active protection systems. Several are under evaluation, and may show up in a follow-on program. The US Army is particularly keen on Trophy, but there are also some promising systems from Raytheon.

Overall, this is a really good set of upgrade features, and there are more follow-ons coming. There are at least two engineering change proposals floating around out there. For once, this is a reasonably well managed program, introducing phased upgrades to keep an older platform competitive. Way cheaper than designing a new one, but it keeps the factories busy (and therefore open). Also, not trying to do everything at once keeps budgets under control and reduces the chance of the dreaded budget kill.

I would love to compare this to the German Leopard 2 improvements (2A8 anyone?), but nothing concrete has been announced. The US Army is doing a really good job of keeping on top of upgrades right now. These new upgrades should help make sure that the Abrams is a match for any tank out there. I’m also pretty happy about the lack of gold plating so far. Better knock on wood there.

1.) This drove the cost up too much back in the 90s when this was last considered. Back when there was no Russian threat to speak of. The US Army has been happy with their depleted uranium alloy rounds. Which tend to perform about as well as a similar-vintage tungsten-based-alloy round from the L55 gun, so maybe Big Army bet right on this.
2.) Specifically the XM-19 ARAT-1 and XM-32 ARAT-2 reactive armor packages.I’ll have a write-up as soon as I can get more information. There’s not much out there on these, especially on the newer XM-32s.

The Panhard CRAB

Posted by

France has a long history of building excellent, if quirky, reconnaissance vehicles. Reconnaissance vehicles tend to be small and lightly armed. But the French have always sought to use them as the heirs to the light cavalry tradition, and have armed their recon vehicles appropriately. In some cases, the result is basically a light tank. We’ll look at those later. Today, we’re looking at something quite a bit smaller but still well armed. Today, we look at the petite Panhard CRAB.

The Panhard Crab weighs eight to ten tons, depending on protection level. It is a 4×4 vehicle with some particularly interesting suspension and drivetrain capabilities. It has a crew of three, and a turret that can be fitted with a bunch of armament options.

The turret is designed to be modular. Display models have tended to have turrets equipped with the M242 25 mm autocannon and about 150 rounds. Also available is a turret mounting the M230LF 30 mm autocannon. Note that this is a variant of the M230 chain gun used in the AH-64 Apache. It is chambered in 30×113 mm, not 30×173 mm. Both autocannons are fully stabilized. Another available option is a missile turret. This turret can be configured with four launch tubes for the new French MMP ATGM or the Mistral MANPADS missile. Other missiles could probably be integrated with some extra funds and work. This is where the Crab might suffer a little. It would be nice if it could use the Spike or Javelin missiles. In any case, all turrets have a 7.62 mm machine gun (coaxially mounted for the autocannon turrets) and are unmanned.

The Crab has a few different protection levels available. The heaviest (STANAG level IV) is good against 14.5 mm AP rounds and 155 mm fragments at least 30 m away from the burst. This is a light, easily deployed vehicle. This protection level is pretty typical for a lot of small utility and reconnaissance vehicles. We’ll find a way to deal.

Most interesting is the drivetrain of the Crab. It has an active pneumatic suspension, so it can be lifted for extra ground clearance. Tire pressure is centrally regulated, which helps deal with soft or hard ground. Both axles are independently steerable, which makes the turning radius very small–the Crab can make a u-turn with a 5 meter radius. It has a 320 hp engine, giving a top speed of 68 miles an hour. Finally, it can actually drive sideways by turning both axles to the same side. This is as close to go-anywhere as you can get in a wheeled vehicle. The light weight will also help with ground pressure.

The Crab can accommodate 3 men. It has a battle management system, and comes equipped with all of the networking gear and radios to transmit information to other units. It also has 360 degree camera coverage, to help with information gathering or movement in any direction. Mast mounted sensor systems are also available. Optics or a short-range radar system can be mounted on a telescoping mast.

So what do we think? It’s light for Borgundy, but so are most things that have ‘telescoping sensor mast’ as a factory option. It is well armed, networked, and extremely agile. We’ll take the superlative agility and armament, since it’s as good as it’s going to get in the light reconnaissance vehicle role. Bonus that it resembles Halo’s Warthog vehicle, if that was designed for humans who don’t wear fancy power armor.

Mechanized Infantry Platoon 2: Experimentation

Posted by

Now that I’ve hit my monthly quota of Obvious Fishbreath Provocations, we can get back to our regularly scheduled theory posts.

I’ve talked about these before, and that was fun. Of course, that posited a CV9035 with eight man capacity. As you’ll recall, my original choice of IFV was for the Puma, with a capacity of six, and I’ve gone back and forth since. Besides, CV90s tend to get uparmored and loaded with stuff, with reduced capacities of seven or even six men. But let’s get back to the Puma. I’m still fond of it, and it’s still the best protected actual IFV in the world. It doesn’t really need to worry about RPGs of any type or DPICM-type bomblets. Yay. And it’s going to take the least amount of fussing to get the design pretty close to where I want it. At least, if I can get over the dismount capacity. So, what if we damned the cost (or accepted GAO’s estimates, which seem reasonable), and built our mechanized infantry platoon (‘Zug’ to you Germans out there) around the Puma?

We’re stuck with a six-man dismount capacity in the Puma. No changing it. We can get three eight-man squads with four Pumas. I think it might be easier to think of these as four smaller ‘squadlike units’ though, where each vehicle and its dismounts is considered a “squad.” At least for planning purposes. The infantry in the field can organize as they like. Thinking this way gives us a basis of issue of ‘per man’, ‘per vehicle’, and ‘per platoon’, which is awfully convenient. And it encourages improvisation. I’m beginning to think that on-paper squad organization doesn’t really matter too much, since there are so many good enough answers out there. And it is unlikely the platoon will be at full strength, anyway. So I’ll settle for a convenient planning conceit, and let the men in the field sort stuff out. They’ll certainly have enough firepower.

Further, there are many reasonable organizations for 24 men, and four vehicles is a nice cost/dismount balance. There are another twelve men who are vehicle crews, bringing our total platoon strength to 36 men. It is assumed by me that three of the four vehicle commanders are the platoon headquarters component1, though they can take which seats they like. I will also assume the fourth vehicle commander, plus the four gunners and the four dismount team leaders, are some flavor of NCO. The rest of the platoon can be whatever rank, but there’s our on-paper minimum NCO staffing level.

There’s a bunch of stuff that is issued on a per-man basis. Of biggest note to you, I’m sure, are: the helmet, the standard protective vest (which I’ll discuss elsewhere), and the carbine. Dismounts get a fixed-magnification optic.2, plus sling and NVG-compatible aiming laser3. Dismounts also get a night vision monocular4 and a radio (specifically the SRX 2200) to communicate amongst themselves if separated. The dismount element leader additionally gets a PRC-148 radio to communicate with other elements of the platoon, and a handheld GPS receiver (the PSN-13). Vehicle crews are issued an Aimpoint Comp M4 red dot and sling for their carbines. I won’t discuss ammo or numbers of grenades or number of rations here. There are lots. I chose a capacious IFV deliberately to let me haul things. How many? Shut uP. The P is for Plenty.

Before we get to vehicle-issued stuff for the men, let’s refresh our memory on the Puma. The Puma is armed with a 30 mm autocannon, a 5.56 mm machine gun, and a twin-tube launcher for the Spike LR. The Spike Launcher still hasn’t been seen on Pumas in the Bundeswehr, or at least, not in the pictures I’ve seen, but it is fitted to all of the various Lance turrets flavors that are out in the wild. So I’m stipulating it. The fittings are there. Additionally, the Bundeswehr Pumas have a 5.56 mm coax machine gun. Presumably this was to make weight for the A400m, and because of the stowed kills argument. Alternatively, I’ve heard space in the turret might be a problem. Anyway, I’d really like to see the stowed kills argument analysis, and if you could fit a 7.62 mm MG in the turret. I’m not convinced you couldn’t make one fit. To keep things simple, we will stipulate that the caliber of the coax match that of the dismount MG. So, for now, let’s assume it’s the 5.56 mm MG4, since that’s what’s in the design, and I’m trying not to go nuts with changes. COTS, remember? If the 7.62 mm coax is preferred after the above tests (and perhaps a blogpost of thought experimenting), give the dismounts the Negev NG7 accordingly. Of course, since the Puma does carry plenty of 30×173 mm rounds, we can use those against targets too tough for the 5.56. I think we’ll also see an increasing number of up-armored soft vehicles that would resist 7.62×51 mm just as well as the 5.56 stuff, so the difference may not be of concern in the future.

Anyway, each vehicle has an MG4 mounted in the turret as a coax weapon. Each vehicle has a second MG4 for the dismount team. Note that the dismount machine gunner also has a carbine available should he need it. This will help for building clearing. Again, each machine gun has a fixed power optic, a sling (with extra padding), and another of those night-vision-compatible laser sighting units. Note that the vehicle coax and the squad can share belts of ammo. And, only one kind of belted ammo has to be supplied to the platoon. We’re also keeping the number of belt-fed weapons down to keep the number of riflemen up in the platoon and “squad.” We still have machine guns in the vehicles. Plus, tests have shown that if a squad has multiple machine guns, it’s a lot harder to keep it in the fight as it takes casualties.

As noted above, the Puma carries a launcher for two of the excellent Spike-LR ATGMs. These are rather heavy. We’ll figure that each vehicle should carry at least two additional Spike-LRs, plus a tripod and command launch unit should the dismount team wish to use them, perhaps in an ambush. The weight of the Spike-LR and launcher is quite heavy, so we also figure that this is not going to be lugged around very much. Additional, somewhat lighter antitank capability, at ranges more in line with those of the rest of the dismount element’s weapons, is provided by a Panzerfaust 3 launcher, Dynarange sighting unit, and at least three Panzerfaust 3 rockets. Most of these should be the newer PzF3T rockets with tandem warheads, but the PzF3B demolition round is also very useful. In both cases, more rockets and missiles is better, but the above should provide a reasonable baseline. Additional disposable rockets like the M72A7 or the AT4 can be provided as needed. The Puma has plenty of storage space.

Each vehicle is also provided with a 40 mm underbarrel-type grenade launcher (e.g. the M320) and some grenades. I do love high explosives. Field reports seem to indicate that soldiers prefer having these with the little stock units attached, so their rifle isn’t super heavy most of the time. So let’s provide a stock unit with each grenade launcher. The option for independent use is there.

On to things issued at the platoon level. Distributed amongst the platoon is the following supplemental hardware: the PRC-150 manpack radio, two LGI F1 spigot commando mortars, and two 7.62 mm marksman rifles.5 The manpack radio provides a backup option for communication, useful if separated from the vehicles. The LGI F1s are easy for a single man to use, and give us some indirect fire options. Much cheaper and more convenient than that lame XM25. Plus, it actually works. Finally, the marksman rifles give us an option for a bit of precision at range. These items can be divvied up amongst the vehicles as desired.

So there we have it. I like this. I didn’t specify a table of equipment in my previous platoon post, so let’s compare with some real-world examples. I’m giving up two machine guns when compared to the standard US Army Mech platoon, and three 40mm grenade launchers. I have the three Panzerfaust 3s and two LGIs, which gives me some platoon level indirect fire and some very heavy HE projection. Coordination abilities should be similar. I also have the 7.62 mm rifles at the platoon level, which give some extra reach if desired. I’m taking a page or two out of a Russian Motorized Rifle Platoon book. The American squad has a Javelin, plus the Bradley has some TOW missiles. I’ve got a similar long range guided antitank punch in the Spike LR missiles. And I’m similarly high tech, with plenty of comms in the above table. One other thing I like is that the above TO&E is pretty adaptable to any other IFV I might choose to design around, including the Bradley, the CV90 (even the versions with fewer dismounts), or the ASCOD.

1.) I.e. Platoon Leader (a lieutenant), Platoon Sergeant, and Platoon Guide (another sergeant).
2.) E.g. an ACOG. I might go with a HAMR or SpecterOS though. Regardless, fixed 4x optic. I should write a blog post on this.
3.) E.g. PEQ-15, but I might find one I like more.
4.) E.g. PVS-14. I’ll probably go PVS-14 here.
5.) It occurs to me I haven’t picked a heavy rifle. It will be select fire (not that full auto with 7.62×51 mm rounds will be used much), and have some optic and a night vision laser. The optic might have more than 4x magnification. Basically something to fill a ‘modern Dragunov’ role.

Mightiest Warship, May 1941 Edition

Posted by

It’s commonly thought that the Bismarck was the mightiest warship in May of 1941, when she sortied with Prinz Eugen, sunk the Hood, was crippled by Swordfish torpedo planes, and then sunk by a vengeful Royal Navy flotilla.

However, this is wrong. Wrong wrong WRONG!

Okay then.
“Magic mirror, on the wall, who’s the mightiest ship of all?”

Well now. The magic mirror would tell us the tale of the legendary Billy Mitchell, and that airpower is superior. Proven when he took out the Ostfriesland with bombs. The aircraft has more range and more effective antiship striking power. It is the carrier that is champion of types.

But which carrier? Well, she must be active, and therefore must be commissioned. And clearly the two navies that had carriers worth noting in the Second World War were the US Navy and the Imperial Japanese Navy, so let’s look at those.

For the Imperial Japanese Navy, the mightiest flattop gal from the Far East is IJN Zuikaku1. Technically, the Kaga carries more planes, but both carry the same number of planes in ready, immediately flyable condition. No points for more stowed aircraft, which are disassembled. Plus Zuikaku has better anti-aircraft armament and thus better defense. She’s also faster, and speed helps generate wind over the flight deck, making takeoffs easier. Sorry Kaga.

For the US Navy, the mightiest flattop gal from the West is USS Enterprise2. The Big E. The Grey Ghost. One of three American carriers to be active at the start and survive the war. She had the biggest air wing in the USN in May of ’41.

Let’s get it on!

First, design compliment. Zuikaku was designed to carry 72 flyable aircraft, plus 12 disassembled spares. Enterprise was designed around a compliment of 90 flyable aircraft. The US Navy liked big air wings on its carriers, and to that end designed operations on using half the flight deck as a deck park, even during flight operations. So that’s points to the Enterprise.

A brief interlude. Many of you are no doubt wondering why I don’t compare the air wings themselves. The USN had the excellent SBD Dauntless dive bomber, the good F4F Wildcat fighter, and the outmoded TBD Devastator torpedo bomber. The IJN had the superlative A6M Zero fighter, the solid B5N Kate torpedo bomber, and the obsolescent D3A Val Dive bomber. I might also talk about the relative experience levels of the flight crews. But I won’t. Neither aircraft purchasing decisions, nor delays in production, nor failures to secure timely replacements, nor even how much time had been spent beating up on minor league air forces are the purview of ship designers. It isn’t reasonable to award or deduct points for things beyond their control. Besides, adding planes into the mix then brings up a question of doctrine, and the Japanese favored using float planes from cruisers as scouts. But the US Navy used SBD Dauntless dive bombers as scouts, which were embarked on the carrier. This will get very complicated very quickly if you’re trying to pick a winner from a hypothetical battle, as you might expect to be able to do if you were adding an aircraft comparison into the mix. Do we spot the Japanese some cruisers so they can scout too? Do we magically assume they can see the US Navy? Are we instead trying to make a hypothetical battle modeling of task forces, since these ships never travel alone? I should also point out that down that road lies the madness of trying to figure out how many fighters are on CAP duty/alert, and how many are in a strike force, and then comparing dissimilar types with unequal numbers. Lunacy. So I shan’t waste any more time discussing the matter.

Defensively, the best defense is the carrier’s own air wing. But that is not always enough. What about the guns? No points for antiship capability, of course. It is somewhat difficult to evaluate antiaircraft guns comparatively, so we’ll take as couple of proxy measures total throw weight per minute of all embarked guns in May of ’41, and AA Ceiling for the heavy AA. In my calculations, I will take the best rating I can find for sustained rate of fire, as a simplifying metric for comparison.

Enterprise had, in 1941, eight 5″/38 guns in single mounts, plus sixteen 1.1″/75 autocannons in quad mounts, and twenty four .50″ M2 machine guns. The 5″/38 is the best DP AA naval gun of the war. In the Enterprise’s pedestal mounts, these are good for about fifteen rounds per minute, with each shell weighing 55.18 lbs. So the 5″/38s give 6,621.6 lbs per minute. The Quad 1.1″ guns were less well liked, and were generally replaced with the more powerful Bofors 40mm as the war progressed. But that is in the future. Each shell of the 1.1″/75 weighed 0.917 lbs and the guns had a rate of fire of 100 rounds per minute. This gives us 1,467.21284 lbs per minute. The famous M2 Browning fired a round weighing 0.107 lbs at a rate of 550 rounds per minute. We have 24, so that’s another 1,284 lbs per minute. So in one minute, Enterprise’s AA guns can put out 9,372.8 lbs of aircraft killing pain. Maximum ceiling on the 5″/38s is 37,200 ft.

Zuikaku had, in 1941, sixteen 5″/40 guns in eight twin mounts, plus 36 25mm/60 autocannons in a dozen triple mounts. The 5″/40 gun was the standard DP heavy AA gun for the Imperial Japanese Navy. It fired 51.7 lb projectiles at a rate of eight rounds per minute, giving a total of 7,052.8 lbs. The Japanese 25 mm autocannon was a clone of a Hotchkiss design. Later in the war, the Imperial Japanese Navy would regret not developing something punchier, given how heavily built American naval aircraft were. The thirty six guns each had a rate of fire of 120 rounds per minute, and fired a 0.55 lb. shell, yielding another 2,376 lbs. So Zuikaku can put out 9,428.8 lbs of defensive firepower. Maximum ceiling on the 5″/40s is 30,840 ft.

So Zuikaku has a more powerful antiaircraft suite at this point in the war. On a raw points tally basis, that’s one point each, but we want to weight air wing heavier. That’s more useful for an aircraft carrier. The Enterprise was fitted with radar before the war. Zuikaku never got any.

So, overall, the Enterprise is the more powerful carrier. So she gets the crown of Most Powerful Warship in May of ’41.

Those of you who aren’t grumbling about me ignoring aircraft design are no doubt thinking “Fine, parvusimperator. But what about the old battlewagons? Surely Bismarck is the most powerful battleship in May of ’41. Yamato hasn’t been commissioned yet!

Wrong again.

“Magic mirror, on the wall, who’s the mightiest battleship of all?”

Battleships are a lot easier to compare than aircraft carriers. Pesky debates about aircraft don’t enter into it. Battleships fight with guns. Bismarck had eight 15″ guns, each firing an armor piercing shell that weighed 1,764 lbs. Well and good.

As mentioned before, Yamato isn’t commissioned yet. So her monster 18″ guns don’t enter the picture. And, my personal favorites, the Iowas aren’t done yet either. Nor are the South Dakotas or Britain’s Vanguard. What we have are treaty built battleships, and pre-1922 things.

Let’s start with which ships have 16″ guns? That would be the Nelsons, the Colorados, the Nagatos, and the North Carolinas. The Colorados have eight guns, and all the rest have nine. Of these, the North Carolinas are the only ones built after the end of the 1922 Washington Treaty-imposed ‘building holiday’. We might expect them to be better, being newer.

And for once, we’re totally right. The North Carolinas are not only the prettiest of the 16″ gunned battleships in commission in May of 1941, but they’re also the most powerful by far. The US Navy’s Ordnance Bureau had done a bunch of testing between the wars, and reckoned that heavy shells were best. As a result, when they went to design a new 16″ gun, they not only made the gun lighter and simpler, but also made the shells really heavy. The resulting Mark 8 “Superheavy” AP rounds weighed 2,700 lbs. North Carolina’s broadside is an impressive 24,300 lbs. Bismarck can only manage 14,112 lbs.

Discussion of armor protection is more complicated, and I’ll leave that for another article. But suffice it to say North Carolina does that better too.

There you have it. The mightiest battle wagon in May of ’41 is the USS North Carolina.

1.) Shokaku would also work here, and she’s the class leader and namesake. So perhaps the honor should be hers. But Zuikaku was luckier. And survived longer. Shokaku was damaged a bunch first, and sank first. So Zuikaku gets the nod here. Luck is important for a ship.
2.) Or Yorktown, who is the class leader (again, and namesake). But Enterprise is a legend, and the most decorated American ship of WWII. How could I not pick her?

Light Reloadable Antitank Shootout: RPG-7 vs. Carl Gustav

Posted by

It’s time for another head to head. Let’s look at two extremely popular light(ish) antitank weapons.1 In the blue corner, fighting out of Sweeden, is the Carl Gustav Recoilless Rifle. And in the red corner, fighting out of Russia, is the RPG-7. Let’s dig a little deeper into these two weapons and see what we think of them.

The Carl Gustav was designed just after the Second World War. It’s a recoilless rifle, which means it’s got a rifled barrel and it vents propellant gasses backward to counteract the recoil of the round. This recoilless principle allows for a relatively high projectile velocity of 230-290 m/s. This is twice as fast as an RPG-7 rocket, and allows the Carl Gustav to have a longer effective range against fixed targets. Available rounds include: HE, HEDP, HEAT, tandem-HEAT, illumination, smoke, programmable airburst, and flechette. Variants are available (currently for HEAT rounds) with rocket assist for a little more range, or backblast-reduction to allow use in confined spaces, like from within a building. HEAT rounds are rated for penetration of 400 mm of ERA; the Tandem-HEAT version is rated for 500 mm (plus neutralization of some ERA). This is not going to scare a modern tank unless you hit it from the side. It’s more than adequate for older tanks, or for lighter armored vehicles.2 The Carl Gustav has a caliber of 84mm, and of course, all weapons fired must fit in the tube. Since a reasonable first-order approximation of the effectiveness of a shaped charge is its diameter,3 this puts a pretty strong limitation on how much armor you can punch through.4 The standard version of the Carl Gustav is known to the US DoD as the M3 Carl Gustav, which weighs about 19 lbs empty. There’s also a shorter, lighter version, the M4 Carl Gustav, which weighs about 15 lbs empty.

The RPG-7 is somewhat newer, dating back to 1961. Interestingly, the tube is only 40mm, because it holds only the rocket motor. The warhead is fatter than the tube in most cases. This looks kinda goofy, and contributes to the weapon’s relatively poor accuracy at range, since the round is less stable. On the other hand, it means we remove a significant constraint on our warhead design. So while it will turn into the wind, which isn’t what you’d expect, we can fit some really big things onto the RPG-7 without issue. These include the tandem-HEAT PG-7VR rocket, which is rated for up to 750mm of RHA penetration. That’s actually starting to get dangerous for modern MBTs, though it’s still generally considered inadequate for the latest types5. This is a 9.9 lb. rocket, because you can’t cheat physics. Oh well–it means your light antitank weapon still has some bite in it if you happen upon things with treads. Lighter, older, HEAT rockets are also available, as is a fragmetation warhead rocket and a thermobaric warhead rocket. Finally, there’s an interesting bunker-clearing warhead that combines an explosively-formed penetrator with a follow up fragmentation warhead. Weight of the RPG-7 in basic form matches the lightened M4 Carl Gustav at 15 lbs or so. There’s also a Chinese copy, the Type 69, which cuts weight to 12.3 kg. And, if you actually want to apply modern materials to the design, there’s a US company, Airtronic, that’s made a clone called the Mk 777, which weighs only 7.77 lbs, or 3.5 kg.

So let’s break it down. The Carl Gustav has much better range. The RPG-7 (and it’s clones) are much lighter. The Carl Gustav has available Airburst rounds. The RPG-7 has available thermobaric rounds, which could be made for the Carl Gustav, but are unlikely because someone’s likely squeamish. The RPG-7 also has a tandem HEAT warhead that’s still decently formidable, and that’s not likely a capability to come to the Carl Gustav anytime soon. The Carl Gustav has rounds designed to accommodate confined-space operation, but the RPG-7 does not.

What’s our pick? This may shock you, but we prefer the RPG-7. We like theromobarics. We like having a light AT weapon that still has some AT punch left in it. And we like the lighter weight, especially if you’re going to take it on a long patrol. The Carl Gustav isn’t a bad choice by any means, but it’s a little outclassed by it’s Soviet competitor. Now, if range became a bigger issue, like in Afghanistan, then the Carl Gustav becomes worth its weight. But I think Afghanistan is an outlier.

For mechanized troops, for whom the weight is less of an issue, we still really, really like the Panzerfaust 3, since that has a proper antitank warhead on it.

1.) I’m looking at things that can be operated by a single person, and aren’t guided. Interestingly, guided weapon shootouts are a lot less fun to write, because the winner is much more obvious.
2.) This is actually true for the vast majority of light antitank weapons. There are a few (that really stretch the definition of ‘light’), including the Panzerfaust 3 which I wrote about here.
3.) At least, for similar generation designs. Also, I said ‘first order’ so some roughness is implied.
4.) You’ll notice modern weapons that actually are rated to defeat modern armor are significantly bigger in diameter than 84mm.
5.) This was about the armor penetration rating of the standard Panzerfaust 3 rocket. It has since been replaced by an improved model with a more powerful warhead for the antitank role.