Introduce Riflefgrenades

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

This thread is not about riflegrenades being better or worse then m203 but how spread the weapon sysmte is and if it is enough to justify being in the game, and in that case first for the none west factions. Even if it is my personal conviction that rifelgreandes are superior.

Outgunned by rifle grenades "up close" on the battlefield

When i started plaing Projectreality i was actually suprised to see that there were no riflegrenades in the game especially now with IDF added. Many countries use riflegrenades, Switz for their Stery aug, IDF tavor REFAIM Advanced Infantry Weapon System , almost every faction with AKM derivat has riflegrenade, PLA Nazarian "The front part of the barrel in the standard version assault rifle is left unobstructed so that it can launch rifle grenades."

I think it must be resonable to say that it would be more probable that insurgencts, militia and taibans have acces to old riflegrenades then grenadelaunchers, also weapon findings support this.

So i would like that insurgencts, militia and taibans have their grenadeluancher replace with riflegrenades. Also that the IDF get riflegrenades for one of of their standard riflemankit since IDF have a long tradtion of riflegrenades.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

Wait, you mean the same rifle grenades that were used in WW2? Aka, put the grenade into your barrel and shoot it? It might be possible in Frostbite engine(ala vBF2 engine), but it would still give the same effect as shooting with Grenade launcher. IMO, i would use a GL instead of rifle grenade, because if i remember correctly, the rifle grenade is the same grenade as your everyday throw able grenade. Thus, it is weaker then the grenade used for grenade launchers. Plus, Grenade launcher is made specially for shooting grenades over long distance, thus grenade launchers are going to shoot father and with better accuracy as well.

One of my point is that they were not only used in ww2 but continued to be used, see the IDF link and that TAVOR and Type-95 are developed with riflegrenades in mind. And that eastern countries use these weapons extensivly.

US soldiers in vietnam was severly outgunned in firefights becouse of this. Vietnamese solider has loads of HE and White phosphor riflegrenade that everyman can use, and RPG HE. US soldier tops got a dedicated low effective grenadier per squad/platoon. You do the math.

No a riflegrenade has a bigger payload then a measly 40mm.
I will qoute some numbers from my first link to give you perspective.

U.S. Forces out-gunned on the modern battlefield, why?

We have shown how we are getting our "rears" handed to us in the close fight by enemy rifle grenades, RPGs, AKMs etc. However some may say the smaller M203 GL round can be carried in larger numbers and fired over a longer period of time before running out than non-collapsing fin rifle grenades.

The problem is the M203 is ineffective versus an enemy with rifle grenades (Vietnam), and in the hands of a dedicated Grenadier is often pinned down and unable to fire (Punta Paitilla). If you factor EQUALLY all of the general infantry tasks in a sort of mini-Battlefield Operating System (BOS) kind of way, the result is the needed corrective action gets stymied by Lowest Common Denominator (LCD) thinking. The LCD here is that the M203 has smaller shells so you can carry more of them compared to non-collapsing fin rifle grenades and continuously fire them over time, if you elevate this aspect to an equal footing to the explosive effectiveness factor, you negate the entire need to go with rifle grenades.

Result: status quo remains intact! And we will continue to lose the close fight, and men, and battles and wars....

However, it doesn't work:

1. If the dedicated M203 Grenadier is pinned down by enemy fire.
2. The Grenadier is poorly trained due to manning turmoil etc. and cannot shoot accurately--vital for its puny warhead size---due to the weapon not taken seriously and having no consistent training means
3. The shells being fired over time, even if they are landing near the enemy are irrelevant due to their small size/effect.
4. The weight of the M203 GL itself--inefficient way to deliver grenades at extended ranges

What matters is HITTING AND KILLING the enemy and the M203 40mm GL isn't doing it.

On the other hand, rifle grenades are 3 times as lethal, and if packaged right can be carried by EVERYONE IN THE SQUAD. What this means is instead of 6 pounds of M203 Grenade launcher weighing down the M16, you can have 6 x RIFLE GRENADES right there. You are already "6 rifle grenades up" on the M203 from the "get-go". For the same weight as a M203, your Grenadiers can have 26 x rifle grenades compared to just 20 x 40mm grenades and a 6-pound M203 dead weight attached to the M16.

Then, if you make the rifle grenade fins/tube collapse, they can be carried in less space and thrown as baseball or "stick" hand grenades---now you are giving the Soldier a vastly improved fighting potential----he has 30 rifle or hand grenades---depending on the situation he has 30 explosives effect charges for 0-40 meters or 100-350 meters, whereas the M16/M203 GL Grenadier has 20 x 100-300 meter explosive effects and 4 x 0-40m explosive effects available. The Rifle/Hand Grenades are the same size as an illumination M203 40mm Grenade now.

INDIVIDUALLY:

30 is better than 20.
30 is better than just 4.

GROUP:

Then you multiply this by the potential of the rest of the squad.

Paratrooper 2000 Rifle/Hand Grenade-equipped Infantry Squad

1 Squad Leader = 10 R/H grenades
2 Grenadiers = 60 R/H grenades
2 Fireteam leaders = 20 R/H grenades
2 Rifleman = 20 R/H grenades
2 Auto Riflemen = 20 R/H grenades

130 Total Grenades from 0-350 meters

1999 "Status quo sucks" M203 GL and Hand Grenade-equipped Squad

1 Squad Leader = 4 x H grenades
2 Grenadiers = 40 x 40mm, 8 x H grenades
2 Fireteam leaders = 8 x H grenades
2 Rifleman = 8 x H grenades
2 Auto Riflemen = 8 x H grenades

40 x M203 GL Grenades from 50-350 meters
36 x Hand grenades 0-40 meters
A mere 76 total grenades. If the two Grenadiers are pinned down, there is no extended range fire available.

In the U.S. Army the Fireteam leader has a M203 GL and there is 2 Riflemen in the squad, probably in realization the M203 is best used for leader target marking than explosives effect killing. Yet another reason why we need rifle grenades so we are not out-gunned on the modern battlefield.

With the loss of the M8 Buford Armored Gun System, retirement of M728 Combat Engineer Vehicles, Iowa Class battleships, our infantry is set for a repeat of October 3, 1993 Somalia all over again. We MUST do something TODAY to give our troops shock action to prevail on the increasingly urban battlefield. BT Rifle/hand grenades are something we can do to solve this.

Lets do it before its too late.

[BroCop]

Well AFAIK the French Forces are going to have rifle 'nades for their FAMAS's

though not sure about western nations but East European nations do indeed use rifle grenades (not to mention SE europe where every nation has a bunch of them in stock)

[Snazz]

It might be possible in Frostbite engine(ala vBF2 engine)

BF2 uses the Refractor 2 engine, Bad Company 2 uses Frostbite.

Forgotten Hope 2 rifle grenades:


French Forces rifle grenades:

[lucidrians]

I remember seeing the Isreali door breaching one on Future Weapons.

YouTube - Future Weapons: Simon Rifle Grenade

[Hitperson]

mentioning FW on here will only get you laughed at i'm afraid.

[lucidrians]

mentioning FW on here will only get you laughed at i'm afraid.

I don't really care, it shows the grenade being used on a door, it's a interesting video, if people are so stuck up just because its on future weapons, well then they can get over themselves.

[Nagard]

If I got it right, Sirex is suggesting to bring up the Riflegrenades for all factions regardless wether they use UGLs or not.

If this would be his intention then it's senseless. You already got the Grenadiers and you don't need launched grenades for everyone else.

[Sirex[SWE][MoW]]

If I got it right, Sirex is suggesting to bring up the Riflegrenades for all factions regardless wether they use UGLs or not.

If this would be his intention then it's senseless. You already got the Grenadiers and you don't need launched grenades for everyone else.

ProjectReality
Also i am more in favor of getting it to none-western factions first to replace grenadier to make it more realistic. Also i belvie factions like IDF should have riflegrenade on ordinary soldier, or as a right mouse button click on grenadier, also goes for PLA.

[Startrekern]

Sheesh. Guys. The suggestion was to give it to factions that would need 'cheaper' equipment, i.e. insurgents, militia, etc. Thus, riflegrenades make sense for these factions -- more sense than these factions having UGLs.

[Eddie Baker]

Thus, riflegrenades make sense for these factions -- more sense than these factions having UGLs.

But so far he has not listed sources as to the number of rifle grenades employed by such factions or found within seized arms caches. That carries more weight here than a 10+ year old website that lists their capabilities compared to spin-stabilized launched grenades by authors who also believe that the M113 is the pinnacle of AFV design and that the mechanized infantry traitors have conspired with the enemy, the armored corps, to make light, airborne and bicycle infantry, and thus the entire US military, fail.

And since rifle grenades have been suggested here before, both the SIMON breaching grenade and UK L series rifle grenades (rendered obsolete in service by the AG36), he is going to need those sources if he wants to convince the DEVs of anything.

[Thermis]

Ressugestion.

Though rifle grenades exist they are not very common. UGLs are used in actual combat and I bet if you poll all the current and former service members on this form who have been in combat and ask them if they ever saw a rifle grenade most would say no.