DROP ZONE SUPPRESSION FOR FORCED-ENTRIES

The drawing of the WWII Paratrooper firing his Thompson on the way down is dramatic. But I wonder how many Paratroopers had the opportunity to actually do this? Its trained for in the Russian Airborne. And I wonder how many would have the opportunity to do this in a U.S. mass tactical combat jump today if we do not train for this eventuality?

I have thought for many years that a simple, effective means of clearing the Drop Zone (DZ) would be a modified M-79 grenade launcher. I would make it a double barrel (over and under) with a reinforced breech area to allow for a more powerful propellant charge. I'd have special rounds made for the weapon.

They would be anti-personnel grenades about three times the length of a current M-203 40mm grenade. The weapons (call it an "M-279" or "M-79/2") would be issued on an as needed basis to as many troopers as determined by their Company Commander/1SG, based on mission profile, probably the first aircraft load to drop as a special mission--there would be no canopies under them, only enemy. The M-279 gives a descending trooper a means of effective area suppression while minimizing dangers to his brothers-in-arms. The grenades would come in almost vertically, sending maximum frag- mentation to the sides in a horizontal pattern, and minimizing vertical fragmentation. To reduce danger even further, the base of the grenade could be a frangible plastic that would disintegrate into myriad pieces of plastic "dust", which could also mark the location of the grenade's impact. If the grenades weren't used during the descent, the troopers now have a short-range 40mm "mortar" fired like a WWII rifle grenade with the butt on the ground. M-279s would be collected and returned to the DZ after the assault for re-use. It doesn't require re-inventing the wheel: take a known weapon, modify it and build a bigger grenade. The grenade is oversized so you can't load it into an M-203 or even in a belt-fed Mk-19 that uses larger grenades.

On the discussion of the GAVIN (M113A3 Airborne APC), I've made mention of similar, though non-Airborne, systems in other writings. If I were the Project Manager, I'd have a twin 106mm RR mount on the GAVIN, behind a Vietnam-era ACAV gun shield with an overhead plate for small arms/fragmentation protection. 106mm RR rounds are not the fastest things going down-range, and reloading might take a bit longer than you'd like, so an available second shot would be a comfort. I'd also use a laser range finder (LRF) coupled to a ballistic computer to really extend the range of the 106mm. Max range (old 106mm) was 7700m. Max EFFECTIVE range was 1100m, the .50 cal spotting rifle's tracer burn-out range. By having a variety of rounds available (HEAT, APERS, HESH) the unit commander's shock and firepower capabilities are greatly expanded. I'd also seriously consider arming one GAVIN section (two vehicles) with a Mk-19/7.62mm minigun (gatling) turret; think Cobra chin turret flipped upside down and placed on the GAVIN. Again with the LRF, but also thermal sights/Night Vision Devices added to the package, this would give a commander the capability to meet and engage anything short of a tank.

I might add that I heartily approve of the GAVIN concept, especially when it comes to water barriers. The Army as a whole is terribly remiss in the area of amphibious capability. To increase mobility, I'd have inflatable bladders covered with 16-ply kevlar attached to the sides of the GAVIN, which could be inflated quickly from the vehicle's exhaust system. It also adds a little more protection, especially if you hang applique armor plates over the bladders.

I'd also test the bladder system on HMMWVs, to see if it might make them less aquatically challenged. We could get a little crazy and try them on larger vehicles/trailers, but let's at least try the Hummers.

LTC Larry A. Altersitz, USAR

FEEDBACK!

"You mean like this, Sir?"

www.pakmilitary.com/army/tanks/armoured.html

Pakistan Ordnance Factories have also developed a twin 106 mm recoilless rifle mount which, for trials purposes, has been fitted onto an M113A1 APC of the Pakistani Army. The system also integrates a laser rangefinder into the existing sight of the 106 mm recoilless rifle to replace the elbow telescope. This allows the range to be displayed for the gunner in the sighting optic, which means that he can apply the superelevation and fire without having to look at another instrument. The effective range of the recoilless rifles is 1,500 m. The locally produced vehicle is called the M113A2 Mk-1 in Pakistan Army service and is almost identical to the U.S. M113 except that the 12.7 mm M2 machine gun has been replaced by a 12.7 mm Type 59 machine gun manufactured by Pakistan Ordnance factories. An anti-tank version of the M113A2 Mk-1 has recently been introduced into service and this is fitted with the locally designed Baktar Shikan anti-tank guided weapon which is very similar to the Chinese Red Arrow 8 system which entered production in 1987.

A noted defense engineer writes:

"The M79 has a muzzle impulse of about 3 lb-sec (i.e. = approx "kick"), which is about the maximum that the ordinary individual's shoulder can take for a weapon of that weight.

My opinion is that, to increase muzzle velocity, or projo wt, much beyond that is just to invite a perpetual R&D program that the Arsenal engineers would love to work on -- forever.

I won't attempt to evaluate the tactical promise, for lack of background, but IF the idea is worth following, then one might want to consider the XM174 (LV) Grenade Launcher, or something like it, which fired the same grenades fired by the M79. It fired using a 12-rd magazine that was a lot faster to reload than the belted ammo for the Mk19 (HV) GL. (Contrary to what's in Jane's)

The M174 was evaluated in VN (early '70s as I recall), and rated highly, by AF MPs, Army MPs and Marine infantry. All 3 of 'em wanted to buy it as either:

1. a pintle-mounted weapon on a vehicle (AF and Army cops, for use on their Commando Armored Cars), or

2. Marine Infantry, usually without tripod, as a sling-mounted individual weapon.

Problems were three:

1. Neither AF nor marines wanted logistical resp'y for managing procurement, supply, etc.

2. DA was not about to allow Army cops (then in disgrace because chief cop had been caught illegally bringing back wpns, they said, or something) to make a decision to introduce a new weapon into Army,

3. Wpn was perceived by 'Army' as an approx 45 pound tripod-mounted weapon (tripod, weapon, and one magazine) with only a 400 meter max range.

So the program died. I'll bet that marines at Quantico still have some of their ~25 bought (even if only in Museum), and the AF cops HQ at Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, may still have theirs. (Qty was somewhere between 200 and 300.)

Well, that was longer than expected. Sorry!