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.
Little J
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 27 Dec 2018, 00:09

Is the US Army pushing for a new high-powered 6.Xmm caliber with their new NGSAR program?

Https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... num-round/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Dec 2018, 06:35

I would think it is about two things
1. Consolidation for Non NATO Munitions
• Requirements not going away anytime soon
• CENTCOM / Big Army / SOCOM consolidation
= not to be all over the place (enough of trying "it" out in the field), and
2. Not to go headlong into something completely new
- as they are planning to do, at squad level in front line units
- the shortlisted companies have until next summer to reverse-engineer their rifle designs around the new projectile (whether it comes caseless, otherwise lighter weight, including better efficiency of "packaging")
- and hence applying some of these "tricks of the trade" to the ballistically known 7.62 is just an effort to create a benchmark? " mentions of 7.62mm “Lightweight Small Caliber ammunition” (LSC), as well as the Small Arms Ammunition Configuration (SAAC) study"

As Gen. Milley has very strongly positioned himself as a backer of the new caliber, and as he is now the Head Honcho, putting in some "risk management" in place while the manufacturers are taking their time anyway sounds like a reasonable "precaution"?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 27 Dec 2018, 16:46

This is a pretty good companion article with regards to what appears to be an overly ambitious programme by the US Army for their next generation small arms. It is a good case in point where those in charge seem to watch to many sci-fi movies and as a result throw money at an idea which is based on set of requirements with only one foot in reality.

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... s-program/

The LSAT programme is far more achievable, but it does not provide the US Army with the quantum leap it desires to be able to justify replacing its existing small arms. The idea of over matching an opponent at 1200m also does not reflect warfare in the real world, where combat even in rural setting is unlikely to exceed around 600m. To engage an enemy with accurate, effective fire at 1200m required far more than a new round, but also a target location and targeting system. All of the equipment to achieve this is going to go a fair way to negate any benefits in weight reduction form the new round and its related weapon systems. Having to carry basically an man portable integrated fire control system, an the additional batteries and other peripheral's is also going to add to the bulk the infantry man has to carry, and the alternative of relying on third party targeting information opens up the danger of the enemy interfering with communication which at best could hide the enemy form view or at worst lead to blue on blue engagements as false identification and engagements could take place.

I strongly believe that any programme into a future small arms round and its associated weapon systems should be run by NATO. Having the US dictate almost unilaterally what NATO will use has cause issues in the past, especially with the adoption of the over powered 7.62 round over the intermediate round developed by European nations. I am pretty sure many members of NATO would welcome such a joint programme as they also are looking to replace their 5.56 weapons, and recognise the short coming of the round. Most are marking time waiting of the US to decide, but having their input could temper the UA Army's over ambitious tendencies and produce a new NATO standard round that dies the job without costing the earth or requiring over engineered weapon systems.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 27 Dec 2018, 20:33

Lord Jim wrote: The idea of over matching an opponent at 1200m also does not reflect warfare in the real world, where combat even in rural setting is unlikely to exceed around 600m.


The infantry "half mile" seems to have been stretched a bit, already?

Tinman
Member
Posts: 239
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tinman » 28 Dec 2018, 19:13

I’ve been on the receiving end of accurate rifle fire at 800+ mtrs.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 341
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 28 Dec 2018, 19:27

SVD? Came across a few in the Gulf, mercifully the users weren't that great.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 28 Dec 2018, 19:32

And they didn't have the right bullets for them, either?
"The 1000 yard test was an eye opener with ten shot groups with the 200gr Lapuas from the SVD coming in at 1.1 MOA vs 1.5 MOA for the Sierra MKs. These bullets are just amazing from the Russian SVD for long range shooting." Namely:
"the bullet's unique construction has remained the same since the late 1930s. Also known as the [Lapua] D166, it's the very best choice for the 7.62x53mm Rimmed and 7.62x54mm Rimmed cartridges because of its accuracy."
... we could ask this guy: http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Dec 2018, 06:33

So from all this the British Army's idea of relying on overmatching an opponent out to 600m with accurate aimed suppressive fire from an Infantry Section is a reasonable one and readily achievable with the L85A3 and DMR supported by the 40mm UGL?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 29 Dec 2018, 06:37

Interesting:

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 09 Jan 2019, 19:10

In Finland our jäger squads are nine strong, divided into three fireteams. Two PKMs, LAWs and APILAS depending on situation. Atleast one RK with ACOG. Then there's claymores, AT mines and such.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 09 Jan 2019, 19:34

Voldemort wrote:three fireteams. Two PKMs

Pretty good going :thumbup:

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 10 Jan 2019, 13:15

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Voldemort wrote:three fireteams. Two PKMs

Pretty good going :thumbup:


Jäger platoon can support its maneuver with six PKMs and one NSV which is known as ITKK 96 or antiair machinegun model 96 here.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Jan 2019, 13:26

Voldemort wrote: and one NSV which is known as ITKK 96
The prime mover for that beast is not shown on the piccie (the gunner looks happy... as he did not have to carry it?)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 10 Jan 2019, 13:35

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Voldemort wrote: and one NSV which is known as ITKK 96
The prime mover for that beast is not shown on the piccie (the gunner looks happy... as he did not have to carry it?)


It can be carried by three man team quite easily or on top of ATV. The tripod can be set in low setting to allow more stable firing even without using weights to counter balance the recoil.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 10 Jan 2019, 13:44

Voldemort wrote:on top of ATV. The tripod can be set in low setting to allow more stable firing


I understand; that the high setting is for anything up in the sky?

Otherwise it would nicely replicate out Panther set up (the 50 cal not being able to fire sideways... not that the improvised US Stryker gun could do that either; but there we are speaking of recoil in a slightly different :) class)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 10 Jan 2019, 13:52

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Voldemort wrote:on top of ATV. The tripod can be set in low setting to allow more stable firing


I understand; that the high setting is for anything up in the sky?

Otherwise it would nicely replicate out Panther set up (the 50 cal not being able to fire sideways... not that the improvised US Stryker gun could do that either; but there we are speaking of recoil in a slightly different :) class)


Yes, the high setting allows its primary function which is shooting enemy aircraft. It is AA MG by doctrine, the tripod and pintle mounts allow engaging both air and ground targets. Not sure you can actually fire it from top of ATV with decent accuracy. Better transport it with ATV and then carry it to firing position. Makes you smaller target also.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Jan 2019, 23:48

Do we have such a tri-pod for our M2HBs, I am sure the US Army has quiet a few residing in one or more of its depots, left over form a different era.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Jan 2019, 05:00

Lord Jim wrote:Do we have such a tri-pod for our M2HBs


If yes, each airport should be issued one... in the interim :lol: while the anti-drone systems are being procured

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Jan 2019, 13:25

Thinking about it, I think the 50 Cal had a Firing Post with foldable legs called the M63

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Location: Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 12 Jan 2019, 18:56

Lord Jim wrote:Thinking about it, I think the 50 Cal had a Firing Post with foldable legs called the M63


M2 has quite a bit slower RoF than NSV which makes it less suitable for AA.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 12 Jan 2019, 20:03

You could always adapt the M2 with components from the M3 or just use the M3 which has a far higher rate of fire, but point taken.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10182
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Feb 2019, 10:51

ArmChairCivvy wrote:2. Not to go headlong into something completely new
- as they are planning to do, at squad level in front line units
- the shortlisted companies have until next summer to reverse-engineer their rifle designs around the new projectile (whether it comes caseless, otherwise lighter weight, including better efficiency of "packaging")


The Oct DRAFT PON has now, at the end of Jan, proceeded to an issued PPON (linked by Halidon on US Forces thread) and the point bearing to the above quote has a much more definitive wording:
"We also know from ACC [not me, btw ;) ] responses to NGSW industry questions that the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant have not developed a cartridge designed for the 6.8mm projectile and the the will Government only be providing 6.8mm projectiles not completed rounds. The responses also justified the choice of a 6.8mm projectile saying: “The 6.8mm caliber projectile cannot change. A 6.8mm caliber is large enough to
achieve Government’s required outcomes whereas a 6.5mm caliber cannot.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3179
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Feb 2019, 14:02

Looking at the time being allocated to the initial testing of the new calibre which could be up to ten years, any change isn't really going to take place until the 2030s at least, so NATO will soldier on with 5.56 and 7.62 until then. So it looks like the UK will probably stick with the L85A3 or possibly a A4 at some point. The current plans for equipping the Infantry Section in the British Army seem to make sense to a certain degree if the figures on range and accuracy are valid. My concern is the weight of fire a section will be able to put down range. It might be sufficient for low intensity conflicts like we have fought recently but does it translate to possible future high intensity combat. Does the Infantry section need to be able to both deliver accurate low volume suppressing fire as is current envisaged as well as high volume area effect fire or will the latter be provided at Platoon level? I would love to here form anyone who have experience of the new fire doctrine and what they make of it.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1531
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 01 Feb 2019, 19:09

ArmChairCivvy wrote:The responses also justified the choice of a 6.8mm projectile saying: “The 6.8mm caliber projectile cannot change. A 6.8mm caliber is large enough to achieve Government’s required outcomes whereas a 6.5mm caliber cannot.”
Why 6.8mm and not 6.5mm? The 6.5mm is clearly ballistically superior.

What can a 6.8mm do that a 6.5mm can't to meet the "required outcomes"?

I'm lost with the current direction of this programme and it's apparent fixation with the 6.8mm.

Little J
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 01 Feb 2019, 19:28

Isn't it a new bullet design (not the one in the SPC)?

To be honest, from the small bits I've seen online, I think 556 and 762 will still be standard for a long time to come.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests