Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by whitelancer »

Why did they give up on Merlin, was it just the cost?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by LordJim »

The answer is to buy the Brandt 120mm Rifled mortar to replace the 81mm in out Armoured Infantry and future Strike Brigades. Provides far greater firepower and more ammunition options. Reduces the strain on our limited heavy artillery assets. yes the weight is greater then the 81mm but its overall performance matches the 105mm LG and surpasses it in some respects. Plus there are guided round out their for precision strike under development.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

whitelancer wrote:Why did they give up on Merlin, was it just the cost?
End of the Cold War, cost and I believe a realistic appraisal of whether or not it was actually technically feasible at that time. A MMW guided 81mm mortar round wouldn't be easy to do in this day and age. It's a bit like the Hughes Wasp missile. The idea was there but it was going to cost a fortune to get the technology perfected 15 years before it was mature. In the Wasp's case the missile eventually arrived in the form of Brimstone 20 years later. With Merlin I suspect any cost benefit analysis would have suggested that more ATGM firing posts were the answer for the same money. For me I see the cancellation of Merlin as a blessing, it would have been the UK's Copperhead. Sounds great on paper, hugely expensive and marginal utility. In reality the best way of dealing with armour at range had already been developed. The Israeli's had Tamuz (which became Spike NLOS) in service in 1981. A far more useful capability as it turned out. Incredibly Europe and the US were developing their own missiles with Polyphem and EFOGM and abandoned what turned out to be a brilliant idea.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

LordJim wrote:Plus there are guided round out their for precision strike under development.
Guided 120mm rounds are already in service. 120mm mortar for armoured units is a no brainer. 81mm for everyone else.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:
LordJim wrote:Plus there are guided round out their for precision strike under development.
Guided 120mm rounds are already in service. 120mm mortar for armoured units is a no brainer. 81mm for everyone else.
Yes, have been for decades in anti-armour mode (Sweden, Switzerland - those counting on using terrain to channel the armour pushing through - and then killing "it" en-masse). But the recent renaissance stems from use in MOUT. And there you need the bigger (120mm) bomb.
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 wasn't sure which had actually made it into service. I knew about the Swedish Stryx, but I believe that is fired from a standard smooth bore 120mm Mortar. I am advocating the Thomas Brandt rifled 120mm, used by many nations instead of 105mm Guns and adopted most recently by the USMC to provide highly mobile fire support greater then traditional 81mm Mortars but for easier to deploy than 155mm Guns. It is the guided rounds for this I believe are still in development, driven by the needs of the USMC. I would actually go as far as to issue this weapon to all units, replacing both the 81mm Mortar and 105mm Light Gun, providing all Infantry Battalions with an integral fire support capability of eight of the larger mortars, and replacing the 105mm Light guns in the two RA Regiments equipped with them with the M777A2. Again this provides a platform with an off the shelf precision fore capability that none of our current tube artillery can provide.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

LordJim wrote: It is the guided rounds for this I believe are still in development, driven by the needs of the USMC. I would actually go as far as to issue this weapon to all units, replacing both the 81mm Mortar and 105mm Light Gun, providing all Infantry Battalions with an integral fire support capability of eight of the larger mortars
In service since 2012 and fielded for test runs, on the battle field, for 5 yrs previous to the "official" date:
Artillery: 120mm GPS Shell Finally Arrives - StrategyPage
https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htart/20120726.aspx
Jul 26, 2012 - Five years ago the U.S. sent XM395 laser guided 120mm mortar rounds to Iraq and Afghanistan for testing.

I would modify your roll-out idea so that (avoiding the purchase of another field piece, the 155 that BAE makes for USA, Oz...) the heavy mortars would be issued for MIV formations (arty on wheels will be likely to bring a new piece into service anyway; this should be the 8x8 French design - once they get that one for their heavy bdes, the existing 6x6's will be relegated to colonial wars... where they have been busy, anyway) and we would have combined batteries of arty & mortars, just like the French do.
- the RM should get some, too, as the 81 mm's on the back of BVs are rather paltry on their own
- the Finns have managed to modify the platform (might be a different make, slightly larger) in such away that 120 mm's can be deployed with equal mobility
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 »

But all these are for standard 120mm mortars not the longer ranged Rifled variety that has almost double the range which is the one we should go for.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

LordJim wrote:Thomas Brandt rifled 120mm
Thomson-Brandt, ok, " The 120 mm RT [Rifled, Towed]entered service with French artillery units in the mid-1990s and has been considered an artillery weapon system since that time."

There's a difficult one, as even the smooth heavy mortars divide opinions: an infantry support weapon, or artillery?
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 »

It might be considered to be artillery but the French issue them to Infantry Regiments as are the USMC planning to do. It can be towed by a 4x4 and the MIV will certainly be able to do so as will the Bv210 and even the logistics version of the Jackal whose name I cannot remember. As I suggested I would replace both the 81mm Mortars and the 105mm Light Gun with it. Giving the M777A2 to a Single joint Commando/Para Artillery Regiment will provide the Heavy fire support these formation need and of this weapon as the basis of whatever is purchased to support the "Strike" Brigades the more the better.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Gabriele »

In the italian medium brigades the 120mm is the battalion's mortar, while each company has a couple of 81mm mortars of its own. Same happens (or should happen, were the regiments fully manned) with anti-tank. SPIKE medium range for the Company, and Long Range at battalion level.
The Light battalions (mountain, air mobile, para) lost the 120mm mortar in favor of the artillery regiment of the brigade, because unless it is vehicle-borne it is seen as too cumbersome for the infantry unit to directly handle it. So, mixed regiments of FH70 howitzers and 120mm mortars. Indeed, they are looking at bringing out of storage the old mountain 105mm guns because the FH70 is hardly air mobile / easy to move around on mountains, and funding won't be available for a while to procure the M777.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by LordJim »

Italy is one of the Countries the UK should be looking at, when planning its medium formation(s). They seem to be able to repeatedly do a loaves and fishes job, getting far more bang for their Euro than many nations and have a far clearer idea of where they are heading. I also wonder if we should look at converting a couple of our light role Infantry Regiment into Para Military Police units like the Carabinieri, ideal for the support of the UK Police like after the London Bridge Attack and useful in stabilisation Ops like in Kosovo. Of course we would have to bite the financial bullet and realise we need to spend the money to provide them with the training etc. for the Foxhound, but that would make an ideal platform.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Gabriele »

The Carabinieri are helped by the fact that the military mission is actually the smaller part of their role. The most complex one, but the smaller one. The Carabinieri are the 4th armed force of Italy, but their main mission is policing the towns and the national territory.

Only the 2nd Mobile Brigade is tasked with "true" military police and deployable work. It includes the "Tuscania" regiment, of parachute-trained personnel, the GIS (Special Intervention Groups) which is, to keep it simple, Italy's SWAT, and the regiments 7th and 13th.
The vast majority of Carabiniers work in policing the country, alongside the Polizia (Police) which is the civilian police corp.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by LordJim »

I understand, but I think the UK would benefit from having two or three Infantry Regiments trained to work with the Civil Authorities and support the police etc. If this were done on a permanent basis and the right training and equipment provided it would be a very useful addition to the UK's defence options. In fact the Brigade of Guards would be the ideal formation for this role being mainly UK based and already used to working with the Police etc. for ceremonial duties. Of course they would not be deployed day to day on the streets as law enforcement, but would be able to rapidly reinforce the Police if a security situation arose and already being part of the organisation would be able to fit in and work far more easily than taking troops untrained in such actions and deploying them as happened post London Bridge.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

keeping 29 & 7 as seperate regiments is a much better idea and yes both currently on light gun.
However look at what other countries do the Irish have the light gun and the 120mm mortar and their gunners are trained on both and the 81mm. RA is trying to match light gun & AS90 regts and keep gunners current on both great idea. Yes M777 is also a good idea and again should be available. Regts should be trained on all and through a fleet management be able to draw what they need for a particular operation.
You could also convert some reserve infantry to the support role and give them 120mm heavy mortar platoons that could be attached to formations as needed like the old MG bn's of WW2 or the TA infantry support regts of the 80's/90's.

Smokey
Member
Posts: 272
Joined: 18 Feb 2017, 13:33
Cyprus

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Smokey »

DSEI 2017

Manroy Engineering becomes FNH UK

https://www.armyrecognition.com/dsei_20 ... nh_uk.html

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

From the article it looks like FN are not looking to shut up shop anytime soon. Good to see.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »


User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Zealot »

Yes it is, there is a video on youtube of 3 para testing it. Ill try to find it and post it here.

User avatar
Zealot
Member
Posts: 98
Joined: 20 Feb 2017, 16:39
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Zealot »

Here it is!


L85A3.png
Not 3 para Though, not sure who it is.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Defiance
Donator
Posts: 870
Joined: 07 Oct 2015, 20:52
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Defiance »

Mercian Regiment judging by the TRF

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

For the love of God don't use HKey Mod! MLok is miles better (proved by US DoD).

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Tim at the Military Arms Channel has got his hands on a T & E desert tech MDR...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

At DSEI it seems the latest Carl Gustav is being pushed very hard towards the British Army, emphasising its now relatively light weight and great flexibility. Considering the latest version is almost half the weight of the Old M2 and had a bewildering array of ammo types it could be a good add on to the Paras and RM at least.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Little J wrote:Tim at the Military Arms Channel has got his hands on a T & E desert tech MDR...
What is new, under the sun:
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)

Post Reply