Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

Lord Jim wrote: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.
and support services who find themselves having to self protect without the heavy weapon support the infantry have

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

No wonder the US army is looking for a new bullet as the areas left for critical injury

are a small area of the total in the traditional (even more so, a kneeling one) target figure on the ranges
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Smokey »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:No wonder the US army is looking for a new bullet as the areas left for critical injury

are a small area of the total in the traditional (even more so, a kneeling one) target figure on the ranges
I'm guessing that's the latest incarnation of Putin's "Little Green Men?"

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Smokey wrote:guessing that's the latest incarnation of Putin's "Little Green Men?"
It is not part of the Ratnik kit that they normally wear; must be some special edition for assault duties... looks heavy, too
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:some special edition for assault duties... looks heavy, too
Only the chest plate and the back plate are steel; the rest is soft armour - only any good against splinters. The back is a natural place and also a counterbalance, so that the weight vector is aligned with the spine, when standing upright.
- I wonder how easily one can get up wearing those ? Our own (heh-heh: Israeli) version, albeit being lighter, went into a redesign exactly for that reason
- the back plate being so hefty may also reflect the view about the importance of AB auto-cannon rounds and proximity fused mortar rounds in any future battles: not just suppressing, but actually taking infantrymen out while taking cover
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

The Firearms Blog is reporting that the US's attempt to replace m4's with new 762 assault rifles has been canned.
http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... d-icsr-no/

It only started a couple of months ago, must be one of the shortest failed programs in history.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Defiance »

Sooner have it squashed quickly than suck money up for decades, produce nothing only to come to the same conclusion.

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:It only started a couple of months ago, must be one of the shortest failed programs in history.
Instead of the "Interim" -like in Stryker - we will get :?: :?:
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

All quiet on this front? In the US they are lengthening their shooting ranges and emphasizing shooting practice at moving targets... so nothing really to do with the Interim rifle needed to deal with body protection also at longer ranges.

Bullets we have done to death (?) but sights less so. "only need to tilt my rifle a tiny bit to the left and I have Aimpoint’s red dot on my retina, without having to move my head.

At the First IPSC Rifle World Shoot in Russia there were a lot of targets transitions from close to mid-range up to almost 300 meters away, and my solution for the optics really helped me and my Tror PAR to bag a World Shoot Medal.

Uronen Precision now have a similar solution." And then the article http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2017 ... nt-c-rts2/
goes on, to state the cost of the mount, without the double sights!
- Anyone to shed light on whether it is at all realistic to have this sort of thing for every rifleman?
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Don't we do this already with the red dot mounted on top of the Elcan Specter? General consensus is that the latest UK configuration is about as good as it gets.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Timmymagic wrote:General consensus is that the latest UK configuration is about as good as it gets.
The difference between the two solutions being on top vs on the side, the stated benefit of the latter being minimal movement required when switching (easier and with a lesser loss of target(s) focus when done with your hands, adjusting the weapon, rather than moving your head?).

Have you seen any sources on this (what solutions are available and what are their merits)? An obvious one - an eternal debate, I guess - how much magnification is optimal... so that when your regard of the world is through a soda straw, that straw is still wide enough e.g. not to lose the target too easily when it either moves or you need to - for one reason or the other - check its immediate surroundings before firing.

Not that I plan to go to the next IPSC to chase a medal. More like how can this be made so affordable that everyone can be issued with one. A competition shoot piece of kit will never be produced in quantities that will make that (cost) feasible
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

It might be a good setup for a range. But if you're using the red dot on operations I would have thought that sighting over the top of the main sight would be beneficial as raising your head increases your SA. If you've gone to that sight its close.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Gabriele »

There is a potential contract in the making, for 24 to 30 million pounds for
procurement and in service support of Reusable Multi-Role Medium Range Shoulder Launchers (MRSLs), Fire Control Systems (FCS), basic sights and associated munitions. In service support shall consist of but not be limited to spares, repairs and training.
Carl Gustav, much...?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

^ Is there any other choice? :D

Nice contract if you ask me though. Always liked the way the CG was moving in recent years. If this went through, what would this mean for the likes of NLAWs etc?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Gabriele »

NLAW wouldn't be touched, i don't think.

The idea seemed to be that Carl Gustav would replace the platoon's 60mm light mortar by virtue of greater accuracy while continuing to offer a wide variety of effects (anti-personnel, smoke, etc). It might also replace the MATADOR anti-structure round, perhaps.
I don't know what the army thinks of that one piece of kit, but it always struck me as an overweight, over-complicated, one-role solution to blowing holes in walls.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RetroSicotte »

MATADOR really was an oddity, I keep forgetting it exists.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

How exactly would CG and NLAW mesh at a platoon level do you think? You suggest it could be used as a potential replacement for the 60mm mortar, so we could be talking about a direct swap then - removing one system and replacing it with the other, but leaving the distribution and organisation of the platoons firepower otherwise unchanged?

Isn't there a risk of some overlap when it comes to NLAW, however? I mean, it's our standing "light" anti-tank weapon, which is obviously a role that the CG can perform also? Ok, the CG probably doesn't perform anywhere near as well as the NLAW in this capacity, but it is much cheaper AFAIK. Could it not come to threaten the NLAW?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RetroSicotte »

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:How exactly would CG and NLAW mesh at a platoon level do you think? You suggest it could be used as a potential replacement for the 60mm mortar, so we could be talking about a direct swap then - removing one system and replacing it with the other, but leaving the distribution and organisation of the platoons firepower otherwise unchanged?

Isn't there a risk of some overlap when it comes to NLAW, however? I mean, it's our standing "light" anti-tank weapon, which is obviously a role that the CG can perform also? Ok, the CG probably doesn't perform anywhere near as well as the NLAW in this capacity, but it is much cheaper AFAIK. Could it not come to threaten the NLAW?
I suspect this is why the CGs anti-armour ability will be downplayed by everyone involved as much as possible.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 780
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ~UNiOnJaCk~ »

RetroSicotte wrote: I suspect this is why the CGs anti-armour ability will be downplayed by everyone involved as much as possible.
I'd say that's quite likely. Also, re-reading through Gabriele's post, i think he might have been implying that the army could avoid stepping on NLAW's toes simply by introducing only non-AT rounds from the CG's portfolio. If Gabriele reads this, i hope he could possibly confirm if my interpretation was correct or not?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

If we went with the CG Mk4 it would bring a lot to the Infantry, especially the lighter units. The variety of rounds available now or in development is astonishing. Yes it would probably overlap with NLAW but it could also supplement it resulting in a situation like we had in the 70s and 80s where the infantry had CGs and M72 LAWs. With its increased range and greatly reduced weight and also being smaller it is the only real choice. We should some for the RN Commandos and 16 Air mobile ASAP and then see about issuing it further. Wouldn't cost that much either to but around 150 to start with in the grand scheme of things.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Gabriele »

Could it not come to threaten the NLAW?
Everything can be in the field of british defence, where tragically idiotic cuts come one after the other dancing on the corpse of common sense, but rationally speaking, there is no real reason for it happening.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RetroSicotte wrote:I suspect this is why the CGs anti-armour ability will be downplayed by everyone involved as much as possible.
For a good reason,too. If we think of armoured targets, moving and well away., the there is no comparison.

If you engage something close up, fine.

One is a fire-support weapon, multiple uses. The other one is an anti-tank weapon, filling a gap where missiles are still too heavy/ expensive... the latest (lightest) Spike is starting to enter that space, though.

What is different with a fire support weapon, then?

Keep firing. It is cheap, multiple use (even has a counter now, so that the Army will not need to dispose the CGs half way thru their lives ... as they did (have to) when the old-fashioned way of keeping count of firings per launcher lost track
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)

james k
Member
Posts: 358
Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 16:51
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by james k »

It may or may not be of interest or part of a wider policy but my sons's Rifle battalion have recently back loaded their sharpshooter rifles and 60mm light mortars. The LSW has been reintroduced as the designated marksmans rifle and no2 rifle in the sniper pairs

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Smokey »

james k wrote:It may or may not be of interest or part of a wider policy but my sons's Rifle battalion have recently back loaded their sharpshooter rifles and 60mm light mortars. The LSW has been reintroduced as the designated marksmans rifle and no2 rifle in the sniper pairs
L129’s and 60mm mortars are probably going to another Bn?

RetroSicotte
Retired Site Admin
Posts: 2657
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RetroSicotte »

Pretty much. There's only around 2,000 Sharpshooters (and they've got to cover the Royal Marines and RAF Reg as well, remember), they get rotated quite regularly. Same with the Mortars. Most of them are absorbed in the Marines and Paras, the others aren't a certainty to be issued with outside that.

Post Reply