Some of you who have seen the elephant, perhaps you could enlighten us about
how the grenade launcher is employed, as compared to the SAW? Right
now, IIRC, an AGL has a better to-hit and lower to-damage than a SAW.
If the target is out in the open, though, I'd think that the SAW would have an
easier time hitting, so maybe the AGL should actually have a lower
to-hit
but have the ability to negate/reduce the effects of cover?
Think of the AGL as an HMG that shots things that go BOOM. This is an area
effect weapon, the chance to hit is based on HE effects, not direct hits by
individual rounds (really bad for the receiving team). Range should be better
than a SAW, more powder behind the round.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
In a message dated 10/28/03 9:54:33 AM Central Standard Time,
> mwbrown@sonic.net writes:
> Think of the AGL as an HMG that shots things that go BOOM. This is an
In modern parlance the US GL is attached to the barrel of an assault rifle and
bloops rounds out to about 300 meters. The AGL version (the Mark 19 AGL) is a
heavy weapon meant for a tripod or a vehicle mount. The grenade is
higherpowered than the simple GL round, but its range is really only about
double to 600 meters or so. The SAW on a bipod can be accurate to at least 800
meters, maybe a thousand.
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 11:35 am, Popeyesays@aol.com wrote:
Range
> > should be better
The Mk19 is accurate on area targets (it's firing grenades after all) to a
much higer range than just 600 meters.
I've personally peppered designated area targets with multiple rounds out to
1200meters, and the weapon is "offically" rated for area targets out to 2200
meters.
http://www.army.mil/fact_files_site/mk19-3/
Now if you're focusing on the effective range of the Mk-19 on POINT
targets, you're killing flies with a hammer. It's the wrong weapon for that
application. The Mk-19 is a "close enough" weapon by it's very nature
of chucking grenades.
The Mk-19 fires on a very slow velocity. If you position yourself
behind (in front is discouraged) the weapon in line with the barrel and watch
closely, you can actually see the round moving away from you as a dark blur.
Many moons ago, I was at a range where they were testing the MK19 (prior to
the Army getting it) VERY impressive in a "I DON'T want to be on the other
end" kind of way. Seems to me that the targets were more than 600m.
Michael Brown
[quoted original message omitted]
Check the DoD website:
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/mk19.htm
Has an effective range of 1600m, 2200m max. And it's actually a MK19 Mod3 40mm
Grenade MACHINE GUN. It was first developed by the NAVY in the early 1960's.
Wild..
> --- Michael Brown <mwbrown@sonic.net> wrote:
DOh!! It's actually the FAS website! (Federation of American Scientists)
> --- Foxx Travis <lordkalvin2002@yahoo.com> wrote:
<<snipped>>
Yeah, and the Mod 1's were hand-cranked!
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 1:14 pm, Foxx Travis wrote:
> Has an effective range of 1600m, 2200m max. And it's
Whoops, no they weren't, per the site it was the Mk18s that were
hand-cranked.
I just knew it was a predecessor to today's Mk19s that was hand-cranked
and guessed from there.
It seems a minor thing to me, but I know one of the resident pedants would
probably call me on it.
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 2:08 pm, FlakMagnet72 wrote:
> FlakMagnet72 wrote:
Well, you do claim to be a flak magnet.... ;-)
Mk
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:21:54PM -0500, Indy wrote:
> Well, you do claim to be a flak magnet.... ;-)
Since JA's still away, is now a good time to mention belt buckles? :-)
(For people new to the list: see
http://lists.firedrake.org/gzg/200203/msg01348.html .)
R
> At 2:21 PM -0500 10/28/03, Indy wrote:
But not a Pedant-Magnet.
I think I see where this is going to go... I think I can hear the puns at the
gates now.
Alert the Narns!
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 2:39 pm, Ryan M Gill wrote:
Of particular amusement to me in that rant was that he used the phrase
"civilized warfare".
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 2:27 pm, Roger Burton West wrote:
> At 3:00 PM -0500 10/28/03, FlakMagnet72 wrote:
*snif* I miss John A.
A Coy. of 3rd ID crunchies came through CNN center the other day (getting food
I guess). I walked up to several and thanked them for their service after
asking if they'd been in Iraq (had to be sure they weren't some training
cadre).
Okay, the AGL is wonderful -- for what circumstances would you prefer a
SAW?
I would think the SAW is more generally useful - for instance it is
single-man portable. From the stats of the AGL, just the weapon itself
is 77 lbs, not counting mount, tripod or ammo. IIRC the SAW is just 1/2
that weight, and so can be carried by a single man.
You can carry more ammo for the SAW. You probably get 30 AGL round per can and
it's looks larger than a similar ammo can for the SAW. In addition, the SAW is
useful at ALL ranges. If the AGL is similar to the standard GL grenades, then
minimum distance is about 45 feet (or however many rotations of the shell in
flight (7?)) before it arms. If it hits you at 20 feet, you are going to have
a nasty bruise, but aren't going to be tomato sauce spread over the landscape.
The SAW on the other hand will turn you into swiss cheese at that range.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> I would think the SAW is more generally useful - for instance it is
IIRC a 5.56mm SAW is something like 18 pounds, and a 7.62mm is around 30.
> You can carry more ammo for the SAW. You probably get 30 AGL round per
Okay, good points. Now, how do we incorporate this in to SG2?
> At 3:42 PM -0500 10/28/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
Direct fire (low angle vs the high angle of the AGL (though the new OCSW is a
low angle 20mm). Portability (AGL ammo is heavier per round and the weapons
are heavier). Commonality with the line rifle weapons' ammo.
> At 1:58 PM -0700 10/28/03, B Lin wrote:
For pure HE function, you could probably dispense with the min arming distance
when fighting from Power Armor. I can also see some nasty special purpose
rounds (flechettes, gas, foam, chemical, irritant, sticky, etc) in the larger
Grenade type rounds.
Where I would prefer a SAW:
Close-in terrain where the arming distance of the grenades (or the
possibility of "friendly fire") precludes using an AGL.
Mobile operations without mechanized assets. They're big, heavy, and designed
to fire either from a mount or tripod, so they're slow to deploy. Unless
you're gonna give the AGL to a power-armored trooper, then he could keep
up
and still fire snap-shots if that's how your PSB for powered troops
goes.
Missions with a high chance of non-combattants being stuck in the
crossfire.
It's hard to really _aim_ a grenade.
Anytime re-supply is likely to become an issue. AGL's have bulkier ammo
than machine guns, but when ROE's allow their liberal use, tend to eat that
ammo
just as fast as MG's. So that makes it easier to re-supply MG's since
their ammo contains more rounds in a smaller space.
> On Tuesday 28 October 2003 3:42 pm, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
> At 4:11 PM -0500 10/28/03, FlakMagnet72 wrote:
Unless
> you're gonna give the AGL to a power-armored trooper, then he could
If you've got hover sleds, they'd be more portable. I'm starting to think that
the light cav doctrine that you get with small ATVs and such might give you
more heavy weapons in an otherwise light force.
> Missions with a high chance of non-combattants being stuck in the
OCSW is going to be better at point targets. Being able to laser range a
target, set a detonation distance and fire to get enfilade bursts will be
fancy and expedient.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/ocsw.htm
Interesting medium caliber ammo choices.
http://www.gd-ots.com/MedCalOpe.html
Specifically check out the 40mm HVCC (40mm cannister shot anyone?)
The AGL when I have a vehicle to carry it, a SAW when the grunts are on the
pointy end of things. The AGL is a great weapon to support a Platoon, the SAW
to support a fireteam or squad.
Hmmm, AGL with laser range-finding and remote detonation. The "Swiss
Army Knife" of grenade launchers. You could place rounds that airburst, rounds
that hit the ground and become contact mines or remote detonated
mines, ones filled with fluorescent/laser scattering dyes for marking
targets for other guided weapons, plus indirect fire capabilities, why would
PA need anything else?
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> At 2:39 PM -0700 10/28/03, B Lin wrote:
Add in the High Velocity Canister round and you're golden.
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 02:39:08PM -0700, B Lin wrote:
For the same reason you have PA rather than nuking the site from orbit:
flexibility and precision. Sometimes you just want to shoot _that one
guy_ rather than his entire squad. Sometimes you're in an environment
where stray shrapnel's a bad idea. Sometimes you want to reach out and touch
somebody several miles away (I suspect a bullet will always be
made to go further than a grenade, and a laser _much_ further).
Sometimes you can't afford the ammo weight for all the firing opportunities
you'll have on your extended mission.
At least, that's my take on it.
R
I don't think the correct comparison is AGL vs. SAW, it should more be
like AGL vs. .50cal HMG. A better comparison is AR w/GL (OICW-like) vs,
SAW. Or perhaps AGL vs. light Automatic mortar, like those described in
Hammer's Slammers with a 3-round clip.
I think the stats for the AGL will be more similar to an HMG (better to hit,
but less damage) with similar ranges and uses. IIRC the.50 can be used against
area targets up to almost 2 km which is similar to the AGL. Due to the high
recoil, it's not as useful against point targets, unless they are of vehicle
size.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> I don't think the correct comparison is AGL vs. SAW
They are both squad support weapons in StarGrunt, so I guess the "AGL"
there is a light version. Although a Size-1 weapon would be good too.
Only while he's away...
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 19:27:36 +0000 Roger Burton West
> <roger@firedrake.org> writes:
Well, there is civilized warfare - that's the kind we play on the table
(well, usually.)
On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:00:55 -0500 FlakMagnet72
> <flakmagnet@tabletop-battlezone.com> writes:
One word - cost.
Well, in the real world, it's a peacetime consideration...
> On Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:39:08 -0700 "B Lin" <lin@rxkinetix.com> writes:
Just to add my $.02:
The Mk19 and SAW are not comparable; it's apples and oranges. The Mk19 is in a
class with the Browning M2.50 cal, and like the Ma Deuce, it is meant for
vehicular mount or tripod. Neither the Mk19 nor the M2 can be fired by
crunchies without a tripod setup, which means that they are not weapons that
can be included in standard infantry squad doctrine.
The M249 SAW, on the other hand, is meant to fill the "automatic rifleman"
position in a standard 4-man fire team (the others are team leader,
rifleman, and grenadier; there are two fire teams to a squad in the US Army).
The SAW is meant to provide suppressing fire to support the team's riflemen as
they fight, and thus becomes a vital part of squad and platoon dismounted
maneuver. The Mk19 and M2, on the other hand, are meant to be used in mounted
mechanized platoon fire and maneuver. In my last unit (2nd Infantry Division),
Mk19's were fielded at the rate of one per platoon, with the rest of our
M113's fielding a.50 cal. The Mk19's were intended for use against dismounts
and
light-skinned
vehicles, while the M2's were meant to pound anything else.
These distinctions become blurred when we move the doctrine into a futuristic
setting with PA and hover sleds and whatnot. But at the present, the above
differences are what's key to understanding about the Mk19 and SAW.
> The Mk19 and SAW are not comparable; it's apples and oranges. The
Okay, let's assume there's a light, one-man AGL (since SG2 says there
is)--it bears the same relationship to a Mk19 that a squad SAW does to a
M2.
IIRC the SAW is d10/d10. Should the AGL be d12/d8? Or should it be,
say,
d8/d8 with the ability to negate a level or two of cover (since it can
indirect-fire)? Or is there another way to do it?
> At 10:48 AM -0500 10/29/03, laserlight@quixnet.net wrote:
d8 firepower, d10 impact, area affect and capable against point
targets (choice of ammo, ap vs frag/blast effects.
THE MK 19 AGL is after my own time in combat, but, i did use the hand
cranked, belt fed, pintel-mounted 40mm grenade launcher in combat.
this thing, i got from the riverine Navy, was a strange looking weapon.
a square box, with a pistol grip, and a barrel that was about 6", maybe 12"
long (memory is not clear about the barrel length). i think i remember very
primitive sights on it too. used those belted 40mm rounds like a HUEYCOBRA or
SLICKS used. limited elevation, too. weighed about 10 pounds, i would SWAG.
like shooting a gatling blooper, bad news AREA weapon down range, but not a
POINT weapon except by accident. the round carried about 100 yards with
accuracy as i recall, then was likely to go anywhere down range beyond that.
had some problems with jamming too, as i recall.
the weird thing is, i have NEVER seen any photos of this thing, and
except for MPs who mounted them on V-100s in the Delta and riverine
Navy types in the Delta, no one i have talked too ever saw one either.
. .
i have often wondered if these were unit armorer field (made) expedient belt
fed GLs.
DAWGIE
Cloaking Lurker Mode Off...
Seeing how nobody else tuned up, I will. The weapon you describe is the M174.
It was used, in Vietnam and fired most standard velocity 40mm grenades. Note
the Mark 19 fires special high velocity grenades. Basic stats for the M174E3
version are as follows:
Empty Weight: 16 lbs. Loaded Weight: 26 lbs. Overall Length: 28 in. Muzzle
Velocity: 250 fps. Type of Fire: Selective Cyclic Rate: 300 rpm Max Range:
1,200 ft Feed Device: 12 round drum Note, this is for the man portable, not
vehicle mounted version. Grenades that will not feed: M576E1 Multiple
projectile round (#4 Buckshot) Grenades too long to fit: CS Gas M651E1; all
flare and smoke grenades. Note: these grenades can be loaded individually and
fired one at a time.
The big advantage when compared to the Mark 19 is logistics, the same grenades
feed everything with the M174. The down side is much shorter range, lower
cyclic rate, and slightly less filler (explosives) in the HE grenades.
I have a b&w picture of the M174E3 mounted on a M122 (M60) tripod in a book.
If anyone is interested, e-mail me OFF LIST and I will scan it in and
send it to you...
ias
[quoted original message omitted]