Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Interesting:

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Voldemort wrote:three fireteams. Two PKMs
Pretty good going :thumbup:
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)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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?)
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)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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)
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)

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

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

Voldemort
Member
Posts: 108
Joined: 26 Jul 2018, 06:32
Finland

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

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: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

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: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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.
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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: 972
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

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.

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:Isn't it a new bullet design (not the one in the SPC)?
Yes, and as it says in the PPON it is the projectile (what comes out) not a round (that is put in) that is "a given"
- well tested by now (ballistics side of things)
- but leaves it to the manufacturers to decide on the "packaging" and the best way to feed the rounds in (which is what I have called reverse engineering, with weight of gun, its overall size... lots of parameters that have traditionally been fixed (=max'ed or capped) to play with, to bring in some innovation... and get the best result
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 »

leaves it to the manufacturers to decide on the "packaging" and the best way to feed the rounds in
Just to clarify. Though it is not excluded, the true "caseless" alternative is unlikely to emerge, as per https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... tification
- but who knows what technology can offer, this much later!
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 »

When the company was still transcribed Dektaryev (WW2) they produced quality firearms.

Now there has been a modification https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... 2BTrending that could be a solution to the biggest problem with the new (prescribed, ie. mandatory) US projectile: its recoil
- that would be funny... paying a license fee to Russia, for GI Joe's best friend
- though the development is through a Russia/ Czech JV company... so pay to the NATO-country Czech Republic, and the JV will (in due course) pay out dividends :lol:
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)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3951
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:- well tested by now (ballistics side of things)
Do you have a link which shows the ballistic superiority of this new 6.8mm projectile vs the 6.5mm/7mm equivalents?

I would be interested to see the data.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I think I had linked (upthread) the terminal energy at 250/ 500/750/ 1000 mtrs for 556vs 680vs 762?
- it was an article with such a graphic
- I don't save these but rather use these pages as note paper (sharing and inviting further comments)
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 »

Did not find the "final product" testing graphs, but here are some for the precursor, which I was talking about in the below quoted post
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... s-program/
and when you look at them (relative to existing rounds) they are markedly better. And the ARDEC testing for theirs show better results still, so that's where the 6.8 came from (or was confirmed for commercialisation)
ArmChairCivvy wrote:Military.com has been talking to Textron, about how they got ahead of the curve, while ARDEC was still finessing the new 6.8 GP round
- with "ahead of the curve" I mean that the deadline for prototypes (for testing for the rest of the summer [of 2019]) is June

“We actually used three different bullet shapes and we scaled it,” said Paul Shipley, program manager for of Unmanned Systems. “We scaled 5.56mm up, we scaled 7.62mm down and took a low-drag shape and ran that between the two” to create the 125 grain 6.5mm bullet that’s slightly longer than the Army’s new 130 grain M80A1 Enhanced Performance Round.

Textron officials maintain that the new round retains more energy at 1,200 meters than the M80A1."
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 »

Just to illustrate (also relates to the earlier post I quoted in the above post) where the projectile integration to the rest of "the offer(s)" lies as of now, or by the summer the latest, some Q from suppliers answered:

104. Question: The cartridge design will require a new cartridge with its own safety test requirements. Can 270WSM be used in the Bid Sample with the understanding that the cartridge and therefore the prototype, will change slightly?
Response: Yes. The bid sample is not required to be the final configuration. The proposal will need to discuss the changes between the bid sample and the proposed final configuration.
105. Question: Does LCAAP have a cartridge design developed (with safety report) which meets the government's requirements? Can I get POC information for LCAAP in the short term, to allow for early cartridge design?
Response: No, LCAAP does not have a cartridge designed for the 6.8mm projectile.
106. Question: Can I get an example safety report? Are there any agencies, government or private, that you could refer me to, who could assist in completing the required safety report?
Response: See MIL-STD-882E and DI-SAFT-80102C for guidelines on developing a SAR.
107. Question: Can we get enough surrogate projectiles to LAP, test, and provide with the Bid Sample?
Response: Surrogate projectiles for the Bid Sample will be the responsibility of the Offeror and will not be provided by the Government.

132. Question: Common cartridge performs the same for both systems but at different muzzle velocities? Why are the muzzle velocities different?
Response: The NGSW-R and NGSW-AR have different capabilities which will affect the muzzle velocity goal for each weapon. The NGSW-R and NGSW-AR have different roles within the squad which result in different desired capabilities.

151. Question: Why did the Government choose 6.8mm caliber instead of leaving it open?

10 [COPY/ PASTE changes the page numbering from 9, so what is shown on the screen has parts hidden. Any ambigous parts of answers may have been hidden? For later reference?]

Response: 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.

AND FINALLY, one question brought about a refinement. Indicates that the PON/PPON is quite mature and thoroughly thought out:

110. Question: Prior to the first and second tests, I think that weighing error rates on functions that are sure to be improved during later phases may lead the government passing over what could be better weapons. Getting the geometries for feeding mechanisms and systems right is one example of a challenging and costly task in prototyping.
Response: Thank you. We will take this into consideration for the final NGSW PON
[One of the two weapons is required to be able to switch from belt feed to mags (used on the other one)]
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Well at least we can sit on the fence on this one and wait to see what the US Army ends up with for its money. Please don't let the MoD start a similar research programme under the Guise of what the MDP objective of being innovative.

Post Reply