In connection with another article presently written, I will discuss separately the subject of anti-tank grenade launchers and their production. There were 2 impulses to compose this article: the subject of method dialogues on one- and multiple-time anti-tank grenade launchers for the Polish Army and what ISIS showed during the conflict of Mosul.
I'll start with the another one.
Islamic Armbrusty
The alleged muslim State during the conflict of Mosul praised the photographs of their peculiar troops, composed mainly of mercenaries and volunteers from Western countries. However, during the fighting, the most attention was paid to the anti-tank grenade launchers utilized by them.
At first glance these grenade launchers appear to be strikingly akin to German armored grenade launchers Armbrust. At the same time, the handle for these grenade launchers is very akin to that of the RGW series grenade launchers (-60 and -90). The fact is, however, these grenade launchers were produced entirely by Islamists of any origin probably. Iranian and Chinese, and they have very simple targeting instruments, as can be seen in the image above. Moreover, on each grenade launcher is its manual written in Farsi (photo below).
The quality of these grenade launchers shows that even terrorist organisations, specified as ISIS, can build weapons of this kind on their own at a comparatively low cost. Where is our arms manufacture in this regard?
Nowhere, due to the fact that it does not have the ability to make and manufacture specified weapons. Therefore, most likely many of you will comment on a common inequality.
Problems of Polish industry
The problem is that neither MESKO nor Desamet have the technology to manufacture the full rocket drive section for anti-tank grenade launchers. In return, both plants began promoting abroad constructions as future anti-tank weapons for our military - Desamet proposes production in Norway M72 EC and ASWMESKO offers German RGW 90 HH.
On the 1 hand, it is large that our plants offer ready and tested, and sometimes very innovative products, but on the another hand they should be scolded for lobbying (and this strongly) these products, alternatively of gaining the ability to produce the missing elements of the "contribution" (through a licence or cooperation with universities and investigation institutes) and - hence - to make their own grenade launcher. Moreover, WAT presented its own anti-tank grenade launcher concept in 2012, but seemingly no 1 was interested.
Also partially the blame for this full situation must be borne besides by the MON, which, not only did not show interest in this concept, it besides rejected the earlier manufacture proposal, which was modern ammunition for RPG-7. And so these grenade launchers are much more obsolete than could be, and require a very urgent replacement by a fresh design.
But erstwhile you criticize something, you gotta present your own solution. In advance, however, I do not favour this concept here above the finished structures.
The concept of a Polish anti-tank grenade launcher
Concept of Polish anti-tank grenade with rocket engine - 2012
In the context of this problem, a number of issues request to be addressed:
- Would that be a single- or multiple-use grenade launcher? - what caliber would that grenade launcher be? - what kind of ammunition should be developed for this grenade launcher?
Among them, the first is the most important.
As you well know, the Polish Army is equipped with multiple rgppanc-7 (RPG-7) and (in smaller quantities) Swedish Carl Gustaf M2. Additionally, the equipment of the peculiar Forces includes one-time RPG-75 and AT4, and previously besides utilized in linear units RPG-76 Komar. At the minute rather late (because on 28 April this year) the method dialog on "multipliers" was completed, and a akin dialog on one-off grenade launchers took place over 2 years ago. So there's a wanted product, there's proposals like the latest varieties of M72 LAW, RGW 90 HH, or multiple-time Carl Gustaf M4.
The basic problem is what grenade launchers we are to buy for both the Land Army and the Territorial defence Army to meet their requirements.
Very frequently in this respect, I met rather conservative also, that the successor of RPG-7 in the Polish Army must be a multi-use grenade launcher, and "one-times" are to be only a insignificant addition. I completely disagree. On the contrary - even I think that "multi-donors" are no longer essential for us, and that consists of respective crucial factors.
The first is the size of our line team. Its landing part counts 6 soldiers, with as many as 2 of them engaged in operation of RPG-7, and another 2 operating device gun. If we want to increase the firepower of this team, a much better solution is to replace RPG service by 2 soldiers, where everyone would be armed with at least 1 "one-time" device. The effect would be that 2 grenade launchers of akin effectiveness would be found on the linear squad alternatively of 1 grenade launcher.
The second aspect is the fast improvement of active vehicle protection systems (ASOP / APS), especially hard-kill, whose rule of operation is the physical elimination of an incoming missile. So far, the standard in soft-kill was that the strategy indicated the direction from which a given guided rocket was fired, so that the tank (or another armored vehicle) could respond rapidly to the existing threat. However, this property has besides been implemented in the newest American ASOP for the hard-kill, meaning that the vehicle being attacked can besides respond to threats from undirected missiles, i.e. for example fired from anti-tank grenade launchers. This means that the endurance of soldiers utilizing these weapons on the battlefield will drop drastically and they will request lighter equipment to change position or simply retreat as shortly as possible. In addition, it is crucial to be able to overload the ASOP, which simply means to be able to launch as many missiles as possible towards the vehicle being attacked. For this, one-off grenade launchers are much better suited, since a single platoon could have, for example, up to 10 specified grenade launchers, which could be utilized at the same time, while multi-use grenade launchers will always be around three. As you can see, with the aid of "onetimes" you can easy saturate the attack on a vehicle equipped with ASOP. In fact, in modern times anti-tank grenade launchers are mostly no longer effective against tanks - and this is the 3rd aspect. Today, specified weapons will be tested primarily against surviving force and reinforced targets as well as against lighter armored vehicles. This causes the main aspect of the grenade launchers to be their handyness and mass, not that it has as large a warhead as possible. Yes, grenade launchers will proceed to be utilized against tanks, but it will only be possible to attack them from the rear and lateral half-spheres. And inactive are manufactured stricte anti-tank grenade launchers specified as PzF 3 IT-600, RPG-28, or shortly RGW 110, but it is simply a weapon with a combat mass of around 15 kg, while the presently maximum recommended mass for this kind of weapon is twice as small. In addition, the desire to approach enemy vehicles at a distance of little than 300 metres (because this is usually the effective scope of modern RPGs) in conditions another than urban conditions with current tactics and technology is equal to suicide. Now it's time for the second issue, which is the size of the grenade launcher. Personally, I think a grenade launcher like this should be 90 mm. Why this one?
First of all, this is simply a rather common caliber - 2 of the presently offered grenade launchers are this caliber.
Secondly, in his case, there is the best relation between the mass and the capabilities of specified a grenade launcher. The 64 - 68 mm calibre grenades are very light, but are besides little effective against the previously indicated targets. Of course, for specified M72 EC Mk 2 is the declared steel armor penetration of up to 540 mm thickness, but these are already very advanced performance results (near 8.5 calibre), while the current accumulation cartridges in the 84 - 90 mm grenade launchers accomplish efficiency of 5.5 calibre so that there is simply a spare so that the efficiency of the head can be increased without expanding its calibre, which in the case of M72 is no longer very possible. Thirdly, we already have ready blocks to manufacture ammunition for these grenade launchers in the form of fresh grenades proposed by Desamet for RPG-7.
I'm moving on to the 3rd point, which is the proposed ammunition for those grenade launchers.
From the top - PG-7MT1, KO-7M and DG-7
To RPG-7 Desamet proposed 3 fresh grenades: - cumulative tandem (T-HEAT) PG-7MT1 with a calibre of precisely 90 mm - its estimated armor penetration was 500 mm RHA behind reactive armor - Cumulative fracture (HEDP) KO-7M with a calibre of 85 mm - this grenade was little effective against armored targets than tandem ( armor penetration was 200 mm RHA), but was much more effective against non-armoured targets - smoke DG-7 with a calibre of 80 mm, which was sometimes characterized by smoke from 3 to 5 minutes Currently, it would be possible to redesign all 3 grenades to match the aforementioned caliber and that they would be fired from the tube launcher. Moreover, the thermobaric warhead missiles are now becoming popular, which are very effective against reinforced targets.
Light rocket flamethrower MGK Bur
It is besides important, in my opinion, to replace tubes in grenade launchers. In most cases, the disposable grenade launcher is an integral whole, which means that after firing we get free of not only the pipe, but besides the starting mechanics and usually a simple sight. My proposal is to usage a solution coming from Russian Bura in this grenade launcher, which means that the tube is one-off here, while the launch mechanics is connected to the sight and they are reusable. This allows for much easier (and cheaper) production and modification of ammunition for these grenade launchers.
Like I said,
Before, a grenade launcher could usage 4 types of ammunition, i.e.:
- anti-tank tank with tandem cumulative head - for fighting tanks from the side and the back and lighter armored vehicles from all sides shielded with reactive armor - multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-use multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-use multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose multi-purpose - multitasking with thermobaric head - to combat non-palaced and reinforced targets - peculiar smoke
But it's not.
does not exclude that it should be extended to include further types specified as:
- a classical canister for combating life force - RGW programmable head
90 HH (HEAT / HESH) - to combat somewhat armoured and reinforced targets - with an agitation head - you know what to do
In addition, the set would be traditionally extended with a training head and what's more, specified a strategy would besides let the usage of a smaller-caliber launcher (64 - 68 mm), which could further extend the offer of specified a grenade launcher.
However, the problem is that usually disposable anti-tank grenade launchers have a maximum of 2 combat varieties (usually with a cumulative head and an additional shrapnel-burning one), which is simply due to the fact that the infantry squad can usage a limited number of grenade launchers. due to the conditions of the modern battlefield, I believe that the most common usage would be the HEDP missiles, to which would be added missiles with tandem cumulative warheads. What about the another varieties? Well, thermobaric missiles would in my opinion be perfect for sapper subdivisions as a modern replacement for flamethrowers with an additional capability to combat fortifications. Moreover, they could service as a second kind of ammunition (beside HEDP) on stabilization missions and front sections characterised by a deficiency or a tiny amount of armored weapons on the enemy side. However, grenade launchers with agitate missiles would be designed for peculiar sub-units dealing with typically propaganda. As for the remainder of the combat varieties, I think they could primarily be directed at the export market.
Summary
In the end, we besides request to resolve the problem of the kind of launcher. For anti-tank grenade launchers are presently utilizing both jet-free launchers and rocket-powered firing grenades. The advantage of jet-free grenade launchers is that they can be utilized in tiny enclosed spaces, but on the another hand they are on average 2 kilograms heavier than classical anti-tank grenade launchers. However, this dispute about which grenade launchers are better can easy be resolved through the solution I have offered. Thanks to it, the grenade launcher will be able to usage both rocket-powered and jet-free missiles. At first, a subject could be started with rocket missiles, possibly passing through time and acquiring skills for non-rejective missiles.
In conclusion, however, I do not believe that this grenade launcher must be a high-tech that would compete with the world's head. First of all, it should be easy to usage and very functional. As I mentioned earlier, I do not favour the request to plan this grenade launcher over buying a finished product from abroad. Besides, in order for us to plan and manufacture specified weapons, we request to get the ability to manufacture rocket propulsion components (and I fishy not only). However, it is not my choice to decide what all this would look like. But the expressed desire to construct our own anti-tank grenade launcher, and above all, the completed launch of its production will only strengthen our defence capabilities.
