"80mm mortar" is a slip of the tongue; they want an 81mm mortar. Also, in Army terminology, "Shoulder Launched Munition" specifically refers to disposable shoulder-fired launchers like AT4, M141 BDM and M72 LAW. These platforms are technically considered rounds of ammunition and don't include reusable weapon systems like the M3 MAAWS (Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle). AT4 is more or less a disposable version of the Carl Gustaf munition while the BDM is more or less a disposable version of the Mk 153 SMAW which the Marines are replacing with the MAAWS.
Ranger Battalion is a bit different in how they roll from the big army. In my company, the 320 is exclusively used under barrel. From what I've learned from other guys I know across forcecom, this is the standard.
The M72 LAW is extremely popular in Ukraine. They're going through hundreds a week. Killing armor with them beyond the states range and finding them very useful against a dig in enemy during the offensive. Just as the review in 2010 found it, it's still relevant and there should be at least a dozen in the back of every squad vehicle.
@@seeleagent They didn't really face many tanks in the middle east, and it wasn't worth wasting a $200k+ Javelin to take out a pile of sandbags with a DShK behind it.
M72 can still 1-shot anything "other then a tank" or it's equivalent armor-vise. So BMPs, BTRs, BMDs and MRAPs are all still valid targets and more numerous then any heavy armor.
Being a grenadier was the best! You only had to carry an extra 3 pounds usually mounted on your M4 and didn’t have to carry any extra bs that they made the rifleman carry like an unwieldy skedco. It was also so much lighter then the saw and the 320 makes an adorable “boop” sound when fired. This new grenade launcher sounds heavy af and you probably only have an m9/m17 as a backup gun.
@@norbi1411 nah, they gave me like 4 chalk rounds in the box and over in Iraq, I had like 6 hedp rounds. I had to borrow some rounds from another guy who got issued way more rounds cuz he was either issued or bought a belt. Usually just ran with molle grenade pouches on my iotv. Army gonna army bro. But I wasn’t about to complain, I liked being light.
@@someoneelse2472 being light. I already have back and knee problems from carrying heavy stuff. Ounces equal pounds and pounds. Heavy stuff slows you down and make you easier to hit.
@@someoneelse2472 if you're tactically smart, and use your ammo wisely (make it count), you don't need as much. I've won fights in Afghanistan and Iraq without even having to fire a shot. My unit got so good the enemy simply stopped fighting us altogether (much to the annoyment of my unit, as the guys wanted action). The enemy simply went after easier targets, units that didn't have their crap together.
in 2014 it was still infantry doctrine to actually get a hand grenade into bunkers after fixing with multiple weapons systems. if you keyholed a 320 round into a bunker, my platoon sergeant would buy you a 12 pack of beer. we preferred to carry the 320 standalone, typically on a single point sling because it made an m4 handle like a cinder block. EDIT: Mind you all, this was back in the states. Us ground pounder folks were pretty serious about attacking bunkers at the time and spent countless hours training that.
7:34 Isn’t this clip from an Ukrainian assault a few weeks ago? This video is hilarious - the gunner requests more .50 ammo, but gets handed rocket launchers 😂
He explained on his Instagram that they handed him the AT4 to clear out RPG infantry hiding in the houses they're assaulting. They had to suppress the RPGs before they give him ammo.
@@johnknapp952 Maybe not to give away the position after the blast had cleared? I mean, a rocket launcher on the ground might very well tell the enemy that's were you launched it from
If possible, I want to see the infantry composition of the Philippine Army and Philippine Marine Corps. It might be interesting since both are influenced by the US military, from ranks to the gear load out and infantry conposition.
@@scaucymancannotdiebaby7034, pain since the Philippines is one of the few countries who uses technical sergeant, senior master sergeant, and chief master sergeant for the army and marines. While the AFP uses the rank First Chief Master Sergeant as the rank for the sergeant major of the AFP.
I hope we can have more military ground and air support... we badly needed these kind of military hardware.. if our philipine goverment only knew the US MILITARY PULL OUT IN AFGHANISTAN.. AT LEAST WE COULD BOUGHT MILITARY HARDWARE AT LEAST AT THE HALF THE PRICE... LIKE HUMVEES BLACK HAWK HELICOPTERS AND M-4'S INSTEAD BEING USED BY OTHER FORCES... 😔😔😔😔😔
STAY AT HOME !!!! Full-Time/Part-Time POSTCARD Customer Service Data Entry Position Available now (Start as soon as tomorrow!) Pay: $16-35Hourly Monday-Friday GREAT FOR RETIREES AND YOUNG ADULTS No Experience Needed! We Train! Bonuses! Paid Weekly via Direct Deposit /Check depend on your choice Full Benefits, 5 Days work in a week.
4:57 one of the main "drawbacks" of the XM25 was that they kept exploding in soldiers hands because HK and General Dynamics absolutely screwed the pooch on the ammunition.
@@ahadubaraki7881 when the billion dollar propaganda machine of russia gets ass fucked by online dog fellas you gotta think whos really the failure here lol.
IIRC when i looked into all the XM25 stuff, it was taken out of service last time because of contract fuckery more than anything else. The troops using it liked it (taking into account drawbacks mentioned in the video). It could be a good addition. Also 1 per squad makes more sense, very situational weapon.
General Dynamics and DN partnered up to work on a weapon for the XM919 Individual Assault Munition program, specifically they presented the RGW90 Anti Structure Munition, and the RGW60 Anti Structure Munition during AUSA2022. The RGW90 ASM basically fits the bill. ~19lbs/8.7kg, 500m range with a sustainer engine, tandem EFP/Enhanced Blast-Frag warhead with light armor and bunker defeat, with long delay and short delay fuzing.
Interesting concept! Very cool vehicle -wish we had them when I was in! I was the Mortar Platoon Leader for 3/327th IN in Desert Storm. I served as the Battalion Mortar Platoon Leader for 26 Months to include Desert Storm. I joined my platoon in 1989 when we were fielded the brand new M282 81mm system. The HMMWVs we had we fitted with these racks for secure the mortar rounds, but they didnt work well. They were designed for just the rounds and not the containers we used to move our ammo. So my platoon demonstrated to the Battalion Commander and XO the issue and they let me remove the racks. Basically we could get the mortar squad of five soldiers, the 81s and our basic load per gun (72 rounds) into each HMMWV. The problem was always delivery. We always practiced either sling loading our vehicles or just rounds in A22 bags for dismounted ops. But when we got to Desert Strom, the aviators were concerned with the ADA threat and did not want to sling load the first wave in. We spent the months leading up to the Air Assault into Iraq trying to come up with a way to deliver our mortar rounds without the use of a sling load. The CH-47s were of limits because they had to take our TOW HMMWVs internally loaded. Our vehicles, with my Section Sergeant were going to convoy in with the Battalion Trains. That eliminated him and seven drivers. I had 29 soldiers in my platoon. That meant I had 21 Soldiers to bring in 4 mortars, 288 rounds of ammo, radios, etc. between two UH-60 Blackhawks. We decided 288 wasnt going to work. We could fit four camouflage net pole bags with ten rounds of HE each into the Blackhawk (seats out) with the mortars and all our gear. In the first Air Assault we did 90 miles into Iraq to take FOB Cobra, we loaded the pole bags, put a round each in our rucks and the mortar system and went in. We had about 90 rounds of HE when we landed with all our WP and Illum coming up ion the convoy. We dropped everything off the bird when we landed, set up the mortars within 300 meters of the LZ and then went back my squad to retrieve gear and rounds. Most rucks were two man carries! Estimated our rucks to weigh about 120+ pounds. I carried my own radio/KY57/spare batteries, claymore, water, etc. as leader of the Fire Direction Center in place of my section sergeant with the convoy. My Chief Computer took the Mortar Ballistic Computer and lots of batteries. And my Platoon Sergeant brought in the coffee! Great scene in the Band of Brothers before the jump on D-Day to describe what you really carry on initial entry operations! Love this channel! Thanks for great content!
Here in Hungary, the army bought Turkish "ejder yalcin" 4x4 MRAPs for this purpose and, together with Rheinmetall, converted them into automortar carriers. Rheimetall MWS120 ragnarok automortars were installed. This MRAP is thus larger than the one in the video, equipped with nato stanag class 3 armor and mine protection. The mortar is on top. After stopping, the firing position takes a few seconds, the operators remain in the car, it can be controlled from the inside, and it is also capable of fully computer-controlled 360-degree shooting. A few seconds after shots, you can go to another shooting position. When the mortar is not in use, it sinks into the machine body.
An Objective TOE isn't an MTOE. It's an updated Base TOE. MTOE is specific language (Modified TOE) that indicates a fielded tactical organization and its equipment tailored for general use given the equipment and troops funded in a given fiscal year. Every year a unit gets an MTOE update. Most years, there's little if any change to an MTOE. If there is, it means there was a TOE update (OTOE) and funds and equipment coming for that change.
Yes! Its crazy he hasent done a video on Israel yet. There are so many interesting topics. Their intel, their cyber, their airforce, armored core, iron dome, special forces, anti terrorist tactics etc.
The only overview you will learn if he did a video about Israel Is how they can find you and kill you anywhere around the world if you leak secretive shits about them
Things are a lot different today. I am 11c10 assigned to an 81mm mortar crew 76-79. The 81's were at company level. Battalion Level was the 120mm mortar, also known as the four deuce (4.2" Bore). My unit was Bco. 1/10 Inf. Weapons plt. 4 Inf. Division.
@@BattleOrder Yep means scorpion, but its not in service, it was tested in 2019 but it seems like the FFAA prefer the DUAL Eimos/Soltam Cardom over this one. Ukraine had 6 in service before the invasion, wonder how they fared
Thanks for covering the PGS system. They always forget the KISS principal. Lets make a single shot air burst weapon first, then worry about making a multi shot system. This would probably work on a muzzle launched grenade better , but you might be able to do with a 40MM. Get away from the electronics except for a range finder. Put a manual screw top cap range setter on it like on the Carl Gustav air burst round.
@@solarissv777 Eh, I think Rifle grenades have too much opportunity for things to go wrong in the fog of war. You have to have a rifleman carrying a mag full of blanks to launch the grenades, and it is way too easy for some sleep-deprived, scared-out-of-his-wits kid working in the pitch dark to either accidentally reload with blanks in a firefight or to shoot the base of his own grenade with a live round.
6:42 is this XM919 similar to the Matador used by Israel and Singapore? I know it has a mode where if you extend the probe at the head of the munition it turns into a HEAT round, and if you retract the probe it probably turns into something like a dumb HE warhead to bust doors and walls.
With the XM5 and XM250 along with the PGS , I definitely believe the squad size will grow to 11 men and also need to be restructured. Ammo and squad workload will be key in future tactics in closing with the enemy in combat.
Not necessarily, i thought the same thing at first. All the really needs to happen is add one or two more vehicles in a platoon. So go from 4 APC/ IFV to 5. Squads can and have been split up between vehicles before. Just look to the Bradley IFV. It was supposed to carry 9 man squad but routinely carry's 6 to 7.
The Matador/RGW 90? Sounds like ukrainians like them, ordered a couple thousand more after the german delivery. Another potential weapon is the NLAW; thats a swedish launcher actually designed to replace the (also swedish) AT-4. Its dual mode, and can apparently fight fortificatons too. Interesting part is that this has limited passive guidance.
@@termitreter6545 i don’t think the Swedes are replacing the AT4 with the NLAW. For them the AT4 is more of a mobile alternative to the Carl Gustaf at the squad level, whereas I think NLAWs are allotted as AT weapons in the form a weapons pool at the battalion level
@@BattleOrder Thanks, I did a double check and it seems like its a bit more complex. It looks like the NLAW was made on british+swedish requirements, and for the brits the NLAW was to replace the AT4. Not for the swedes, however. So... its kind of a successor to the AT4? Maybe? :D
Interesting point, US Army actually wanted a turreted mortar for its SBCT and ABCT, seem like they finally started thinking about more mobile indirect fire support after years of ignorance.
What the U.S. military really needs is a very light weight tank at 5-6 tons, 2 man crew, 30mm autocannon, 5 large switchblade drones, anti missile defense systems, rubber tracks, ability to swim, and speed of 65 mph on the highway. The Uk had a 7.5ton 3man tank they made 6 different versions one was called a Simitar. This tank could be used all throughout the military from support units to airborne, air assault, rangers, special forces, cavalry units, armored units, convoy protection. This would give every unit the ability to knock out tanks,bunkers, and fight their way out of ambushes.
60 mm Mortars are often given to an Infantry Platoon and several soldiers will be trained to use it. This frees up the 11c troops to man bigger guns at a company level. Usualy 2 120mm tubes per company. And 1 60 mm tube per platoon.
Everyone that was ever issued an XM-25 that I've ever heard talk about it basically had to have it ripped out of their hands they loved the thing so much. I think the Fat_Electrician is correct and main reason it was cancelled is because the "grenade" bit strayed too closely to being an "exploding bullet" legally and someone panicked at the thought of that.
Note that a COTS option for the grenade launcher concept is available, that is a do-able back fit to *legacy* 40mm GLs in inventory. Singapore has a clip on wireless control unit that can *automatically* program the airburst distance when the unit is used to lase the target for range (with a default impact fuze function in case you hit something en route to the airbrust range or don't lase the target; this can also be set to a delay function to provide a behind barrier detonation, as well as allowing the gunner to manually set airburst range), in conjunction with "smart" 40mm grenades that are 100% compatible with legacy launchers. If you fire the new grenades in legacy GLs without using (or having) the clip on unit setting the fuze, the "smart" grenades function just like legacy "dumb" grenades. So, no worries about troops having ammo they cannot use because they don't have the add-on range finder/fuze setter. If you fire legacy "dumb" grenades through a launcher equipped with the new clip on range finder/fuze setter, well, they work exactly the same way they always have. So, no fear of troops with the newly equipped launchers getting issued legacy ammo. Plus, a 40mm grenade is simply going to have greater effect on target than any 20-30mm grenade that uses the same explosive technology. And the increase is dramatic, both due to the cube-square law *and* the fact that the *fuze* is effectively a fixed space and weight that displaces available payload. Let's look at rhis: a 40mm sphere (the actual grenade portion in a NATO 40mm grenade is spherical) has 33.5cm³. If you have a fuze assembly inside the gremade that takes up, say, 10% of a 40mm grenade (3.35cm³), that leaves about 30cm³ for boomy goodness and sprinkles (the fragments). A *30mm* spherical grenade has a volume of 14.1cm³ to start with (less than half the payload), even before we subtract that 3.35cm³. A 40mm grenade has almost *three times* as much usable payload as a 30mm grenade construction design and comstruction. That translates to more penetration in impact mode with HEDP, and a larger casualty radius for fragments. Why go *backwards* and add a huge weight load, a non-interchangeable ammunition family, *and* eliminate one rifle from.every single fireteam, just to add a less effective grenade?!?
We already went through this discussion. Point blank range. 40mm is an indirect fire trajectory, it's hard to yeet precisely over a trench or into a bunker port.
For the problems in weight for the XM25, was the majority of the weight in the semi automatic grenade mechanism or something else? I doubt it was the electronics.
Both. Soldiers have combat loads of up to up to 30kg of gear. The XM25 weighs more than a rifle, the M320/M203 weigh significantly less and can be used in standalone configuration. The issue is, not all situations are appropriate for the XM25 to engage- Indoors, areas where collateral damage is a risk due to civilians, etc. As a result, the soldier ends up carrying a rifle and the XM25 at the same time so they aren't just dead weight in those situations- And as you might imagine, that impacts how much ammunition they can carry for both their rifle and launcher system. Costs notwithstanding. In an open war, it sounds like a good concept- But the reality is, soldiers are put in situations where they have to discriminate between what is and isn't worth an explosive round, and if it's worth the risk to do so- All at the cost of weighing the soldier down more and affecting how much ammo they can carry. More of a liability than an asset, and accordingly, shelved. A cool toy, but impractical to field. For times where an explosive round is needed, the much lighter grenade systems already in place do the same job.
@@steingrenadier5511 That’s not my question. My question is what makes the XM25 weigh so much? The ammunition, the semi automatic mechanism, electronics that allow the smart fuse to be set?
@@stutterfly4722 I literally gave you the answer. It's the entire system. It's not individual components in a system, it's the fact you have to take the entire system AND the rifle to be combat-effective. As you might imagine, carrying a two whole weapons and the associated ammo makes the thing heavy for the soldier. As for why they would need both a rifle and the XM25, refer to my 1st reply.
@@steingrenadier5511 That’s still not what I’m asking. The thing weighs 14 pounds empty. How much of that total is each component of the weapon system has been my question from the very beginning. You keep answering a question I never asked.
I don't know why they don't take inspiration from the Germans and the SdKfz 250/7. It's a mortar mounted directed onto a highly mobile vehicle. No need to dismount and a escape can be made immediately if needed.
lobbing a grenade with a launcher from the hip without sights is surprisingly intuitive with a little practice. guys were putting them through car windows at 400m from the hip with only a little practice.
@@stevenmike1878 Have you never seen the M32 grenade launcher? Military issue. 6 shots. Also, the thing that got most guys lobbing grenades with incredible accuracy from the hip in my unit was when one Sgt described it like throwing a baseball. you learn the arc much the same way you throw a baseball. lots of guys got it after that. You can watch the grenades flying through the air like baseballs too, and that really helps. Less likely to see it fly when looking down the sights.
@@SoloRenegade i was thinking something thin and less chonky. revolver is sweet and simple but thicc. i was thinking something thin and 3 shots. if you miss hit to far. hit to close. third one should be just right. minus the reload for every shot. lol ive heard a lotta stories kinda like that, on that third shot, 2nd reload you kinda cant miss or you look like a jackass in front of everyone. especially after all that reload time. 🤣
From a story I heard, the xm25 use was halted after a troop in Afghanistan had a round blow up shortly after firing it. Lucky the dude survived. What air defense do?
Pretty interesting video. Can’t believe the old XM29 reappears. The fish like XM8 carbine portion of that system is one of my all time favourite failures.
Ok, I know they reorganized the 82nd after I left in 2004, but we used to heavy drop the 105s as part of the main assault. They would actually register the guns on the DZ as the rest of us were assembling.
There is the Matador developed by Israel that can meet the IAM's requirements. 90mm in calibre and has dual modes for Anti armor and anti structure. Works rather effectively so far.
The 81mm BMS would be an ideal use for the precision guided 81mm mortar munitions currently in active development around the world. These rounds are much more expensive, but if you can destroy a target with 2 or 3 rounds rather than 20 or 30, the costs per target destroyed is probably about the same. But much more important during the initial assault where units likely will need to operate without resupply for a period of time, they can be much more lethal for their fixed number of rounds. There are GPS and laser guided 120mm mortar rounds already in service. The continued miniaturization of electronics is making it possible to add this capability to 81mm rounds, and at least two system have already been demonstrated. Most of these systems have used GPS guidance, since it is slow not to mention dangerous to try to get a forward observer to within line of sight of the target in order to designate it with a laser. However, as we have seen in Ukraine, even small hobby UAVs add an enormous capability when used as spotters for artillery fires. A purpose built UAV system would be able to carry a laser designator. This will give mortar systems an almost unimaginable 1 meter CEP. This is small enough to maybe put a HEAT warhead on an 81mm. Might not be able to penetrate the top armor of a main battle tank, but likely could do so in APCs and IFVs. I found this blog post about the current and near future state of mortars to be very interesting. www.quarryhs.co.uk/Mortar%20systems.pdf
Why not just upgrade the 320 with a NGSV targeting computer sight and programmable ammo. Would be small enough to be carried along with a carbine. They just want more capabilities for one weapon even if it's really less practical.
I think a breach loaded 25mm would be a good compromise. Have it underslung and use the proposed L3Harris optic on top of the rifle to aim the 25x40mm projectile. I like the XM25, but it being a mag fed semi auto is why it’s so big.
that's a really good idea write that down!!!! I also like the ideas of a small drone capable of carrying grenade launcher or little machine gun that can lotter above a squad or wherever they need it to provide cover and recon
I'm a bit biased but I'd say the way the Marine Corps runs the grenadeir load out is better. You have a m320 per team so 9 for the platoon and then a M32 per platoon. The M32 gunner doesn't carry a rifle he just has an M9 so he can carry more grenades. I'm also not sure how that new rocket would fair, trying to combine a munition that works well for anti armor and anti fortification never really works that well. How my platoon used rockets was normally depending on what the mission was but we had 2 SMAWs per platoon issued to squads that didn't have the M32 gunner with a healthy mix of HE and AA.
What do you mean never works well? Literally the current bunker buster can defeat light armor and all you really need to do with the current anti tank rocket is put the same crush fuse in and harden the nose. You now have both a bunker buster and and high pen at rocket
@@kameronjones7139 by like armor it's a technical. It doesn't have a shaped charge warhead and with the dual mode warhead it detonates when it comes in contact with something hard, so a BTR or BMP it'll detonate on contact scratch the surface and maybe ringing the crews bell but that's it. Using a shaped charge for bunker clearing isn't ideal either because as soon as the warhead detonates the shape charge pens a very small area, great for knocking out armor useless for a bunker
@@noahsmith4973 the m141 has a high explosive dual purpose warhead it literally rated to penetrate several inches of armor or penetrate bunker even though it explodes on contact with hard structure. You know all of this is public information that you can Google right. You don't have to keep making things up
The 81 mm mortar on the Ivs... Instead of 1 coming out the back. It should have 1 come out of either side. This would double its firepower, and most likely would not add too much extra weight 😉
Yall need to study mideval siege warfare. Infantry is just a guy in a turret, which is either a little slit in the wall, or a wet leather coated wooden barricade, with a little slit in that. You could say light infantry gets a bow (assault rifle) And heavy infantry gets a gun (heavy machine gun, mortar, Cannon) which is mounted to the turret, and usually is transported by caisson, which is crew-served. That's the theory behind siege infantry And obviously, knowledge of hand to hand combat is neccessary, but the melee weapons we currently have access to are lacking, need a better bayonet, I like the entrenching tool tho
It's funny, we (🇬🇧) student a decade developing an air-droppable light tank, the CVR(T) platform. You could give it a 30mm, a 76mm, SAMs, loads of stuff. They've just developed a mortar system for its offspring the Boxer although I don't think it's air-droppable. See, they dropped that requirement because "nobody can air drop now there's too many SAMs" back in the 70s And now we're back to designing air-droppable systems. Which we already had. Hilarious.
I think an effective weapon could be small units in dune buggies with towed mortars with some kind of parasite drone spotter and advanced fire control.
Make that 81mm a breachloading automortar. If the Swedes can make the Nemo compatible with a 5 man assault boat then some kind of pedestal RWS or Turret mount, on a UGV should be possible. If there is no secondary volume for driver etc. you can get a much smaller/lower hulled platform, suitable for a variety of supporting fires taskings and able to displace far more rapidly than anything which requires you to lower and unship a baseplate for manual muzzle loading. You certainly don't want to have 4 guys in an open door light weight tactical truck pretending they can survive counterbattery splinters so separate the guns from the command vehicle and any reload trailer PMs. Similarly, rather than putting it through a window, why not spiral in a drone from above or a Spike or similar NLOS missile from the front? Aimpoint error decreases with the square of the launch distance but if you have an ATC capable seeker you can 'home on the black spot' of whatever window or firing aperture is your target or simply get real close and fire a half-charge LAW through the dugout entry at 5-10m. Trajectory is flat and the bunker structure itself spares the drone of the likely thermobaric effects. Think small SMAW. The Army needs to be thinking more about heavy precision fires, from range, rather than infantry assault. Something akin to a precision rifle with 338 LM or .300WM, on an articulated power mount with zero recoil atop a weighted or staked Lazy Susan, that you can drop into the weeds and use as a remoted firing post comes to mind. The Ukranians have the Sablya and the Russians the KRET MMR LMG/GPMG down to large ATV levels so the idea that infantry assault should be man-rated through the kinds of threats we are seeing in Ukraine (Mines below, drones+RT above, explosive direct fires in front) should be pulling us out of the close-assault role altogether. The Western manned force is only good for about 70,000 men. We literally don't have 200,000 people to throw away on LSCO the old fashioned (run up the combat lane) way. Define your engagement parameters and then build out the weapons systems from that on a cost-per-target basis with heavy emphasis on moving drones forward, not men. Men are too slow and too unable to engage likely threat axes (high above) NLOS (beyond terrain feature) and Far threat (>1km distances) to be more than laager security and specialist (enclosed structure clearance) forces. Assuming boots have to be on the ground because 'Army' is just taking dumb to a whole 'nother level.
I remember training on the LAW and when I became an officer, I had to teach myself how to use the AT-4 and then train my fellow officers and soldiers on it.
@@Ali-ue6ubI guess a better way to explain is that you guys are stuck into your own platoons and sections because your jobs are completely different than an 11Bs in their pure form. You're dedicated fire support specialists. We're generalist by nature. We have no roll outside of Charlie work that an 11B isn't trained to accomplish.
I see a major issue with the mortar vehicle. It needs some kind or armor protection from at least shell fragments if not from light weapon fire. Counter battery fire is a real danger, and they need some protection from shell fragments.
These units traditionally haven’t had any protection because they were not mounted. The lack of protection isn’t as much of a problem as the poor platform/cannon choice.
So a platinum plated 81mm mortar system pushed to its absolute limits to make it match the range of a 120mm mortar.... Whereas they could just purchase off the shelf the humvee mounted 105mm artillery. Better range, air mobile, inexpensive and available now.... that would make too much sense though.
Ah, the US learned from Toyota War. Maybe We would see the difference ISV that has different advance small arms. Maybe a mobile drone hub such as drone launchers for either recon or suicide drone.
Advanced 120mm mortars mounted on turrets on armored vehicles seems like a better plan to me. These can be supplemented by lightweight 60mm mortars carried by dismounted infantry. 81mm mortars have some good qualities but fit in a middle point that makes them less practical for future warfare.
For infantry units, Patria NEMO single barreled 120 mortar in a turret on Stryker wheeled vehicles seems like a good option. This would provide decent protection and mobility for the mortar crews with excellent firepower.
An ISV has light weight but zero protection and integration of an 81mm mortar adds firepower that could be provided in other ways. For ultra low weight air drops, simply providing electric off-road motorcycles is a more flexible and resilient option. Each rider could potentially carry a 60mm mortar, Carl gustaf, or machine gun for added firepower. While these weapons could only be used effectively when halted and dismounted, the ISV with attached mortar has the same limitation. Both systems offer equal protection at zero. But the motorcycles have better mobility, make less noise, and spread manpower and firepower apart for reduced vulnerability compared to being clustered in vehicles.
The problem is cost and logistics+maintenance. You want light artilery that can be airdropped and isnt as difficult to keep running than a 155m SPG. Tbh tho it does feel like if you automate the mortar that much, then you might acutally mount it inside of a vehicle like an artillery gun. For maximum fun, check out the swedish AMOS. Armored vehicle with double barelled 120mm mortar launchers, including guided munitions. Expensive and not airdroppable, but man its hilarious.
Why do we need a new XM25 when we have dial-a-burst rounds for the Gustav? You know, something with a significant range, explosive charge, and enough mass to produce a useful shrapnel kill zone.
I don't like the light vehicle for this mortar concept. Assuming we're gearing up to fight artillery heavy conventional near-peers like Russia/China then it feels like a death trap. We've seen in Ukraine how low the lifespan of even softskinned vehicles are in a combat zone, especially when cluster munitions and MLRS are in play. A mortar doesn't have the range to be safe from counter-battery and I imagine a lot of these will get destroyed or have their crew killed from shrapnel, at least a humvee has some level of protection for the crew and dismounted mortars have easier concealment. Knowing the army, at least technicals have the advantage of being cheap and locally available repairs but this is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars.
Abn/air assault when equipped with airmobile TOE aren't for peer fights anyway. They're for instilling the fear of God into third rate dictators with regional power aspirations. Nobody sane is starting shit when uncle Sam can extricate their regime in 24 hours stat. God forbid, WW3 breaks out, airmobile formations simply becomes elite motorized infantry that is SOC and can support SOF formations either as fixing elements, heavy fire elements, or QRF
Tbf the idea is that youre so quickly with your shoot and scoot that you can fire and run before counter battery fire strikes you. Thats the problem with the Humvees, they take way too long to setup. And the manual work to set up the Humvee-mortars means your soldiers are longer outside of the vehicle, so protection is limited. Additionally, if this is a fully digital fire control system, and the loader is basically just dropping the munition, then you can set up the firing solutions while on the move, another time save and accuracy increase. Tbh it does make kinda me wonder why youre even using mortars at that point tho. It looks like its basically a mostly automated artillery piece, like a small SPG. Like, couldnt you have a mostly enclosed mortar on a truck then? Doesnt need to be a swedish AMOS system, but it does feel like theres no point having an external mortar at that point.
The ISV (the base vehicle this mortar carrier is based on) is designed for use with airborne/airmobile units. This thing isn't meant as an alternative to a Bradley/Stryker based mortar carrier for line units, it is meant as an alternative to a paradropped/heliborne dismounted mortar team, moving at the speed of bootleather and with only as much ammo as they can physically carry. I'd say it is a definite improvement there.
virgin xm25 a pound heavier, runs out of batteries, wastes time setting the range, way too bulky chad PAW 20 100m/s higher muzzle velocity, can collapse the stock/recoil system for easy carrying doubles as an extra safety, no rangefinder no battery shoot all day, cool side by side grip, see a target shoot it no time wasted, 2 more rounds in the magazine, bigger round more boom.
Probably wasnt at the conference. With the NGSW we mostly wait for the US army to either release more information or test it in a conflict zone. Tbh tho I wouldnt get my hopes up too much. The M5 looks like extreme feature creep. Heavy ammo and computerized scopes always caused problems in the past.
Interesting, but why US forces didn't consider using something like Milkor MGL with added features, like air burst, integrated computer, and so on? I think retrofitting is cheaper than developing (again) a new project from scratch. There are already successful cases like GLSDB and JDAM. Sure, it's ain't gonna be able to strike closed enemy positions with the same precision as it is shown by the "grenade rifle" XM25, yet it's a 40mm force multiplier.
The curent RU (regulated armerment in case of war) for at Swedish Nationell defend pluton its 38 AT4s for a platoon om 40 men. So most soldiers except for the plotooncomade, and his EXO will carry a tube. We also carrys too CG 40s whit amo and 3 have maskinguns in the suport scvod 50 antitank mins, etc. So if we ewer get kited out we can do some damicht. LOL. Its a semi truck of amo.
This is all neat and whatnot, but what about the ability to replenish depleted supplies from attrition during a long war? We can see this effect with Russia as they are hemorrhaging military equipment. Weapon and ammo compatibility with NATO allies also matters.
"80mm mortar" is a slip of the tongue; they want an 81mm mortar.
Also, in Army terminology, "Shoulder Launched Munition" specifically refers to disposable shoulder-fired launchers like AT4, M141 BDM and M72 LAW. These platforms are technically considered rounds of ammunition and don't include reusable weapon systems like the M3 MAAWS (Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle). AT4 is more or less a disposable version of the Carl Gustaf munition while the BDM is more or less a disposable version of the Mk 153 SMAW which the Marines are replacing with the MAAWS.
It's fine, mistakes happen 😂
Lots of alphabet and number soup as usual.
That one additional millimeter is gonna do the job
BMS? Bowel movement sh*t?
Ranger Battalion is a bit different in how they roll from the big army. In my company, the 320 is exclusively used under barrel. From what I've learned from other guys I know across forcecom, this is the standard.
The M72 LAW is extremely popular in Ukraine. They're going through hundreds a week. Killing armor with them beyond the states range and finding them very useful against a dig in enemy during the offensive. Just as the review in 2010 found it, it's still relevant and there should be at least a dozen in the back of every squad vehicle.
It’s main use in recent years has been as anti infantry though, US troops carried them as an anti fortification weapon in the Middle East
@@seeleagent They didn't really face many tanks in the middle east, and it wasn't worth wasting a $200k+ Javelin to take out a pile of sandbags with a DShK behind it.
M72 can still 1-shot anything "other then a tank" or it's equivalent armor-vise. So BMPs, BTRs, BMDs and MRAPs are all still valid targets and more numerous then any heavy armor.
The side hull armour of a Russian tank is not much better than a WW2 Panther tank. The M72 would be lethal against them in ambush.
@@idanceforpennies281 Russian tanks have ERA which would defeat the chemical warhead of an LAW projectile, think again
Being a grenadier was the best! You only had to carry an extra 3 pounds usually mounted on your M4 and didn’t have to carry any extra bs that they made the rifleman carry like an unwieldy skedco. It was also so much lighter then the saw and the 320 makes an adorable “boop” sound when fired. This new grenade launcher sounds heavy af and you probably only have an m9/m17 as a backup gun.
You didn't carry extra belts? That's odd.
@@norbi1411 nah, they gave me like 4 chalk rounds in the box and over in Iraq, I had like 6 hedp rounds. I had to borrow some rounds from another guy who got issued way more rounds cuz he was either issued or bought a belt. Usually just ran with molle grenade pouches on my iotv. Army gonna army bro. But I wasn’t about to complain, I liked being light.
Which you prefer, being light or being able to take opposition down faster and accuratelly, having to expose urself far less to enemy fire?
@@someoneelse2472 being light. I already have back and knee problems from carrying heavy stuff. Ounces equal pounds and pounds. Heavy stuff slows you down and make you easier to hit.
@@someoneelse2472 if you're tactically smart, and use your ammo wisely (make it count), you don't need as much. I've won fights in Afghanistan and Iraq without even having to fire a shot. My unit got so good the enemy simply stopped fighting us altogether (much to the annoyment of my unit, as the guys wanted action). The enemy simply went after easier targets, units that didn't have their crap together.
so did they specifically designed it to carry 69 rounds instead of 68 or 70.
I think they wanted to match the amount an M1064 120mm mortar carrier can carrier, which is 69 rounds.
@@BattleOrder Nice
Nice.
@@BattleOrder Nice
Nice
That barely perceptible pause after 69 rounds.
Nice.
Nice.
Nice
Nice
Nice
Nice
in 2014 it was still infantry doctrine to actually get a hand grenade into bunkers after fixing with multiple weapons systems. if you keyholed a 320 round into a bunker, my platoon sergeant would buy you a 12 pack of beer.
we preferred to carry the 320 standalone, typically on a single point sling because it made an m4 handle like a cinder block.
EDIT: Mind you all, this was back in the states. Us ground pounder folks were pretty serious about attacking bunkers at the time and spent countless hours training that.
7:34 Isn’t this clip from an Ukrainian assault a few weeks ago? This video is hilarious - the gunner requests more .50 ammo, but gets handed rocket launchers 😂
yup, thats the chad himself.
He explained on his Instagram that they handed him the AT4 to clear out RPG infantry hiding in the houses they're assaulting. They had to suppress the RPGs before they give him ammo.
But what I didn't get is why the gunner handed the "disposable" launch tube back inside instead of throwing it overboard!?!?
@@johnknapp952 yeah, he must've been concerned about littering lol
@@johnknapp952 Maybe not to give away the position after the blast had cleared?
I mean, a rocket launcher on the ground might very well tell the enemy that's were you launched it from
If possible, I want to see the infantry composition of the Philippine Army and Philippine Marine Corps. It might be interesting since both are influenced by the US military, from ranks to the gear load out and infantry conposition.
He isn't accepting foreign country request. Plus the sources on ph marine force structure is near to none
@@scaucymancannotdiebaby7034, pain since the Philippines is one of the few countries who uses technical sergeant, senior master sergeant, and chief master sergeant for the army and marines. While the AFP uses the rank First Chief Master Sergeant as the rank for the sergeant major of the AFP.
@@scaucymancannotdiebaby7034 He Both the Russian,Chinese and Brit and French
I hope we can have more military ground and air support... we badly needed these kind of military hardware.. if our philipine goverment only knew the US MILITARY PULL OUT IN AFGHANISTAN.. AT LEAST WE COULD BOUGHT MILITARY HARDWARE AT LEAST AT THE HALF THE PRICE... LIKE HUMVEES BLACK HAWK HELICOPTERS AND M-4'S INSTEAD BEING USED BY OTHER FORCES... 😔😔😔😔😔
STAY AT HOME !!!!
Full-Time/Part-Time
POSTCARD
Customer Service
Data Entry
Position Available now
(Start as soon as tomorrow!)
Pay: $16-35Hourly
Monday-Friday
GREAT FOR RETIREES AND YOUNG ADULTS
No Experience Needed! We Train! Bonuses!
Paid Weekly via Direct Deposit /Check depend
on your choice Full Benefits, 5 Days work in a week.
4:57 one of the main "drawbacks" of the XM25 was that they kept exploding in soldiers hands because HK and General Dynamics absolutely screwed the pooch on the ammunition.
NAFO in the house fellas 😂
North Atlantic Failure Organization? bro this is what i can think of 🤣🤣
@@ahadubaraki7881 Fella*. The only failure I can think of is Russia and Iran.
@@ahadubaraki7881 when the billion dollar propaganda machine of russia gets ass fucked by online dog fellas you gotta think whos really the failure here lol.
@@ahadubaraki7881 North Atlantic Fellas Organization
They are multiplying
IIRC when i looked into all the XM25 stuff, it was taken out of service last time because of contract fuckery more than anything else. The troops using it liked it (taking into account drawbacks mentioned in the video). It could be a good addition. Also 1 per squad makes more sense, very situational weapon.
General Dynamics and DN partnered up to work on a weapon for the XM919 Individual Assault Munition program, specifically they presented the RGW90 Anti Structure Munition, and the RGW60 Anti Structure Munition during AUSA2022. The RGW90 ASM basically fits the bill. ~19lbs/8.7kg, 500m range with a sustainer engine, tandem EFP/Enhanced Blast-Frag warhead with light armor and bunker defeat, with long delay and short delay fuzing.
Interesting concept! Very cool vehicle -wish we had them when I was in! I was the Mortar Platoon Leader for 3/327th IN in Desert Storm. I served as the Battalion Mortar Platoon Leader for 26 Months to include Desert Storm. I joined my platoon in 1989 when we were fielded the brand new M282 81mm system. The HMMWVs we had we fitted with these racks for secure the mortar rounds, but they didnt work well. They were designed for just the rounds and not the containers we used to move our ammo. So my platoon demonstrated to the Battalion Commander and XO the issue and they let me remove the racks. Basically we could get the mortar squad of five soldiers, the 81s and our basic load per gun (72 rounds) into each HMMWV. The problem was always delivery. We always practiced either sling loading our vehicles or just rounds in A22 bags for dismounted ops. But when we got to Desert Strom, the aviators were concerned with the ADA threat and did not want to sling load the first wave in. We spent the months leading up to the Air Assault into Iraq trying to come up with a way to deliver our mortar rounds without the use of a sling load. The CH-47s were of limits because they had to take our TOW HMMWVs internally loaded. Our vehicles, with my Section Sergeant were going to convoy in with the Battalion Trains. That eliminated him and seven drivers. I had 29 soldiers in my platoon. That meant I had 21 Soldiers to bring in 4 mortars, 288 rounds of ammo, radios, etc. between two UH-60 Blackhawks. We decided 288 wasnt going to work. We could fit four camouflage net pole bags with ten rounds of HE each into the Blackhawk (seats out) with the mortars and all our gear. In the first Air Assault we did 90 miles into Iraq to take FOB Cobra, we loaded the pole bags, put a round each in our rucks and the mortar system and went in. We had about 90 rounds of HE when we landed with all our WP and Illum coming up ion the convoy. We dropped everything off the bird when we landed, set up the mortars within 300 meters of the LZ and then went back my squad to retrieve gear and rounds. Most rucks were two man carries! Estimated our rucks to weigh about 120+ pounds. I carried my own radio/KY57/spare batteries, claymore, water, etc. as leader of the Fire Direction Center in place of my section sergeant with the convoy. My Chief Computer took the Mortar Ballistic Computer and lots of batteries. And my Platoon Sergeant brought in the coffee! Great scene in the Band of Brothers before the jump on D-Day to describe what you really carry on initial entry operations! Love this channel! Thanks for great content!
Here in Hungary, the army bought Turkish "ejder yalcin" 4x4 MRAPs for this purpose and, together with Rheinmetall, converted them into automortar carriers. Rheimetall MWS120 ragnarok automortars were installed. This MRAP is thus larger than the one in the video, equipped with nato stanag class 3 armor and mine protection. The mortar is on top. After stopping, the firing position takes a few seconds, the operators remain in the car, it can be controlled from the inside, and it is also capable of fully computer-controlled 360-degree shooting. A few seconds after shots, you can go to another shooting position. When the mortar is not in use, it sinks into the machine body.
Cool solution, but it perhaps might no satisfy the air transport requirements
3:20 Did anyone else get chills?! No? Just me?! I miss Modern Marvels.
An Objective TOE isn't an MTOE. It's an updated Base TOE. MTOE is specific language (Modified TOE) that indicates a fielded tactical organization and its equipment tailored for general use given the equipment and troops funded in a given fiscal year. Every year a unit gets an MTOE update. Most years, there's little if any change to an MTOE. If there is, it means there was a TOE update (OTOE) and funds and equipment coming for that change.
NAFO expansion is inevitable.
Commie
Putin is quite the salesman.
the XM25 was fielded in combat, as they were being used when I was in Afghanistan in 2010, and called the Punisher.
have you ever given a thought about doing an idf unit overview? I think that could be interesting
Yes! Its crazy he hasent done a video on Israel yet. There are so many interesting topics. Their intel, their cyber, their airforce, armored core, iron dome, special forces, anti terrorist tactics etc.
@@leronbenari226 Mossad: HELLO THERE.
The only overview you will learn if he did a video about Israel
Is how they can find you and kill you anywhere around the world if you leak secretive shits about them
Things are a lot different today. I am 11c10 assigned to an 81mm mortar crew 76-79. The 81's were at company level. Battalion Level was the 120mm mortar, also known as the four deuce (4.2" Bore). My unit was Bco. 1/10 Inf. Weapons plt. 4 Inf. Division.
"ability to carry 69 rounds"......[thinks to himself] "Nice. Well played Army, well played indeed".
Did you know you were NAFO too? Expansion is not negotiable!
69 Round Capacity... Nice...
Absolutely love to see the graphics (military symbology) along with the video.
At the second 2:58 the vehicle seen belongs to the Spanish Army, didnt know we had mortars mounted like that on our VAMTACS, pretty cool
It's called the ALAKRAN I believe
@@BattleOrder Yep means scorpion, but its not in service, it was tested in 2019 but it seems like the FFAA prefer the DUAL Eimos/Soltam Cardom over this one. Ukraine had 6 in service before the invasion, wonder how they fared
Thanks for covering the PGS system. They always forget the KISS principal. Lets make a single shot air burst weapon first, then worry about making a multi shot system. This would probably work on a muzzle launched grenade better , but you might be able to do with a 40MM. Get away from the electronics except for a range finder. Put a manual screw top cap range setter on it like on the Carl Gustav air burst round.
Rifle grenades can actually be interesting, considering the umpf of the M5 and possibly to add an additional mode to the new smart scope via software
@@solarissv777 Eh, I think Rifle grenades have too much opportunity for things to go wrong in the fog of war. You have to have a rifleman carrying a mag full of blanks to launch the grenades, and it is way too easy for some sleep-deprived, scared-out-of-his-wits kid working in the pitch dark to either accidentally reload with blanks in a firefight or to shoot the base of his own grenade with a live round.
@@boosterh1113 They do have bullet trap and shoot thru grenades now no need for blanks.
@@boosterh1113 modern rifle grenades do not require blanks, they can be shot with normal rounds
KISS applies to simple problems. Not all problems.
Can you please do a video on how the US Logistics system works from Homeland all the way down to Squad similar to what you did for the oil video?
6:42 is this XM919 similar to the Matador used by Israel and Singapore? I know it has a mode where if you extend the probe at the head of the munition it turns into a HEAT round, and if you retract the probe it probably turns into something like a dumb HE warhead to bust doors and walls.
With the XM5 and XM250 along with the PGS , I definitely believe the squad size will grow to 11 men and also need to be restructured. Ammo and squad workload will be key in future tactics in closing with the enemy in combat.
You didnt take in account the transportation that often is limiting factor in squad sizes
That wont happen because they will need bigger vehicles, and as we know the army loves to reduce capacity of their transports
Not necessarily, i thought the same thing at first. All the really needs to happen is add one or two more vehicles in a platoon. So go from 4 APC/ IFV to 5. Squads can and have been split up between vehicles before. Just look to the Bradley IFV. It was supposed to carry 9 man squad but routinely carry's 6 to 7.
6:42 Nobel Dynamite RGW-90 actually has both function combined
We may see it when they do requests for proposals. They're looking for a mature platform so something that already exists would be a positive.
The Matador/RGW 90? Sounds like ukrainians like them, ordered a couple thousand more after the german delivery.
Another potential weapon is the NLAW; thats a swedish launcher actually designed to replace the (also swedish) AT-4. Its dual mode, and can apparently fight fortificatons too. Interesting part is that this has limited passive guidance.
@@termitreter6545 i don’t think the Swedes are replacing the AT4 with the NLAW. For them the AT4 is more of a mobile alternative to the Carl Gustaf at the squad level, whereas I think NLAWs are allotted as AT weapons in the form a weapons pool at the battalion level
@@BattleOrder Thanks, I did a double check and it seems like its a bit more complex.
It looks like the NLAW was made on british+swedish requirements, and for the brits the NLAW was to replace the AT4. Not for the swedes, however.
So... its kind of a successor to the AT4? Maybe? :D
@@termitreter6545 note that the Brits still distribute AT4 alongside NLAW to their sections given situational variables
Please do a video on the organization of MEUs &/or how hq staffs are organized, thanks
GO NAFO!!!!
England Calling 🏴
Interesting point, US Army actually wanted a turreted mortar for its SBCT and ABCT, seem like they finally started thinking about more mobile indirect fire support after years of ignorance.
I think they’re looking into NEMO for Strykers but it’s in the early stages of viability teating
What the U.S. military really needs is a very light weight tank at 5-6 tons, 2 man crew, 30mm autocannon, 5 large switchblade drones, anti missile defense systems, rubber tracks, ability to swim, and speed of 65 mph on the highway. The Uk had a 7.5ton 3man tank they made 6 different versions one was called a Simitar. This tank could be used all throughout the military from support units to airborne, air assault, rangers, special forces, cavalry units, armored units, convoy protection. This would give every unit the ability to knock out tanks,bunkers, and fight their way out of ambushes.
60 mm Mortars are often given to an Infantry Platoon and several soldiers will be trained to use it. This frees up the 11c troops to man bigger guns at a company level. Usualy 2 120mm tubes per company. And 1 60 mm tube per platoon.
lol that fella came out of nowhere :D
"Not accounting for spares carried in the truck" - Shows Nucking.Futs.Yuri and his suspiciously AT4 shaped 50cal ammo. Love it!
Everyone that was ever issued an XM-25 that I've ever heard talk about it basically had to have it ripped out of their hands they loved the thing so much.
I think the Fat_Electrician is correct and main reason it was cancelled is because the "grenade" bit strayed too closely to being an "exploding bullet" legally and someone panicked at the thought of that.
Note that a COTS option for the grenade launcher concept is available, that is a do-able back fit to *legacy* 40mm GLs in inventory.
Singapore has a clip on wireless control unit that can *automatically* program the airburst distance when the unit is used to lase the target for range (with a default impact fuze function in case you hit something en route to the airbrust range or don't lase the target; this can also be set to a delay function to provide a behind barrier detonation, as well as allowing the gunner to manually set airburst range), in conjunction with "smart" 40mm grenades that are 100% compatible with legacy launchers.
If you fire the new grenades in legacy GLs without using (or having) the clip on unit setting the fuze, the "smart" grenades function just like legacy "dumb" grenades. So, no worries about troops having ammo they cannot use because they don't have the add-on range finder/fuze setter.
If you fire legacy "dumb" grenades through a launcher equipped with the new clip on range finder/fuze setter, well, they work exactly the same way they always have. So, no fear of troops with the newly equipped launchers getting issued legacy ammo.
Plus, a 40mm grenade is simply going to have greater effect on target than any 20-30mm grenade that uses the same explosive technology. And the increase is dramatic, both due to the cube-square law *and* the fact that the *fuze* is effectively a fixed space and weight that displaces available payload. Let's look at rhis: a 40mm sphere (the actual grenade portion in a NATO 40mm grenade is spherical) has 33.5cm³. If you have a fuze assembly inside the gremade that takes up, say, 10% of a 40mm grenade (3.35cm³), that leaves about 30cm³ for boomy goodness and sprinkles (the fragments). A *30mm* spherical grenade has a volume of 14.1cm³ to start with (less than half the payload), even before we subtract that 3.35cm³. A 40mm grenade has almost *three times* as much usable payload as a 30mm grenade construction design and comstruction. That translates to more penetration in impact mode with HEDP, and a larger casualty radius for fragments. Why go *backwards* and add a huge weight load, a non-interchangeable ammunition family, *and* eliminate one rifle from.every single fireteam, just to add a less effective grenade?!?
Only reason is if the new weapon is so much more precise that the smaller payload is fully sufficient (dozen HIMAS vs 60k shells per day)
We already went through this discussion. Point blank range. 40mm is an indirect fire trajectory, it's hard to yeet precisely over a trench or into a bunker port.
That wouldn't work, GLs are basically tiny mortars.
For the problems in weight for the XM25, was the majority of the weight in the semi automatic grenade mechanism or something else? I doubt it was the electronics.
Both. Soldiers have combat loads of up to up to 30kg of gear.
The XM25 weighs more than a rifle, the M320/M203 weigh significantly less and can be used in standalone configuration.
The issue is, not all situations are appropriate for the XM25 to engage- Indoors, areas where collateral damage is a risk due to civilians, etc.
As a result, the soldier ends up carrying a rifle and the XM25 at the same time so they aren't just dead weight in those situations- And as you might imagine, that impacts how much ammunition they can carry for both their rifle and launcher system. Costs notwithstanding.
In an open war, it sounds like a good concept- But the reality is, soldiers are put in situations where they have to discriminate between what is and isn't worth an explosive round, and if it's worth the risk to do so- All at the cost of weighing the soldier down more and affecting how much ammo they can carry. More of a liability than an asset, and accordingly, shelved.
A cool toy, but impractical to field. For times where an explosive round is needed, the much lighter grenade systems already in place do the same job.
@@steingrenadier5511 That’s not my question. My question is what makes the XM25 weigh so much? The ammunition, the semi automatic mechanism, electronics that allow the smart fuse to be set?
@@stutterfly4722 I literally gave you the answer. It's the entire system. It's not individual components in a system, it's the fact you have to take the entire system AND the rifle to be combat-effective.
As you might imagine, carrying a two whole weapons and the associated ammo makes the thing heavy for the soldier.
As for why they would need both a rifle and the XM25, refer to my 1st reply.
@@steingrenadier5511 That’s still not what I’m asking. The thing weighs 14 pounds empty. How much of that total is each component of the weapon system has been my question from the very beginning. You keep answering a question I never asked.
I don't know why they don't take inspiration from the Germans and the SdKfz 250/7. It's a mortar mounted directed onto a highly mobile vehicle. No need to dismount and a escape can be made immediately if needed.
lobbing a grenade with a launcher from the hip without sights is surprisingly intuitive with a little practice. guys were putting them through car windows at 400m from the hip with only a little practice.
lol what if they just made it like a 2+1 semi-auto shotgun. for easier follow shots. keep the small size, but less reload time, higher rate of fire.
@@stevenmike1878 Have you never seen the M32 grenade launcher? Military issue. 6 shots.
Also, the thing that got most guys lobbing grenades with incredible accuracy from the hip in my unit was when one Sgt described it like throwing a baseball. you learn the arc much the same way you throw a baseball. lots of guys got it after that. You can watch the grenades flying through the air like baseballs too, and that really helps. Less likely to see it fly when looking down the sights.
@@SoloRenegade i was thinking something thin and less chonky. revolver is sweet and simple but thicc. i was thinking something thin and 3 shots. if you miss hit to far. hit to close. third one should be just right. minus the reload for every shot. lol ive heard a lotta stories kinda like that, on that third shot, 2nd reload you kinda cant miss or you look like a jackass in front of everyone. especially after all that reload time. 🤣
@@stevenmike1878 A good grenadier could do it in 1 or 2 shots. But I get what you're thinking.
From a story I heard, the xm25 use was halted after a troop in Afghanistan had a round blow up shortly after firing it. Lucky the dude survived.
What air defense do?
Frankly, we should probably still issue a LAW to everyone. The ability for every rifleman to take down a light vehicle is incredibly powerful.
Pretty interesting video. Can’t believe the old XM29 reappears. The fish like XM8 carbine portion of that system is one of my all time favourite failures.
7 seconds into the video...
That is the first time I've seen an anti tank weapon, lunge forward after launch 😂😂😂😉
That countermass
Ok, I know they reorganized the 82nd after I left in 2004, but we used to heavy drop the 105s as part of the main assault. They would actually register the guns on the DZ as the rest of us were assembling.
the "portée" still lives on to this day!
I aspire to be the engineer who intentionally scrapped the storage rack for the 70th round
There is the Matador developed by Israel that can meet the IAM's requirements. 90mm in calibre and has dual modes for Anti armor and anti structure. Works rather effectively so far.
NAFO EXPANSION IS NO-NEGOTIABLE
The 81mm BMS would be an ideal use for the precision guided 81mm mortar munitions currently in active development around the world. These rounds are much more expensive, but if you can destroy a target with 2 or 3 rounds rather than 20 or 30, the costs per target destroyed is probably about the same. But much more important during the initial assault where units likely will need to operate without resupply for a period of time, they can be much more lethal for their fixed number of rounds.
There are GPS and laser guided 120mm mortar rounds already in service. The continued miniaturization of electronics is making it possible to add this capability to 81mm rounds, and at least two system have already been demonstrated. Most of these systems have used GPS guidance, since it is slow not to mention dangerous to try to get a forward observer to within line of sight of the target in order to designate it with a laser. However, as we have seen in Ukraine, even small hobby UAVs add an enormous capability when used as spotters for artillery fires. A purpose built UAV system would be able to carry a laser designator. This will give mortar systems an almost unimaginable 1 meter CEP. This is small enough to maybe put a HEAT warhead on an 81mm. Might not be able to penetrate the top armor of a main battle tank, but likely could do so in APCs and IFVs.
I found this blog post about the current and near future state of mortars to be very interesting.
www.quarryhs.co.uk/Mortar%20systems.pdf
Why not just upgrade the 320 with a NGSV targeting computer sight and programmable ammo. Would be small enough to be carried along with a carbine. They just want more capabilities for one weapon even if it's really less practical.
The future grenade program is a fracking Boltgun, a warhammer 40k bolter
Based
So what's up with the Future Indirect Fire Turret?
I think a breach loaded 25mm would be a good compromise. Have it underslung and use the proposed L3Harris optic on top of the rifle to aim the 25x40mm projectile. I like the XM25, but it being a mag fed semi auto is why it’s so big.
that's a really good idea write that down!!!! I also like the ideas of a small drone capable of carrying grenade launcher or little machine gun that can lotter above a squad or wherever they need it to provide cover and recon
@@CatsRock11000 drone with MP7 🤤🤤🤤
I'm a bit biased but I'd say the way the Marine Corps runs the grenadeir load out is better. You have a m320 per team so 9 for the platoon and then a M32 per platoon. The M32 gunner doesn't carry a rifle he just has an M9 so he can carry more grenades. I'm also not sure how that new rocket would fair, trying to combine a munition that works well for anti armor and anti fortification never really works that well. How my platoon used rockets was normally depending on what the mission was but we had 2 SMAWs per platoon issued to squads that didn't have the M32 gunner with a healthy mix of HE and AA.
What do you mean never works well? Literally the current bunker buster can defeat light armor and all you really need to do with the current anti tank rocket is put the same crush fuse in and harden the nose. You now have both a bunker buster and and high pen at rocket
@@kameronjones7139 by like armor it's a technical. It doesn't have a shaped charge warhead and with the dual mode warhead it detonates when it comes in contact with something hard, so a BTR or BMP it'll detonate on contact scratch the surface and maybe ringing the crews bell but that's it. Using a shaped charge for bunker clearing isn't ideal either because as soon as the warhead detonates the shape charge pens a very small area, great for knocking out armor useless for a bunker
@@noahsmith4973 the m141 has a high explosive dual purpose warhead it literally rated to penetrate several inches of armor or penetrate bunker even though it explodes on contact with hard structure. You know all of this is public information that you can Google right. You don't have to keep making things up
@@kameronjones7139 I spent 4 years carry this shit around dude
@@noahsmith4973 no you haven't you don't even know what it does
The 81 mm mortar on the Ivs...
Instead of 1 coming out the back.
It should have 1 come out of either side.
This would double its firepower, and most likely would not add too much extra weight 😉
There is a good video on the xm8 prototype from forgotten weapons with Ian did talk about it with Larry Vickers.
The RPG-7 [or PSRL-1] and the Carl Gustav perform these roles quite well already. Only updated munitions required.
Love the vid like always; it would be cool to maybe see some more videos like your Mali one some time.
Unless they mold PGS into something the size of M320 or at least M4 carbine its gonna be another dead end.
Yall need to study mideval siege warfare. Infantry is just a guy in a turret, which is either a little slit in the wall, or a wet leather coated wooden barricade, with a little slit in that.
You could say light infantry gets a bow (assault rifle)
And heavy infantry gets a gun (heavy machine gun, mortar, Cannon) which is mounted to the turret, and usually is transported by caisson, which is crew-served.
That's the theory behind siege infantry
And obviously, knowledge of hand to hand combat is neccessary, but the melee weapons we currently have access to are lacking, need a better bayonet, I like the entrenching tool tho
It's funny, we (🇬🇧) student a decade developing an air-droppable light tank, the CVR(T) platform.
You could give it a 30mm, a 76mm, SAMs, loads of stuff. They've just developed a mortar system for its offspring the Boxer although I don't think it's air-droppable.
See, they dropped that requirement because "nobody can air drop now there's too many SAMs" back in the 70s
And now we're back to designing air-droppable systems.
Which we already had.
Hilarious.
And Boxer is 40 tonnes.
So we're not air dropping that.
Well, more than once anyway.
Man..I gotta get back in so I can put my hands on that new 81
The mortar truck is pretty cool. It just needs a machine gun mount in a ring on the roof.
future weapons= big mac, super mega pizza, fried chiken, bacon & eggs, m4rijuana & beer.
I think an effective weapon could be small units in dune buggies with towed mortars with some kind of parasite drone spotter and advanced fire control.
Jeep with dual LRM 20's. And here I am, struggling to get dual LRM 20's on my 70ton Archer ARC-2R
Make that 81mm a breachloading automortar. If the Swedes can make the Nemo compatible with a 5 man assault boat then some kind of pedestal RWS or Turret mount, on a UGV should be possible. If there is no secondary volume for driver etc. you can get a much smaller/lower hulled platform, suitable for a variety of supporting fires taskings and able to displace far more rapidly than anything which requires you to lower and unship a baseplate for manual muzzle loading.
You certainly don't want to have 4 guys in an open door light weight tactical truck pretending they can survive counterbattery splinters so separate the guns from the command vehicle and any reload trailer PMs.
Similarly, rather than putting it through a window, why not spiral in a drone from above or a Spike or similar NLOS missile from the front? Aimpoint error decreases with the square of the launch distance but if you have an ATC capable seeker you can 'home on the black spot' of whatever window or firing aperture is your target or simply get real close and fire a half-charge LAW through the dugout entry at 5-10m. Trajectory is flat and the bunker structure itself spares the drone of the likely thermobaric effects. Think small SMAW.
The Army needs to be thinking more about heavy precision fires, from range, rather than infantry assault. Something akin to a precision rifle with 338 LM or .300WM, on an articulated power mount with zero recoil atop a weighted or staked Lazy Susan, that you can drop into the weeds and use as a remoted firing post comes to mind.
The Ukranians have the Sablya and the Russians the KRET MMR LMG/GPMG down to large ATV levels so the idea that infantry assault should be man-rated through the kinds of threats we are seeing in Ukraine (Mines below, drones+RT above, explosive direct fires in front) should be pulling us out of the close-assault role altogether.
The Western manned force is only good for about 70,000 men. We literally don't have 200,000 people to throw away on LSCO the old fashioned (run up the combat lane) way.
Define your engagement parameters and then build out the weapons systems from that on a cost-per-target basis with heavy emphasis on moving drones forward, not men. Men are too slow and too unable to engage likely threat axes (high above) NLOS (beyond terrain feature) and Far threat (>1km distances) to be more than laager security and specialist (enclosed structure clearance) forces.
Assuming boots have to be on the ground because 'Army' is just taking dumb to a whole 'nother level.
I remember training on the LAW and when I became an officer, I had to teach myself how to use the AT-4 and then train my fellow officers and soldiers on it.
The mortar platoon is not part of the weapons company? What's the reasoning behind that?
Unlike the Marines with their multifunctional weapons companies the Army’s light battalion weapons companies are just TOW launchers on humvees
Its an MOS thing. 11Cs are mortars. 11Bs cover every other task ie vehicle driver, MG, Tow, rifleman etc. We think it's stupid too.
@@fathead8933 not really the case in every unit. My mortar platoon has its own driver and MG
@@Ali-ue6ubI guess a better way to explain is that you guys are stuck into your own platoons and sections because your jobs are completely different than an 11Bs in their pure form. You're dedicated fire support specialists. We're generalist by nature. We have no roll outside of Charlie work that an 11B isn't trained to accomplish.
I see a major issue with the mortar vehicle. It needs some kind or armor protection from at least shell fragments if not from light weapon fire. Counter battery fire is a real danger, and they need some protection from shell fragments.
These units traditionally haven’t had any protection because they were not mounted. The lack of protection isn’t as much of a problem as the poor platform/cannon choice.
A new light AT stick would kick so much ass
Great show and info. Keep the tech coming, and reduce casualties
So a platinum plated 81mm mortar system pushed to its absolute limits to make it match the range of a 120mm mortar....
Whereas they could just purchase off the shelf the humvee mounted 105mm artillery. Better range, air mobile, inexpensive and available now.... that would make too much sense though.
It's almost like guns and mortars function differently.....
This is literally a Warthog plus a mortar, I love it.
What would be really cool: being able to fire the mortar without stopping at all.
hand out more M72 LAW's and they may not need the fancy precision grenade system while also solving the IAM. thew new variants are highly regarded
They should be able to use the new vortex optic. While making a custom program/offset for sight over bore on the 40mm grenade launcher...
05:49 - The Emperor's Holy Bolter.
Ah, the US learned from Toyota War. Maybe We would see the difference ISV that has different advance small arms. Maybe a mobile drone hub such as drone launchers for either recon or suicide drone.
Could you do a video of the Norwegian military? I'd love to see that
Probably US Army will use NLAW for the IAM program. It ticks the prerequisite boxes.
Nice fella
Civil war federal officer?
Civil War Marine officer
@@BattleOrder I know it is coming but we are all gonna lose.
Advanced 120mm mortars mounted on turrets on armored vehicles seems like a better plan to me. These can be supplemented by lightweight 60mm mortars carried by dismounted infantry. 81mm mortars have some good qualities but fit in a middle point that makes them less practical for future warfare.
For infantry units, Patria NEMO single barreled 120 mortar in a turret on Stryker wheeled vehicles seems like a good option. This would provide decent protection and mobility for the mortar crews with excellent firepower.
An ISV has light weight but zero protection and integration of an 81mm mortar adds firepower that could be provided in other ways.
For ultra low weight air drops, simply providing electric off-road motorcycles is a more flexible and resilient option. Each rider could potentially carry a 60mm mortar, Carl gustaf, or machine gun for added firepower. While these weapons could only be used effectively when halted and dismounted, the ISV with attached mortar has the same limitation.
Both systems offer equal protection at zero. But the motorcycles have better mobility, make less noise, and spread manpower and firepower apart for reduced vulnerability compared to being clustered in vehicles.
The problem is cost and logistics+maintenance. You want light artilery that can be airdropped and isnt as difficult to keep running than a 155m SPG. Tbh tho it does feel like if you automate the mortar that much, then you might acutally mount it inside of a vehicle like an artillery gun.
For maximum fun, check out the swedish AMOS. Armored vehicle with double barelled 120mm mortar launchers, including guided munitions. Expensive and not airdroppable, but man its hilarious.
Not for light infantry fighting on foot or hummves.
The idea is a light airborne mortar though. I don't think the US wants to go to the level of airborne mechanization like the Soviets with their Nonas.
3:20 well now I know where halos AR came from
Why do we need a new XM25 when we have dial-a-burst rounds for the Gustav? You know, something with a significant range, explosive charge, and enough mass to produce a useful shrapnel kill zone.
2:36 Nice
I don't like the light vehicle for this mortar concept. Assuming we're gearing up to fight artillery heavy conventional near-peers like Russia/China then it feels like a death trap. We've seen in Ukraine how low the lifespan of even softskinned vehicles are in a combat zone, especially when cluster munitions and MLRS are in play. A mortar doesn't have the range to be safe from counter-battery and I imagine a lot of these will get destroyed or have their crew killed from shrapnel, at least a humvee has some level of protection for the crew and dismounted mortars have easier concealment. Knowing the army, at least technicals have the advantage of being cheap and locally available repairs but this is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars.
Abn/air assault when equipped with airmobile TOE aren't for peer fights anyway. They're for instilling the fear of God into third rate dictators with regional power aspirations.
Nobody sane is starting shit when uncle Sam can extricate their regime in 24 hours stat.
God forbid, WW3 breaks out, airmobile formations simply becomes elite motorized infantry that is SOC and can support SOF formations either as fixing elements, heavy fire elements, or QRF
Tbf the idea is that youre so quickly with your shoot and scoot that you can fire and run before counter battery fire strikes you. Thats the problem with the Humvees, they take way too long to setup. And the manual work to set up the Humvee-mortars means your soldiers are longer outside of the vehicle, so protection is limited.
Additionally, if this is a fully digital fire control system, and the loader is basically just dropping the munition, then you can set up the firing solutions while on the move, another time save and accuracy increase.
Tbh it does make kinda me wonder why youre even using mortars at that point tho. It looks like its basically a mostly automated artillery piece, like a small SPG. Like, couldnt you have a mostly enclosed mortar on a truck then?
Doesnt need to be a swedish AMOS system, but it does feel like theres no point having an external mortar at that point.
The ISV (the base vehicle this mortar carrier is based on) is designed for use with airborne/airmobile units.
This thing isn't meant as an alternative to a Bradley/Stryker based mortar carrier for line units, it is meant as an alternative to a paradropped/heliborne dismounted mortar team, moving at the speed of bootleather and with only as much ammo as they can physically carry. I'd say it is a definite improvement there.
Foot mobile mortar teams would get destroyed with modern counter battery. This is a displacement tool, not a fighting vehicle.
@3:58 "The Boys in Defilade". If that's not a band name it should be
virgin xm25 a pound heavier, runs out of batteries, wastes time setting the range, way too bulky
chad PAW 20 100m/s higher muzzle velocity, can collapse the stock/recoil system for easy carrying doubles as an extra safety, no rangefinder no battery shoot all day, cool side by side grip, see a target shoot it no time wasted, 2 more rounds in the magazine, bigger round more boom.
U.S. Army has decided on the 6.8mm XM5 AR!😮 Will be issuing 800K for 1st wave to those in the front line troops.
*Whattabout the NGSW - 6.8x51mm cartridge paired with VORTEX's proprietary scope for the SIG XM5 aka "Spear?"*
Probably wasnt at the conference. With the NGSW we mostly wait for the US army to either release more information or test it in a conflict zone.
Tbh tho I wouldnt get my hopes up too much. The M5 looks like extreme feature creep. Heavy ammo and computerized scopes always caused problems in the past.
PGS soon i will get a bolter
Crazy I watched the sling trailer a few weeks before this video came out.
Interesting, but why US forces didn't consider using something like Milkor MGL with added features, like air burst, integrated computer, and so on? I think retrofitting is cheaper than developing (again) a new project from scratch. There are already successful cases like GLSDB and JDAM. Sure, it's ain't gonna be able to strike closed enemy positions with the same precision as it is shown by the "grenade rifle" XM25, yet it's a 40mm force multiplier.
The curent RU (regulated armerment in case of war) for at Swedish Nationell defend pluton its 38 AT4s for a platoon om 40 men. So most soldiers except for the plotooncomade, and his EXO will carry a tube. We also carrys too CG 40s whit amo and 3 have maskinguns in the suport scvod 50 antitank mins, etc. So if we ewer get kited out we can do some damicht. LOL. Its a semi truck of amo.
Would be interesting to see a video about the Mjolner mortar system 😀
This is all neat and whatnot, but what about the ability to replenish depleted supplies from attrition during a long war?
We can see this effect with Russia as they are hemorrhaging military equipment.
Weapon and ammo compatibility with NATO allies also matters.