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 »

We really should be getting some of these for our Infantry to give Sections or Platoons a bit more punch with a flexible lightweight, relatively speaking weapon system.

It covers the latest developments for the Carl Gustav M4. Is it light enough for our High Readiness units or should it only go to our planned Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry. IF we adopt UGV Mules it would solve the issues for High Readiness troops.

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: Is it light enough for our High Readiness units or should it only go to our planned Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry.
Not the latter as against armour (other than MBTs) it has a third of the range of an NLAW.

But for the former, the natures of rounds available are like a Waitrose supermarket: you can actually find what you need, rather than having to leave and go to another s-mkt (weapon) for the job/ food recipe at hand.
- it is heavy, but luggable
- and you take (with it) what you expect you will need
- in a FOB you can also have a stash of flechette rounds should opposing infantry turn up in numbers... will combine the effect of MGs and artillery (the latter being difficult to use close up, without using the 'emergency option' and calling 'it in' with your own coordinates

Must watch this vid, too. This guy has an entertaining verbal output, but no history books next to his Sun Tshu edition on the shelf:
Charles (Carl) X Gustav of Sweden worried lest the extension of Muscovy upset the balance of power in the Baltic, which he aimed to turn into a Swedish lake. So history repeats itself, except that at the time of the weapon being developed, Sweden had no war-like king to turn to and they worried about the Baltic being turned into a Russian lake by Moscow

- there was another half hour of those Frogfoots in Syria video left,too. But before that :yawn: , considering the late/ early hour (not the content!)
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:third of the range of an NLAW.
That surprised me. Does NLAW have a range of between 1200m and 1500m?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

What I have seen is 300m vs. 1000m... so gave it some (3% :) ) benefit of doubt
... and for shooting over the longer distance, one should not underrestimate the benefit of the tracker/ calculator for the aim point. NLAW is still a rocket, not a missile in its nature. And CG is bazooka Mk2 (a good one, though)

Now I better find the time to watch 'the film' about the updates to it. Who knows, they may have borrowed from one, for the other
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: 300m
, OK he says 400 against a moving target - it probably says that on the manufacturer's blurb. And talking about the manufacturer, they seem to have had some x-fertilisation going on between their products. I.e. the sights available on them.

But the 3000 m ranged Raytheon laser-guided rocket (mention) must have been unrelated to CG?
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)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Caribbean »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: CG is bazooka Mk2
Being pedantic - Bazooka Mk 3 I would have said . The "Super-bazooka" (aka the 3.5 inch rocket launcher) was the Mk. 2. I think I can still remember the drill on how to use one.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:But the 3000 m ranged Raytheon laser-guided rocket (mention) must have been unrelated to CG?
Nope it is under development for the US Army and Marines. They seem to be intending to use the CG Mk4 as a one stop shop for section direct fire as that is the level they are issuing it at. Add to that the 60mm mortars at platoon or company level, 6.8mm small arms, the developmental .338 Norma Magnum LMG and they are certainly ramping up the firepower.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

Lord Jim wrote:We really should be getting some of these for our Infantry to give Sections or Platoons a bit more punch with a flexible lightweight, relatively speaking weapon system.

It covers the latest developments for the Carl Gustav M4. Is it light enough for our High Readiness units or should it only go to our planned Armoured Infantry and Mechanised Infantry. IF we adopt UGV Mules it would solve the issues for High Readiness troops.

How the wheel has turned we phased the L14a1 84mm Charlie G (M2) out in the 1990's saying it was obselete as the LAW90 was put into that single use single role. The argument had been there from when the Charlie Gee was introduced in the 60's that a wider variety of ammunition natures could have been issued. The manual even states the 2nd scale was for smoke and illumination rounds that the UK never fielded. at 36lbs it was a heavy bugger. But the newer versions the M3 & M4 are lighter using more plastics. Its a great and flexible system with multiple ammunition natures. So yes there is the Light anti Armour weapons. But the M4 would be a great supplement to them and with more ammunition natures in service a flexible support weapon not just for front line units but 2nd and 3rd line units to.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

7th Jan 2021 True Velocity has delivered more than 625K rounds of its composite cased [6.8mm] ammo to U.S. Army, big numbers, True Velocity production cell of 2,640 square feet can produce as many as 27 million rounds per year.

Understanding its a 6.8 x 47 cartridge with a polymer body with steel head, 135 gr / 3,000 fps bullet. TV claims up to 10 percent less powder is needed to deliver the same muzzle velocity as a comparable brass cased cartridge and the composite case gives reduced heat transfer to gun than with brass, a plus.

Weight "A pallet of 7.62 NATO brass weighs about 3,090 pounds, while the same pallet of True Velocity-cased ammo weighs 2,168 pounds"

TV do not quote pallet weight of 5.56 mm ammo 8-)

The TV composite round used in the GD/Beretta RM277, bullpup design with 20 round cartridge cases, no magazine belt feed for its light machine gun variant as used by the two other contenders for the U.S. Army NGSW contract, suggested it uses short recoil operating system with hydraulic buffer to mitigate recoil of the powerful TV round to enable full auto control of rifle.

PS The Sig Sauer 6.8mm round is in effect a necked down 7.62 round with a composite brass body and steel head to take the higher pressure of ~ 80-90,000 lbs psi, know very little of the third option the Winchester 6.8 polymer cylinderical round.

The TV and Sig Sauer 6.8mm are more powerful rounds than 7.62 NATO required to meet the US Army spec, controversial as leaving behind the intermediate rounds used in the StG 44, AK47, M16 etc, expect to come at the cost of more expensive, complicated and heavier rifles?
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 »

Sorry to say, but [the above] sounds like text put together by AI, from various feeds, and only the PS bit in it had some human intervention
... inviting ;) comment
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Defiance »

Where's that damn kettle ...

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Sorry to say, but [the above] sounds like text put together by AI, from various feeds, and only the PS bit in it had some human intervention
... inviting ;) comment
Correct approx 50% AI :angel: , I like to establish the facts, tell the story, then conclusions.

So begs the question what are your thoughts, if US Army goes ahead with the NGAW should UK follow or go its own way, will be tremendous pressure to standardise with US.

Shades of deja vu of the early '50's when 280 British/7mm Nato dropped in favour of the 7.62 Nato, you could argue that was the incorrect choice then.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: dropped in favour of the 7.62 Nato, you could argue that was the incorrect choice then.
You could... we are always right; but do not always prevail :)

I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)

So at platoon level, you can have
- MGs, though the new round should be about as good, so may be, instead
A. A Lapua .338 semi-auto that can penetrate better-than-standard military body armor at ranges up to 1,000 metres (1,090 yd) and has a maximum effective range of about 1,750 metres
B. As sections would have LAWs anyway, an NLAW or two, or a CG with someone to carry the rounds :)

Even with the wonders of the improved reach (and underslung 40 mm), we have
3 x 8, or rather 9 =27
platoon leader, radioman, medic, sharpshooter, two 'fire supporters; even if not AT
... a platoon is not 30 anymore (but can act more independently)
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

it would be interesting to see a modernised .280 British and how it preformed. But suspect the new round will be what ever the US Army ordanance board selects. The aim should be to get the infantry section back to a common ammunition. But a round that has more reach and better terminal ballistics.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Whatever new round the US selects, I cannot see NATO standardising on it for quite a long time.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

We could be among the first; considering the selections made by Fr & Germany lately
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 »

Still see it as a 762 replacement more than anything... And even then I can't see to many Yanks being happy to hand in their m4's to lug one of these things around all day...

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG

I would agree that at section level there should be one round type. Section's should then be supported by fire support teams with mortar's and 12.7mm HMG's

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote:would agree that at section level there should be one round type. Section's should then be supported by fire support teams with mortar's and 12.7mm HMG's
Right, working up from sections (in which the underslung rifle grenades, out to 350m against an opposing section and less than half of that against a dug-in weapon point target) we again come up against what we are getting rid of, namely 'commando' mortars. 81 mm (nor HMGs) cannot keep up with the section(s). If they are held at company/ bn level, then what is there to extend the reach at section/ platoon level (AT weapons aside, when carrying such is dictated by the threat)?
- by coincidence, the Irish armed forces thread just got some examples of a semi-auto for the section level DM rifle and a version of the same for sharpshooter use (assigned from higher level up). And if there are also expert sniper weapons as discussed upthread (at bn level?) then the supporting act to the sniper - in the pair - can be carrying one of those, to make sure that the opposing force does not get to close in (too fast).
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)

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?
What makes it inadequate at section level

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5552
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:we again come up against what we are getting rid of, namely 'commando' mortars. 81 mm (nor HMGs) cannot keep up with the section(s). If they are held at company/ bn level, then what is there to extend the reach at section/ platoon level (AT weapons aside, when carrying such is dictated by the threat)?
Hero loiter weapons could be used by the fire support team's and command as both a support weapon or a short range UAV / Scout they have a 40km range and one hour loiter time plus a return if not used to be used again when charged

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Reach. An appropriate moniker could be a patrol MG?

The only good compromise between the two types ( a specific instance) that I can think of was the Swedish MG that was using the same 6.5 round as their AR
- they must be kicking themselves, now, having decided to 'go NATO' not that long ago

PS The Hero post appeared while I was typing. Yes, I agree. But I tried to start out in a generic way, and get futuristic later. Hero, of course, does exist. In many sizes.
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 »

Well, why wait with the 'futuristic' because Heros go 'bang' and there's your surveillance then.

Don't know the movie this vid starts from
but it gives a good idea what can be carried in a rucksack
- the receiving ground station probably travels best on wheels, though. But it can be further back and direct the dispersed sections (as well as any fire support for them)
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)

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Andy-M »

This is interesting, could be the way the USA military is going to go judging by how good it looks in a weapon made for 7.62mm.


Post Reply