UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Section infantry weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tempest414 » 22 Feb 2021, 11:00

So to pull some stuff together that has been push around if we were to take a new Boxer mechanised infantry battalion and give them 80 Boxers with 6 of them fitted with Nemo 120 mortar system and 8 in CVR for recce we could then give disembarked platoons a single 60mm mortar and sections this 20mm system

As a side I was watching a video on youtube of the Wiesel 120mm mortar system witch can be carried by a Chinook this would allow the same for 16AA with 6 Wiesel 120mm mortar giving battalion level cover 60mm at platoon level and 20 mm at section level

These would be backed up by Artillery at Brigade level

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 14879
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Feb 2021, 11:45

Tempest414 wrote: we could then give disembarked platoons a single 60mm mortar and sections this 20mm system

With everything you have written "in" I think we can skip that 60mm and keep it in armouries for troops helo-landed, and no other - at least in the first instance - means of indirect fire further out than the AR-underslung grenades ( 300m ?)
Tempest414 wrote:the Wiesel 120mm mortar system witch can be carried by a Chinook this would allow the same for 16AA with 6 Wiesel 120mm mortar


The Wiesel is an ingenious family of AFVs, but dates back to the days when there was a full division that could be "ferried out" to somewhere else than the Central Front
... and the contract with Lufthansa allowed commandeering their Jumbos, installing stronger floor plates (pre-stored) on them, and every a/c could take seven :!: Wiesels

I believe there are only 8 of the mortar variant left in active service, so that the tactics of CH-53s taking them to where ever they might be required can be practised
- the CH-53 replacement, itself, is an 'endangered' project
... which is a pity as for getting mountain-capable troops up to Norway, plenty quick, would point to the remaining mountains troops of Germany; and getting their fire support by other means than by mule, into the right spot, again plenty quick (once on the scene) would point to exactly that kind of 'combo'

Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 2360
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
Location: France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tempest414 » 23 Feb 2021, 10:28

ArmChairCivvy wrote:With everything you have written "in" I think we can skip that 60mm and keep it in armouries for troops helo-landed, and no other - at least in the first instance - means of indirect fire further out than the AR-underslung grenades ( 300m ?)


Just for me if a Mechanised Battalion had 8 x Boxer based 120mm mortars range 10+ km , 9 x dismounted 60mm mortars range 3+ km plus 27 x 20mm grenade range 1km that is a lot of fire power and when back up by Brigade level Archer based artillery range 21+ km would mean a battalion could deliver 575 rounds per min of HE into a target area. This could be matched by a Mobile protected Battalion if we could fit 120mm mortar on Bushmaster or Eagle 6x6 witch can be done. It could even be achieved by air assault battalion if we could get them something like the Wiesel 120mm mortar system and 105mm light gun

Online
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 5001
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 23 Feb 2021, 12:12

Between 2025 and 2030 we are going to be looking to replace the L85A3 according to what I can find so going by that premise should we adopt the US 6.8mm IR and AR. I have a real soft spot for the Sig Sauer proposal which is probably the most evolutionary rather than revolutionary as the other two seem to be. These weapons fit in very nicely with the British Army's desire to suppress the enemy through accurate fire and with the advanced optics could push the effective zone beyond the current 600m out to 800m.

We could then go one further and look to the Sig Sauer .338 Norma LMG as a replacement for the trusty old L7 GPMG. It is lighter, has greater range and stopping power. In fact we could also replace our stocks of M2 12.7mm HMGs with the same weapon and in thins case the weight saving is enormous.

Up next we have a disposable anti-tank weapon and here we are in a very good position as the NLAW is probably the best weapon in its class, having good range, high hit probability even against moving targets and a good warhead. We are in a similar situation when it come to sniper team weapons. Both the L115A4 (.338 Lapua Magnum) and the L129A1 (7.62 NATO) are very good weapons and if we need to really reach out and touch somebody we have the new AX50 12.7mm Anti-Material Rifle.

The British Army is also looking at improving the ammunition it uses, with the aim of both improving the accuracy and consistency of each round but also its terminal effects.

Back to the present and although there are some weight issues our current L85A3 is probably one of the best Assault Rifles in the world chambered to 5.56. Remember H&K took what it had learnt from updating the L85 when it was asked to improve the M4 carbine. With its longer barrel length it outranges and generally out shots nearly all of its rival, the M4 in particular, and now also has better reliability and a superb optic. Lastly we should retain the L123A3 Grenade launcher on the L85A3 and maybe purchase a limited number of standard version that can be fitted to the L129A1 and L119A2 rifles. So we are in a good situation there.

The L129A1 is an excellent DMR especially with the optics we have chosen for it, we just need more to equip all Infantry Section with it.

Now we come to the L7A2. This has been and still is a very good General Purpose Machine Gun. Its one blemish is its weight, though this is not such that it does seriously affect its utility within the Section. Attempts to make it lighter such as the US Marines altering the design to incorporate a substantial amount of Titanium have addressed this issue but at considerable cost per gun. The Swedes have made a reasonable attempt and could be worth looking into further. As an alternative though there is the M48 as used by various units in the US. This is basically the Mk2 MINIMI but in 7.62mm. It is also used by our Special Forces and has an effective range similar to the L7A2 but is lighter. Should be consider a limited purchase of these to equip the eight Battalions that are destines to make up the Armoured and Mechanised Infantry as well as the Battalions allocated to 16XX Brigade and the RM Commandos. The remaining units would retain the L7A2.

Also of use to the Infantry Section is the Israeli designed L2A1 also known as Matador. It is a very effective Anti-Structure Weapon with a proven combat record. It is easily man portable and stowed in vehicles, much like NLAW.

Now we come to Starstreak. At present it is operated in two main forms by the British Army. First is the SP version mounted on the Stormer AFV which carries eight ready to us rounds. This platform is also being modified to fire the MBDA LMM missile, which will increase the flexibility of the vehicle. Ideally with the introduction of the Army's new families of AFVs the Starstreak launchers should be transferred to a new platform, with a Boxer Module being the best option in my opinion. The second way Starstreak is deployed is using a three round pedestal launcher. This can either be vehicle mounted or ground mounted. At present Starstreak is only operated in the Army by one Regular and one Reserve Regiment of the Royal Artillery. In my opinion the pedestal version should also be disseminated to the Infantry battalions, at lest those in 3rd (UK) Division. There is a third launch method which can be used of course and that is to fire the Missile from the shoulder. I would like to see Starstreak available to Infantry Platoons, possibly a single two man fire team, or even down to section level if possible. Like ATGWs we need to increase the number of Guided Weapons in our Infantry Battalions to those approaching that of the late 1980s where some infantry Battalions had up to twenty four Milan Launchers!

And that bring us nicely onto ATGWs. At present the British Army uses the 4th Generation Javelin. This is a good weapon that has served the Army well in Afghanistan and Iraq. But it range is limited and it also lacks a man in the loop capability that is proving more and more useful. A solution would be to adopt the Spike family of weapons to fill a number of roles within the Army. The Spike SR with a range of 2000m is a disposable system and would be ideal for out lighter forces. Spike LR2 would be a good replacement for Javelin, having a range of 5500m and easily installed on vehicles as well as ground launched. It has the man in the loop capability desired as well. Next we have the Spike ER2. This would be an excellent weapon for any overwatch platform having a range op up to 18Km though only up to 10km with its fibre Optic wire. It could also be mounted on light vehicles such as the JLTV and Viking to give lighter forces a long range punch. And finally we have Spike NLOS with a range of up to 30KM. This is already in service with the Army as the Extractor Mk2. Its role and availability in the Army should be expanded to give all Brigades access to the weapon, providing precision fore support against high value targets. So at the section level I can see the issue of Spike SR to units who do not have access to the heavier Spike LR2, here we are talking 16XX and RM. In units with Spike LR2 ideally these would be vehicle mounted, with a number of vehicles carrying a ground launch unit for use if needed.

Other weapons that could be considered for the Infantry section are the Carl Gustav M4 and the 20mm Direct GL mentioned higher up the thread. The Former would replace the M2A1 within the Section possibly, but more likely it would be held at Platoon level. If the guided round enters production then it could also replace weapons such as the Spike SR, as it is planned to nave a range of up to 2000m and a variable warhead dependant on target. The latter weapon is very interesting but will require substantial trials to identify where ti should be used and at what level it should be issued.

The sermon hath ended.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 14879
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 23 Feb 2021, 15:05

Tempest414 wrote: This could be matched by a Mobile protected Battalion if we could fit 120mm mortar on Bushmaster or Eagle 6x6 witch can be done.
I'm all for that and my comment/ criticism against overegging the indirect fire (at the cost of something else) in the higher up formations was akin to
... while not equating direct fire = AT only (as in: out to 1 km), which reasonably could be considered the limit of what a single platoon - not to mention a section - would need to influence
Lord Jim wrote:we have a disposable anti-tank weapon and here we are in a very good position as the NLAW is probably the best weapon in its class, having good range, high hit probability even against moving targets and a good warhead.

- the direct fire mode can be used for most of the things that a much more expensive (and heavy) AT-G-W aka Javelin has been used for, when it is the only one issued (routinely)

... will replenish the coffee, and answer the rest of the post by @LJ

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4617
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby marktigger » 26 Feb 2021, 10:16

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As there are so many CG enthusiasts here, surely anyone who gets the short straw, to carry it (and some rounds?) around would only get issued with a PDW
- do we have any?

If MP40 was to be relegated to a PDW role in the redesigned infantry, late WW2, then M1 carbine was originally designed as a better-than-a-pistol PDW... and I had always thought that it was pulled in from cavalry, to get something into mass production plenty quick


officially in the good old days of the L14A1 Carl Gustav that weighed 36lbs unloaded you were "ment" to have a sterling :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Little J
Member
Posts: 656
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 26 Feb 2021, 12:03

Grot MSBS...
The results of the tests were staggering. According to Moszner the gun overheated, parts such as the polymer stock and lower receiver tended to break, the rifle suffered from numerous malfunctions and the gas regulator in front of the Grot simply fell out. Besides that, the gun itself suffers from a lack of any anti-corrosive protection.


https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... in-poland/


Storm in a teacup or growing pains?

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 952
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 26 Feb 2021, 12:39

How about reading the whole article rather than cherry picking a contentious point.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4617
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby marktigger » 26 Feb 2021, 12:53

Little J wrote:Grot MSBS...
The results of the tests were staggering. According to Moszner the gun overheated, parts such as the polymer stock and lower receiver tended to break, the rifle suffered from numerous malfunctions and the gas regulator in front of the Grot simply fell out. Besides that, the gun itself suffers from a lack of any anti-corrosive protection.


https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... in-poland/


Storm in a teacup or growing pains?


The excuses sound very familiar


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests