and support services who find themselves having to self protect without the heavy weapon support the infantry haveLord 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.
Section Infantry Weapons
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
Re: Section infantry weapons
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
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
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
I'm guessing that's the latest incarnation of Putin's "Little Green Men?"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
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
It is not part of the Ratnik kit that they normally wear; must be some special edition for assault duties... looks heavy, tooSmokey wrote:guessing that's the latest incarnation of Putin's "Little Green Men?"
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.ArmChairCivvy wrote:some special edition for assault duties... looks heavy, too
- 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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.
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.
Re: Section infantry weapons
Sooner have it squashed quickly than suck money up for decades, produce nothing only to come to the same conclusion.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
Instead of the "Interim" -like in Stryker - we will getLittle J wrote:It only started a couple of months ago, must be one of the shortest failed programs in history.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
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?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
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?).Timmymagic wrote:General consensus is that the latest UK configuration is about as good as it gets.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3224
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.
Re: Section infantry weapons
There is a potential contract in the making, for 24 to 30 million pounds for
Carl Gustav, much...?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.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Section infantry weapons
^ Is there any other choice?
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?
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?
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.
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
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Section infantry weapons
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?
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?
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Section infantry weapons
I suspect this is why the CGs anti-armour ability will be downplayed by everyone involved as much as possible.~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?
-
- Member
- Posts: 780
- Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Re: Section infantry weapons
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?RetroSicotte wrote: I suspect this is why the CGs anti-armour ability will be downplayed by everyone involved as much as possible.
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.Could it not come to threaten the NLAW?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
For a good reason,too. If we think of armoured targets, moving and well away., the there is no comparison.RetroSicotte wrote:I suspect this is why the CGs anti-armour ability will be downplayed by everyone involved as much as possible.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
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
Re: Section infantry weapons
L129’s and 60mm mortars are probably going to another Bn?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
-
- Retired Site Admin
- Posts: 2657
- Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Re: Section infantry weapons
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.