Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ritchie wrote:any chance we are going to see modifications to our GPMGs, ie shorter barrel etc.
We have those (google the "para" version), but the numbers in the overall mix, I guess, is what matters
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ritchie »

I know we have (now to be "had" if the reports are correct) the Minimi "para" but can't find anything about a "para" GPMG, even on the FN website. I do know that a number of Minimi 7.62 were purchased by the MoD of SF etc. but as I say, if reports are correct, the section will be moving towards a 1 GPMG and 7 L85 configuration.

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ritchie »

Should have added this to my original post http://www.janes.com/article/58800/brit ... ht-mortars from March 2016 The rumour is they have decided to ditch the minimi LMG.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:partially you lighten the GPMG for patrol use like the swedes did?
7.62 does give better reach than 5.56 and hit harder.
Our bag of tricks was different (for a patrol machine gun):
"a new contract by the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) for the supply of up to 176 MINIMI™ 7.62 light machine guns by the end of 2011.

The contract also includes optional quantities of a further 250 MINIMI 7.62 machine guns to be delivered annually over a three-year period from 2012 to 2014 should these options be exercised.

The MoD selected the machine gun manufactured by the Belgian firearms manufacturer following several months of functional testing under various environmental conditions.

The MINIMI 7.62 is lightweight (8.4kg) and can therefore be carried over rough ground and fired from standing position while providing the range and target effect of the 7.62 ammunition. "

Now, Ritchie's 2nd link is v interesting as it is going straight from fire team to weapons held at platoon level.
- why might this be?
- Warriors (when they finally will roll out of the production line in their fresh new look) not being able to carry 8 dismounts anymore?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by LordJim »

I was always under the impression that infantry sections want to hold as much firepower as they can carry. Wasn't this the reason for the major up lift in firepower just prior to GW2 with the introduction of the Minimi and UGL. Mind you we are now carrying some pretty bulky Anti-Armour and Anti-Structure weapons so may be that is the trade off. (I am referring to NLAW vs AT-4 not LAW80 here)

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Would it not be a good idea to upgrade to the minimi mk.3? 556 with the option to change a few parts and have 762, we talked about how it would be useful for the SA80 replacement to do this surely it would be even more so for a LMG?

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

hears a radical idea why not buy enough L110 to re-equip the remaining members of the section with a 7.62mm rifle?

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Ritchie »

I should add, again, that the idea to move to GPMG plus 7 L85 per section is just a rumour ... on the *Army Rumour Service* (arrse) website ... which contains quite a lot of bollocks sometimes, and should be taken with a large pinch of salt. As armchaircivvy says the aim may well be to move belt-fed weapons to platoon level, which seems sensible to me.

By the way, I am new to contributing to this forum, having been a "lurker" for a year or two, and this is the first time I have contributed anything. Therefore, hello people :-)

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

marktigger wrote:hears a radical idea why not buy enough L110 to re-equip the remaining members of the section with a 7.62mm rifle?
Weight of round, I would rather carry nearly twice as much 5.56mm.

Have one bloke with the DMR.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tinman wrote:Have one bloke with the DMR.
Or even two, so that the parts of the section moving and covering would each have one. And if you do it, do it properly: combining suppression at longer ranges with markmanship
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... yle-rifle/
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tinman wrote:Have one bloke with the DMR.
Or even two, so that the parts of the section moving and covering would each have one. And if you do it, do it properly: combining suppression at longer ranges with markmanship
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... yle-rifle/

like what everyone in a section of slr used to do

Tinman
Member
Posts: 290
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tinman »

marktigger wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Tinman wrote:Have one bloke with the DMR.
Or even two, so that the parts of the section moving and covering would each have one. And if you do it, do it properly: combining suppression at longer ranges with markmanship
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010 ... yle-rifle/

like what everyone in a section of slr used to do
As do with the 5.56mm rifle we have, but can carry more rounds.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

and if you are engaging at ranges where you have a minimal chance of hitting the target or doing sufficient damage to neutralise the target then you are expending more rounds for little or no effect.

LordJim
Member
Posts: 454
Joined: 28 Apr 2016, 00:39
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by LordJim »

The way we need to go is for a section to contain two fire teams each with 2x L85A2, ix L85A2/UGL and 1x Minimi Mk3 7.62mm. No if no buts. Each fire team needs to be able to act as an effective base of fire and to do that you need an MG. It worked in WWII for the Wehrmacht where each section had a MG34/42 and they had a huge fire power advantage over the Allies. We only had 1 Bren per section so one team only had Lee Enfields an maybe a Sten. The extra reach and hitting power of a 7.62 LMG cannot not be underestimated in its effect on the opposition and allows the teams to effective manoeuvre. Relying on L85s and a UGL is no comparison plus the grenadier is even more limited to how many 40mm grenades carried and what type. My worry is that although the article on the ARRSE might be bollocks it has never stopped the powers that be doing something stupid. In this case they may have decided the 5.56 Minimi does bring enough to the party and they don't want to fully re-equip with the 7.62 version so they come up with the new organisation plus they can save s few quid in the process. Tea and Medals all round for the Top Brass.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

LordJim wrote:The way we need to go is for a section to contain two fire teams each with 2x L85A2, ix L85A2/UGL and 1x Minimi Mk3 7.62mm. No if no buts. Each fire team needs to be able to act as an effective base of fire
Exactly my thoughts, too.

As a reasonable man, I was going to offer to meet Tinman halfway; but he did not come out with a "decision factor":
- weight of round (ie. how many can be carried)
- reach
- flatness of trajectory (a proxy for accuracy)
"High velocity 6.5 mm
Among the wildcat versions of the .338 Lapua Magnum, the 6.5-338 Lapua remains possible the as the fastest. [...] it has to be one of the highest velocity cartridges in this bore size.
The 6.5-338 is necked down from the .338 Lapua Magnum case to the 6.5 mm (.264 caliber) bullet. The shoulders are pushed back somewhat, and the body taper is reduced by fireforming. In its finished form, the case body is almost cylindrical. The final case capacity is slightly greater than that of the parent .338 Lapua Magnum.
The ballistic performance is impressive, to say the least! With top loads, a 9 g (139 grs) Scenar HPBT bullet will leave muzzle at an incredible 1150 mps (3780 fps)."
LordJim wrote: Relying on L85s and a UGL is no comparison plus the grenadier is even more limited to how many 40mm grenades carried and what type.
- just like with a MG ((of any type), other members of the fire team (or squad, if that applies) will need to carry some

As a curiosity (of history), it was the British army, whose interest brought about the forefather of ,338 Magnum; called Arctic (obviously for the long engagement ranges) but in the standard NATO 7.62.
- fast forward a couple of decades (to A-stan; can be plus 50 at times, so not so Arctic all the time) and the old requirement was "rediscovered"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

yanks are looking at 6.8mmSPC remington which ballistically is very close to .280 British that we developed for the EM2. Which the American trials rejected in favour of 7.62x51 but there is some evidence the trials weren't exactly above board.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the British army, whose interest brought about the forefather of ,338 Magnum; called Arctic (obviously for the long engagement ranges) but in the standard NATO 7.62.
The first taker for "Arctic" was the Swedish army - they gave away the "day dream" that we are chasing here. All section level weapons were 6.5 mm, MGs included .
- but then again the strategy/ threat picture changed
- instead of Russia invading the core of the country, and taking the "Danish" Straits, it was more likely that they would go for Norway, thru northern parts of Sweden (and Finland)... if anyone has ever been there, the engagement distances can easily be kilometers, so the "NATO" round suited the bill... and made sure that in such a situation the Swedes would not run out of bullets
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

western armies have been chasing an optimal calibre since forever. if you look at the start of the 20C after encountering the 7mm Mauser the British army were looking around .276 x 60 Enfield and .280 x 66 ross. propellent issues and overheating issues (Including woodwork of rifles catching fire) slowed its introduction then WW1 stopped it. Post war the country was Brassic so we tried again after ww2 and the new generation of Kurtz cartridges that led to the .280 British or 7mm x 43.

Americans have tried a variety of cartridges as well 7.62x51 & 5.56x45 being 2

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:the new generation of Kurtz cartridges that led to the .280 British or 7mm x 43.
What was the original, German, Kurtz? It was developed for their paratroopers so that one gun could do all the jobs, w/o a MG (which the Germans always considered not to be for one individual)
- but proved over-powerful as a cartridge
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

some of the early weapons like the FG42 were still in 7.92 x57mm

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:57mm
Yeah that was the first AR, but is 57 a misnomer (or did it appear later, this "Kurtz"?).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

7.92mm X 33mm was the "Kurtz"

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

For (to many) years now I've been messing around with a design for a SA-80 replacement. The design itself hasn't really changed, but learning to use 3d design software first for TurboCad, then for Blender has slowed everything.

I've finally got it looking good enough to share and thought I'd start here... be kind :D


marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

interesting great concept.
to me it has same ergonomic disaster as SA80
can it be converted to left handed use?
to many parts and to complex. Keeping it simple allows greater flexibility why rifles like AK, M16 and FN FAL were such good designs.

I suspect the fashion of the bullpup is fading and more conventional layouts are the way ahead.

Little J
Member
Posts: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Yes it can be used by lefties (I should have shown conversion), I used a Beretta ARX bolt, but unlike the ARX160 (which needs a bullet), you just push a button on side of stock to change direction, then move ejection port covers as required.

Post Reply