I did a write up about the Barrett XM-109 payload rifle a couple years ago and thought it a capable enough defensive weapon, but the 5 shot, 25mm rifle weighs 33 pounds, which, to me, definitely takes it out of the realm of dismounted offensive operations. Where I do think something like this would excel is in the defense, where it’s range (2600m), accuracy, and HE warheads would prove very useful against light armored vehicles or troops in buildings.

The best cammo is rubbing some of whatever is on the ground on your uniform. Which usually is not necessary, after a few minutes of laying in it you have it all over you. What’s more important than color is breaking up your visual signature and outline.

Simple: Jungle is green, woodland is brown and green, desert is tan/brown.

It’s amazing what the USA can do when we want to.

The Aimpoint BR8 is the first step in making the 40mm much more accurate. Next step is to link the fire control system and impliment a fuse-programming so that airburst fires are a viable option.

The aimpoint BR8 is going into service these coming few months with the swedish army, and programmable airbursting medium velocity 40mm are only 1–2 years away.

1) The M-67 90mm recoilless rifle. The M-67 was the U.S. counterpart to the better Carl Gustaf 84mm anti-tank weapon, and replaced in service by the Dragon anti-tank guided missile. If the Army had stocks of the M-67 still in inventory, it surprises me the the USMC didn’t use it when the USMC selected a SMAW back in 1984. It would have been cheaper and served just as well.

2)But what might be a better alternative than the M-67 or the Carl Gustav for a company support weapon is the even older M-18a1 57mm recoiless rifle. This U.S. weapon was developed in WWII and saw extensive service during the Korean War.

The M-67 and CG were intended as anti-tank weapons and designed to primarily fire HEAT warhead ammunition. Because of this they are compromised by extremely large bore size. Which is why they cannot match the M-18a1 in range (and probably accuracy) even though all three fire a shell of similar weight.

3) The RPG-2, also known as the B-40 in the Vietnam War. (BTW “RPG” does not stand for “rocket propelled grenade”) The RPG-2 preceded the better known RPG-7 and has a much lower projectile velocity, more comparable to that of the old M-9 bazooka. But with the increased velocity of the RPG-7 came much greater weight. Whereas the RPG-2 is a remarkably lightweight system, only 6 pounds empty and 10 pounds loaded, while packing an enormous punch.

Since the increased velocity of the RPG-7 is mostly useful for combat against moving armored vehicles, the RPG-2 is actually a better choice than the RPG-7 for a squad or platoon level infantry support weapon. The kinds of targets primarily engaged by U.S. infantry anti-tank weapons are field fortifications and not armored vehicles. In fact the history of U.S. infantry anti-tank weapon use, after the early months of the Korean War, have been mainly against targets other than armored vehicles.

Isn’t it time the infantry received a support weapon not compromised by the requirements for anti-tank warfare?

Final note

Re: rifle grenades

Because of the nature of spigot launched projectiles, greater versatility is possible with a rifle grenade than a 20mm, 25mm, or 40mm grenade launchers. A typical rifle grenade weighs one pound, but smaller grenades which weigh less and have less recoil, or larger grenades for superior capability are possible.

Modern rifle grenades don’t have the drawbacks of WWII era technology, which required rifles to use specialized rifle-grenade launching blank-cartridges. It’s probably true though that the fragile construction of the M-16/M-4 family would not stand up very well to prolonged use of rifle-grenades.

Or, you are a flat out bald faced liar.

The imagination can play tricks on people that wish and imagine that they were heroes.

Especially when they weren’t!

Ciao!