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 »

Little J wrote:Grot MSBS...
The results of the tests were staggering. According to Moszner the gun overheated, parts such as the polymer stock and lower receiver tended to break, the rifle suffered from numerous malfunctions and the gas regulator in front of the Grot simply fell out. Besides that, the gun itself suffers from a lack of any anti-corrosive protection.
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... in-poland/


Storm in a teacup or growing pains?
The excuses sound very familiar

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1430
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

Re the US Army 6.8mm NGSW

Impressed by the competing fire control sights developed to be fitted on new battery powered I(intelligent) rifle rail, 1 km laser rangefinder, atmospheric sensor suite for wind, elevation and temperature, with a ballistic computer taking all the inputs, processing and sending reticule aiming point to an active micro display overlaid on the first focal plane of the 1 to 8 x 30 variable scope.

April video

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Nicely presented and crossing from technical to more general with ease.
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 »

FN EVOLYS... FN's latest machine gun

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... chine-gun/


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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Fairly reliable source (though this came up in the Chally3 superlatives context):
" Nathaniel Fitch
@TFB_Nathaniel_F
·
May 10
Replying to
@JonHawkes275
Typical bong domprop. Just lie to the plebes, they won't know the difference. "The L85A2 is the most accurate assault rifle in the world", remember that?"
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Fairly reliable source (though this came up in the Chally3 superlatives context):
" Nathaniel Fitch
I saw that comment but hadn’t clocked the author.
He is such a crashing bore.

Online
NickC
Donator
Posts: 1430
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

Little J wrote:FN EVOLYS... FN's latest machine gun

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... chine-gun/

US Army initially awarded five contracts for the NGSW including FN, presumably it might have been based on the new FN Evolys plus its unknown proprietary ammo, for whatever reason it did not make the cut when US Army reduced contenders to three.

The new 6.8 x 51 rounds with its internal pressures of ~80,000 psi will be more powerful than the 7.62x51 NATO. The Evolys uses a hydraulic buffer to mitigate recoil and wonder if that was one of reasons it did not make the cut, the buffer seals required might be a point of failure or buffer make the rifle too long with decent barrel length, the other contenders seem to be using short recoil when the barrel and bolt recoil together only a short distance before they unlock and separate (reducing the chamber pressure substantially), short recoil dates back to the Maxim machine gun.

The disadvantages of short recoil is that it requires a sliding (recoiling) barrel which need play to ensure reliability of operation, decreasing accuracy slightly, not too much of a problem for a machine gun, and adding complexity and cost in manufacture for the support of the moving barrel.

The above reflecting consequences of taming the recoil of the more powerful 6.8x51 round so as to be able fire rifle hand held in auto, as with the low power rounds specifically developed for controlled fire in full auto, 7.92x33 Kurz/ 7.62x39 Russian/5.56x45 NATO used in the StG44/AK47/M16 etc

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

A lot depends on what happens over the pond in the USA. If the US does actually adopt the 6.8mm then the prospects for anything new developed that does not use the same ammunition will be limited, within NATO especially. We will be in the same situation as when some of NATO used 7.62mm and others used 5.56mm, with those countries who have only recently adopted new 5.56mm weapons will retain them whilst those looking to replace their existing 5.56mm will move towards 6.8mm, possibly even buying the winners of the US Army competition to both speed things up ad keep costs down.

No doubt one NATO country will aim to licence produce such a weapon. Strangely the British Army falls in the latter category as the last I read the L85 is due to start being replaced in 2025. Some units have already gone to the C8 carbine based L119A2/3. I would expect the core Infantry to receive they new calibre, and as we have had a strong watching brief over the whole US programme, we should have a good understanding of the new weapons capabilities etc. when the time comes.

However as usual with the lack of specifics within the Command Paper that covered programmes out to 2030, the majority of our infantry will most likely be carrying the L85A3 until it is so warn out by 2030 that it can barely hit a barn door.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:The disadvantages of short recoil is that it requires a sliding (recoiling) barrel which need play to ensure reliability of operation, decreasing accuracy slightly
Good point. The ammo procured for the US army has a strict MOA requirement; does the prgrm not have the 'same' for the gun+ ammo combination?
Lord Jim wrote: possibly even buying the winners of the US Army competition to both speed things up ad keep costs down.
we are well positioned for that
Lord Jim wrote: the L85 is due to start being replaced in 2025
as what I have read (after the latest upgrade) that replacement is due around 2030??
Lord Jim wrote:core Infantry
what's that? We have ordered 71k soldier systems and the new army strength is set at 72k... no, I am not making fun of the reserves, but even the whole force does not have 71k 'infanteers' or folks supporting them in close proximity
Lord Jim wrote:so warn out by 2030 that it can barely hit a barn door
sniff... the most accurate AR in the world
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 »


The disadvantages of short recoil is that it requires a sliding (recoiling) barrel which need play to ensure reliability of operation, decreasing accuracy slightly

Good point. The ammo procured for the US army has a strict MOA requirement; does the prgrm not have the 'same' for the gun+ ammo combination?
After hitting 'enter', an afterthought:
Wasn't it this summer that was dedicated for shooting (a lot) with the contenders? Not just checking accuracy, but barrel wear and that 'plastic parts won't start to melt' as we have heard from some other armies (after the first real firefight in decades of use of their service rifle)
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 »

With "Core" Infantry I was describing the majority of the Infantry within the British Army as against Special Forces, Their Support Group, 42 Commando, and so on. There seems to be a trend where if offered the chance, many units prefer to change to the L119A2/3 rather than retain the L85A3.

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:With "Core" Infantry I was describing the majority of the Infantry within the British Army as against Special Forces, Their Support Group, 42 Commando, and so on. There seems to be a trend where if offered the chance, many units prefer to change to the L119A2/3 rather than retain the L85A3.
Why is that when the latter is
ArmChairCivvy wrote:sniff... the most accurate AR in the world
?
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 »

The unit members seem to like the handling qualities of the L119A2/3, it being ambidextrous for one thing as well as lighter, but beyond that I can only the the Ghost of sins past is still hanging over the L85. Also maybe these units think there affiliation with the SF and the latter's non use of the L85 may mean they cannot be seen by their peer as using the weapon. Who know the real reason? :)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Biggest Light Machine Gun I have seen! :D

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... e_2021.pdf


the Sigs understandable with glock in service but Minimi?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Besides being good for morale, the Army can't see a use for it. You need to get rounds consistently within 1m of a target to suppress them and that was hard to do with the LMG even with the longer barrel. The L85A3 with the Spectre Optic can do this with ease in the hands of a trained infantry person, with the DMR paying attentions to any individuals requiring special attention. This could be reversed if we adopt the weapon that the US Army selects from its ongoing next gen programme (Hopefully the Sig) around 2030, with the Automatic Rifle providing accurate single shots or short bursts with the ability to unload if the situation requires it over ranges up to and beyond 800m and the rifle being superior to current DMRs and nearly everyone will carry one. Add in the .338 Norma LMG entering service with their SF and the rest of the Army to follow where you have a weapon around the same weight as a L7A3 GPMG yet has teh performance close to that of a .50 cal and the basic firepower of the Infantry Platoon is going to sky rocket, and that is before you add any of the other toys like Grenade Launchers, and Anti Tank and Structure weapons.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Add in the .338 Norma LMG entering service with their SF and the rest of the Army to follow where you have a weapon around the same weight as a L7A3 GPMG yet has teh performance close to that of a .50 cal
At the point that the individual weapon is based around a 6.8mm round, is the .338 worth it at platoon level?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I suppose it would cover a multitude of roles. Acting as a sustained fire weapon at Platoon level would be one for starters, but it could in some circumstances be issued at Section level, giving light Infantry such as Airborne and Marines superior firepower in their small units. As the US Military are doing it would make an ideal weapon for SF. Light weight ammunition is also being developed, and its handling makes it a very accurate weapon and long ranges over 1000m when using optics. The fact that infantry units will be able to accurately engage the enemy at such ranges is mind boggling. We are looking at a true step change and generational leap in firepower that will also require a new way of operating to take advantage of both this weapon and the 6.8mm weapons.

The applications for mounting on vehicles, helicopters and ships are huge. The weight saving could allow our current RWS to be replace by one with both a .388 LMG and a 40mm AGL and still have the capacity to mount a ATGW. This would be a good combo for our Boxer APCs until the Army hopefully decides to arm a number with a heavier weapon around 30mm to 40mm at some pint in the future. As a weapon for door gunners on Helicopters, its range and hitting power would be a step up from 7.63 weapons currently used and be lighter than the Miniguns often used at present. The same would be the case as a secondary weapon on Warships that currently have numerous 7.62mm and .50cal weapon mounted at various locations.

There are quite a few videos on You Tube showing the .388 LMG, it is a very impressive weapon. There are actually two weapon in development and I am not sure when the winner of the competition for the SF will be announced, but together with the 6.8mm weapon systems, infantry firepower is going to increase greatly by the end of the decade. Retaining the L85 rather than moving to a new 5.56 weapon now seems a wise choice, as is having Army personnel embedded in the US programmes.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Acting as a sustained fire weapon at Platoon level would be one for starters, but it could in some circumstances be issued at Section level, giving light Infantry such as Airborne and Marines superior firepower in their small units.
What does it do that 6.8 wouldn’t at platoon level, other than increase the weight of ammunition? Would platoon logistics be able to support effective engagements at over a km? Would platoon ISTAR and terrain allow you to engage targets at those ranges? Would fire control support effective shooting to km+ ranges for the typical user?
Is giving away your position at such distances going to do much other than make the sky fall on your head?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Range and hitting power when it arrives for one. as stated it weighs no more than the current L7 and the .388 ammo being developed with a composite casing is comparable to current 7.62mm. Obviously to engage effectively at these ranged required a good optic, but this is becoming standard on all infantry weapons these days, from pistols to IATWs. Such an optic would also give said section an improved scouting ability. Finally the weapon is designed to be used with a suppressor as are the two 6.8mm weapons, and at 1000m meters the target would probably not even know it was being shot at, nor be able to see a signature.

Each Infantry section would contain two Automatic Rifles that are designed for both single and automatic fire with a box/bag magazine. This will enable more conventional fire and mover tactics, whilst the .388 at Platoon level will be able to penetrate cover and even light armour over a wide area. This of this as a similar pairing to the 5.56mm LMG/7.62mm SF GPMG, just with far greater hitting power and range with little if any weight gain.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

I suspect the last GPMG gunner hasn't been born yet.

What is all the talk about SLR coming back on some platforms? given we've sold or scrapped them I would have to ask How? And are there not better better 7.62NATO semi automatic rifles out there?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote:Range and hitting power when it arrives for one. as stated it weighs no more than the current L7 and the .388 ammo being developed with a composite casing is comparable to current 7.62mm.
The comparison was against the 6.8, not the 7.62.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Well you have nearly the range and hitting power of a .50Cal on a package that weight little more than an L7, so the .388 LMG offers greater range and firepower than will be possible with a 6.8mm Automatic Rifle, so should fit in nicely to the SF role at Platoon level. In some lighter units if they have the discretion to do so, the .388 LMG could replace some 6.8 ARs, in a similar way L7s were sometimes carried instead of 5.56 LMGs, for their increased range and hitting power.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

marktigger wrote:I suspect the last GPMG gunner hasn't been born yet.
They almost certainly have. The M240 replacement is almost certainly happening this decade, and as the US military moves away from 7.62NATO it will have serious impacts to cooperative operations between the UK and US if we fail to follow the lead, and given the lack of investment in UK small arms, I really don't see any reason why we'd wait any longer once the US decision is clear.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

And we are also involved in the US small arms programmes, keeping a close eye on developments and trials. As I said above, sticking to teh L85 in its A3 guise may end up being a very good decision by the Army, as it will easily be an effective weapon until after the US has hopefully introduces its new small arms and worked out the bugs.

The .388 LMG is due to enter SF service in the next couple of years and the US Army and USMC should not be far behind. If they play safe and go for the Sig Sauer entry we should be able to begin the introduction of said weapon in the late 2020s, and given its familiarity with the AR-15s controls and handling, should reduce training time and cost.

Sig Sauer may even allow the UK to be the european production centre for the weapon system, If we are the first export customer for the 6.8mm variant, putting us in a prime position for when other NATO countries move to 6.8mm and as a result restoring the manufacture of small arms in teh UK beyond specialist weapons like the AI sniper weapons.

Post Reply