Grenade Luncher ranges?

[weswood]

Going by the rules, an M203 (just for example) has a Range of 100 and an Indirect Fire Range of 400

The listed range of 100m is supposed to be short, medium would be 200m, long would be 400m, and extreme would be 800m, yet the IFR range is 400m. What I've read the max effective range is 400m, if I remember right.

I've never fired a grenade launcher. At what point does it go from direct fire to indirect fire?

I'm thinking anything under 100m would count as direct fire, from 100 to 400 m would be indirect.

Thanks

[Panther Al]

Oh, good question. Every time I lobbed one, its been indirect, and I never even tried beyond 400m. The very few times I fired directly, its always been with rubber or pellet loads that didn't have the capability of indirect fire. Well, effective indirect fire at anyrate. Like you, I always thought the range given for IDF was the max, so perhaps the ranges for GL's in the direct role need to be adjusted. Max direct, in my opinion, is about 200, so range gates would be 200, 100, 50, and 25. Which feels kinda right. Though, I agree, past 100m the indirect/direct starts getting real fuzzy.

[Fusilier]

Indirect rules come into play where there is no line of sight between you and the target. Otherwise if you can see it, its direct.

[Legbreaker]

For most hand held grenade launchers of the 40mm variety, you can forget about trying to fire beyond 400 metres unless you've got some serious gale force wind assistance.

In my experience it's actually not that hard to hit a stationary target even at 300+ metres with an M203 or M79. Therefore, it seems quite logical to me anyway, that direct fire range bands would indeed top out at Long. Forget about trying to hit a moving/dodging target at long range though - there's anything up to several seconds between firing and impact. On the other hand it's an area effect weapon, near enough may be good enough.

Note that a grenade flies quite slowly. It's possible if you're reasonably quick, to fire one indirect on a higher than 45 degree angle, reload, and fire a second round direct and have them both hit the target at almost the same moment. This technique has been used to confuse an enemy into believing there's twice as many grenadiers as there really are. It's also great for laying muliple blasts on an exposed target area without giving them a lot of time to take cover.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Note that a grenade flies quite slowly. It's possible if you're reasonably quick, to fire one indirect on a higher than 45 degree angle, reload, and fire a second round direct and have them both hit the target at almost the same moment. This technique has been used to confuse an enemy into believing there's twice as many grenadiers as there really are. It's also great for laying muliple blasts on an exposed target area without giving them a lot of time to take cover.

And you know you are stuck with a bunch of bored cavalrymen who got a few cases of the training paint rounds, trying to see who can get the most hang time.

[Abbott Shaull]

Gee and they wonder why the 40mm GL is called a poor man mortar...

[Legbreaker]

Typical cavalrymen using paint when the hardcore infantry like myself are using HEDP.

[HorseSoldier]

Max ord for a 203 puts the round about 400 meters down range. It simply won't go further than that (and really probably 300-400 should be extreme range with one).

[Abbott Shaull]

Yeah kind ironic that really the max effective range of the M203 wasn't much further than what they trained on rifle for the M4 and M16 was 300m. I don't know if they train for ranges that are further now, but then again with some units drawing out old M14s for platoon/marksmen. I am sure these people are being trained to his target at further ranges with their new weapons.

Like I said one of the interesting things is that everyone in our units had M16 in the Arms Room, even if they were SAW or M60 gunners. I am sure these weapons would follow the company so when they were in 'secured forward' areas they still would be able to carry weapon, but not the heavier one. Then these areas would be secured with enough weapon emplacements...

[Canadian Army]

I found this on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher).

"Some US Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces in Iraq have been seen using the M79 in recent years, most likely due to its greater accuracy and range compared to the M203 (350m effective versus 150 m effective on the M203)."

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

I found this on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher).

"Some US Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces in Iraq have been seen using the M79 in recent years, most likely due to its greater accuracy and range compared to the M203 (350m effective versus 150 m effective on the M203)."

Two reasons.

1 is the the accuracy.

2 is that with their new shining M4's, well it not well suited for the over/under combination which in itself is part of the reason why the M203 effective range is so limited. Especially for direct fire the sights for the M203 have to take into account the weapon above the barrel. I thought US Army had made PIP in which the 203 could be stand alone weapon with stock of it own, or place in it standard under the barrel configuration with M16 or M4.

Or another point is the ease to reload and speed it has over the M203 too.

[Legbreaker]

Although the M79 is in my opinion a bit more accurate than the M203 at longer ranges, the M203 still has a MUCH better effect range than the 150 metres indicated.
In practical use, the only real advantage the M79 has over the M203 is that it is of the break open type rather than slide open and therefore can use longer rounds. The downside of a separate grenade launcher is it's a pain to carry with a rifle (but far from impossible).

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just to add my 20 cents worth...
As has already been mentioned, direct fire is not about the weapon range but about your ability to see the target. If you can see the target at 40m it's direct fire, if you can see the target at 400m it's still direct fire. If you can't see the target it's indirect fire.

The difference in range between the M79 and the M203 has everything to do with the sights as mentioned by Abbott Shaull but the other critical factor is the barrel length.
Barrel Length: -
M79 - 35.7cm (14in)
M203, M203PI & M203A2 - 30.5cm (12in)
M203A1 - 22.9cm (9in)

The 40mm low pressure grenades are also low muzzle velocity (about 76m/s for most rounds if I remember my training right) so wind can really play havoc with them and thus effect the max range. In fact, they move so slow you can see them in flight when you fire them and a quick operator can get 2 or 3 in the air at the same time to cause the same sort of effect that Legbreaker mentioned (although in this case the grenades are detonating a few seconds apart).

[leonpoi]

Originally Posted by weswood

I'm thinking anything under 100m would count as direct fire, from 100 to 400 m would be indirect.

Thanks

To try to answer your question - nothing is official, but in a few previous posts this is the conclusion that was made. 100m is direct; +100 - 400 is indirect.

Now the next question is - is up to 100m short range? I'd say yes, but I have a house rule that says grenade launchers and large caliber guns etc, hit within d10m on a success and hit the target on a critical success. i.e. 100m is short but a crit success is needed to hit the actual target (thereby causing contact damage and blowing them to hell - otherwise within d10m and still within concussion and frag range). [edit] on a success large caliber guns hit large targets like tanks and vehicles.

[Legbreaker]

Once again, it's easy for an average shooter to hit even at longer ranges with a grenade launcher.

Indirect fire is according to all the rule sets is not easy to hit a target.

Indirect fire rules should only apply when the sights cannot be used as intended - ie plunging fire with the weapon held at greater than 45 degrees or if the target is not directly observed. ALL fire using the sights is direct.

[weswood]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Once again, it's easy for an average shooter to hit even at longer ranges with a grenade launcher.

Indirect fire is according to all the rule sets is not easy to hit a target.

Indirect fire rules should only apply when the sights cannot be used as intended - ie plunging fire with the weapon held at greater than 45 degrees or if the target is not directly observed. ALL fire using the sights is direct.

I think I see where I've been confused. The weapon can fire direct fire but also indirect fire mode for plunging fire. Somehow I had the idea that it had to be indirect fire to get the round to travel that far as with a bow & arrow.

Dohhhh!

[Legbreaker]

It is actually a "semi indirect" sort of situation at longer ranges, with the weapon having to be held at a fairly steep angle. For practical and game purposes though, if the shooter can see the target, they can use direct fire - unless they decide to fire indirect for some reason (such as wanting a delay between firing and detonation as described previously).

By the same token a weapon crew firing a 105mm artillery piece has the option of using direct fire if the gunner can see the target (point or area). With an artillery piece however, at longer ranges it may actually be more accurate to fire indirect due to limitations in the sights themselves (and the fact that it's hard to see a target 5 miles away with the naked eye).

Some weapons of course can only fire indirect - mortars being the prime example.

[cavtroop]

Originally Posted by Canadian Army

I found this on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M79_grenade_launcher).

"Some US Navy SEALs and Army Special Forces in Iraq have been seen using the M79 in recent years, most likely due to its greater accuracy and range compared to the M203 (350m effective versus 150 m effective on the M203)."

Another reason why Wikipedia should never be used as source material.

I've personally hit targets at 400m with an M203. 400m is the advertised max effective range for that weapon system.

[perardua]

I was told by some American military personnel that the M79 is preferred for certain tasks as it's break-open loading mechanism meant it was possible to load it with longer specialty rounds which the M203 loading mechanism doesn't allow. This was in a conversation about the merits of my UGL, which is based on a German design and swings out to the side to load, again allowing for easier loading of longer rounds (if the MoD would ever come through on their promises to buy any). British UGL's also have the ladder sight attached directly to the side of the weapon, whereas I believe M203s have to be zeroed to a removeable sight attached to the M4?

I also heard that the M203 replacement will be a derivation of the same UGL system as the Germans and British use, possibly for these very reasons.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by perardua

I was told by some American military personnel that the M79 is preferred for certain tasks as it's break-open loading mechanism meant it was possible to load it with longer specialty rounds which the M203 loading mechanism doesn't allow.

Correct.
The M79 does have a safety though which isn't exactly in the best position - new users can rip the webbing between thumb and forefinger when firing if they're not careful. Not exactly a big thing, but worth considering from an roleplaying point.

[atiff]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

The 40mm low pressure grenades are also low muzzle velocity (about 76m/s for most rounds if I remember my training right) .....

Assuming 76 m/s is correct, physics dictates that (no friction, no wind, flat terrain) the maximum range (45 degree shot) is approx. 590m, with an 11-second flight time.

Brought to you by your friendly physics major

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Some weapons of course can only fire indirect - mortars being the prime example.

No. Mortars can fire direct as well. All they need to do is be able to see the target. There are specific firing drills for this.

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

No. Mortars can fire direct as well. All they need to do is be able to see the target. There are specific firing drills for this.

It's called a direct lay, but it's not really direct fire. You're still lobbing the round up and over to the target. You're just putting the target directly in the sights and squaring up the bubbles, or guestimating for a hand-fired 60mm.

[perardua]

Yep, it's pretty much the only way the 51mm and it's 60mm replacement is supposed to be fired.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

It's called a direct lay, but it's not really direct fire. You're still lobbing the round up and over to the target. You're just putting the target directly in the sights and squaring up the bubbles, or guestimating for a hand-fired 60mm.

Yes, but as long as that up and over round is going to a target that you can see it is still direct fire.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by perardua

I was told by some American military personnel that the M79 is preferred for certain tasks as it's break-open loading mechanism meant it was possible to load it with longer specialty rounds which the M203 loading mechanism doesn't allow. This was in a conversation about the merits of my UGL, which is based on a German design and swings out to the side to load, again allowing for easier loading of longer rounds (if the MoD would ever come through on their promises to buy any). British UGL's also have the ladder sight attached directly to the side of the weapon, whereas I believe M203s have to be zeroed to a removeable sight attached to the M4?

The M203PI was developed to address the issue of only being able to load certain rounds (specifically, the Illum round was too long for the earlier variant so the PI version is able to move the tube further forward to allow the Illum rounds to be loaded). However, I don't know if they are issued widely enough for all units with M203 launchers to benefit.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by weswood

I think I see where I've been confused. The weapon can fire direct fire but also indirect fire mode for plunging fire. Somehow I had the idea that it had to be indirect fire to get the round to travel that far as with a bow & arrow.

Dohhhh!

I think I see where that particular confusion has come from - the idea that you would need to elevate the weapon higher for indirect fire than you would if you were engaging a target at closer ranges? I think this line of thinking has come about because some of the weapons that are listed in the rules as having indirect fire, typically use a lobbing or plunging trajectory to facilitate indirect fire but it pays to remember that any weapon is capable of indirect fire. Direct and indirect fire are not specifically a function of the range of the weapon nor it's most commonly used trajectory.

As stated before, direct fire is any type of fire where you can personally observe the target - if you can see it, it's direct fire (because you can personally observe the fall of shot and make corrections as needed to hit the target etc. etc.).
It's indirect fire only when the person aiming the weapon cannot personally see the target, that is, they are relying on a grid co-ordinate or on someone else giving target corrections and so on.
For example if you fire your shotgun at a rabbit 50m away, it's direct fire but if the rabbit was in some brush 10m away and you couldn't directly see it, you will fire where you think the rabbit is and even though the trajectory is reasonably flat, this is indirect fire.
If you throw a rock at someone, it's a straight flight path to the target but it's only because you can see the target that this is direct fire. If you tossed that rock over a high wall in the hopes of hitting someone you thought was on the other side, that would be indirect fire because you don't know specifically where the target is.

[Panther Al]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

I think I see where that particular confusion has come from - the idea that you would need to elevate the weapon higher for indirect fire than you would if you were engaging a target at closer ranges? I think this line of thinking has come about because some of the weapons that are listed in the rules as having indirect fire, typically use a lobbing or plunging trajectory to facilitate indirect fire but it pays to remember that any weapon is capable of indirect fire. Direct and indirect fire are not specifically a function of the range of the weapon nor it's most commonly used trajectory.

Indeed: During the Franco-Prussian war, the french, who was far better armed riflewise than the Prussian Army was at a strong disadvantage because they was trained not to fire directly at the Prussians: Instead, they would form up in mass, and whole companies would fire at once at a designated beaten zone, with the thinking that plunging fire from masses rifles was far more effective than shooting right at the Prussians. Since the Prussian Army was soon taking its holiday in Paris, its safe to assume that wasn't such a hot idea. The British on the other hand, took this idea, and used a different tool: The Vickers. Take a platoon of four HMG's, and aim them all in semi-indirect fire at a selected beaten zone, you get a good effect on the the target, as long as all you are trying to do is prevent someone from moving through that zone. It was used to good effect in the first and second world wars, though less so in the second due to keeping the HMG's supplied with the immense amount of ammo such tactics consumed.

[Legbreaker]

Almost any machinegun that can be tripod mounted can be fired in an indirect role. The M60 for example can fire in the indirect, sustained fire role out to about 3,000 and uses the exact same sighting unit as the 81mm mortar (at least here in Australia anyway). The Support Section of an infantry company 20 years or so ago trained to use machineguns in exactly this manner, in addition to being the AT section armed with M2 Carl Gustavs (carried one or the other depending on the OC's orders).

I would have to say as a rule of thumb, if the weapon barrel is elevated over 45 degrees (aka plunging fire) or the target cannot be directly seen and sights laid on it, Indirect Fire rules should apply.

If the target can be seen and sights laid on it, provided the barrel isn't elevated at 45+ degrees, then direct fire rules should apply.

As has been touched on, there are a number of factors influencing accuracy - wind being one of them. The longer a round is in the air, the more these factors will come into play. Therefore, from a rules perspective, the greater inherent inaccuracy of indirect fire makes perfect sense.

[perardua]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Almost any machinegun that can be tripod mounted can be fired in an indirect role. The M60 for example can fire in the indirect, sustained fire role out to about 3,000 and uses the exact same sighting unit as the 81mm mortar (at least here in Australia anyway).

Likewise for the GPMG in British service when in the sustained fire role, also using the same C2 sight as the 81mm mortar.