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.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11052
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 May 2018, 10:30

At section level, the carried weight becomes a constraint (of course the likely targets play a role, too). Per fired round, we could easily rank
- Javelin
- NLAW
- CG
in kg (all-in), while keeping in mind what is disposable (rather: what normally isn't disposable) and the hit probability at ranges that a section would likely find itself engaging without immediate external support.

The comeback of CG has much to do with the nature of the likely OpFor (with not that many tanks "in tow").

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby benny14 » 20 May 2018, 15:15

Gabriele wrote:Where necessary the NLAW is given to the sections.

So NLAW at section level and Javelin in the anti-tank platoon. Who in a section is trained/carries the NLAW?

Are ILAW and LASM still in service? and are there any others?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 20 May 2018, 18:21

Isn't NLAW the successor to the LAW 80 and M72, being a one shot disposable AT launcher that everyone in the section is trained to pick up and use?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 20 May 2018, 19:15

Yes and yes but there are still alot of the older systems lurking.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby benny14 » 20 May 2018, 20:07

jimthelad wrote:Yes and yes but there are still alot of the older systems lurking.

Any idea how many NLAWs we have and how they are distributed? How many per battalion, company, platoon etc.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 359
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 20 May 2018, 22:24

Sorry, no!

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 703
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 20 May 2018, 23:22

benny14 wrote:Any idea how many NLAWs we have and how they are distributed? How many per battalion, company, platoon etc.

I would imagine that the issue would depend on the scenario and logistics availability, much like any other disposable one-shot weapon. Anything between and including two per soldier and none at all.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11052
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 May 2018, 08:21

What? Just two... that's for wimps

Except if you count on being "disturbed" while trying to fire your one-shot weapon, like this guy:
https://funnyjunk.com/Pointblankhits+gu ... 598347/110

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 21 May 2018, 09:42

benny14 wrote:
jimthelad wrote:Yes and yes but there are still alot of the older systems lurking.

Any idea how many NLAWs we have and how they are distributed? How many per battalion, company, platoon etc.


Why would you want that level of detail? Mind you it seems quite bulky, though not as much as the LAW80 so I wouldn't want to carry more than one.

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Timmymagic » 21 May 2018, 13:57

benny14 wrote:Any idea how many NLAWs we have and how they are distributed? How many per battalion, company, platoon etc.


The UK's order for NLAW was colossal. The requirement was for 20,000 rounds...

Timmymagic
Senior Member
Posts: 1448
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Timmymagic » 21 May 2018, 14:02

jimthelad wrote:Yes and yes but there are still alot of the older systems lurking.


Like what? LAW80 is all gone isn't it, on safety grounds? Aren't the remaining M72 the newer LASM variant? The only other things I can think of are a tiny number of AT4 CS and Matador ASM (unless they've all gone into stores)

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby benny14 » 21 May 2018, 19:15

Lord Jim wrote:Why would you want that level of detail? Mind you it seems quite bulky, though not as much as the LAW80 so I wouldn't want to carry more than one.

Because I want to know how much kick an Infantry battalion has against armour.

I saw that the contract might be around £400m, NLAW costs €25,000. So roughly 18,000 NLAWs, although most likely far far less with support and other costs tied in.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11052
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 May 2018, 19:39

As the US cavalry units have gone around Europe, on various joint exercises, there have been some interesting sights:
A section pouring out the back, of both host country and US wheeled APCs
- the US guys looking at every third infantryman carrying an anti-tank weapon
- saying that "you guys seem to be intent on fighting tanks"
Answer: Yes; and what is your OpFor going to bring to the party?

So much so that as those weapons are stored by the exit door, for easy handling, there might be one seat lost... and well worth it.

benny14
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby benny14 » 23 May 2018, 01:27

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the US guys looking at every third infantryman carrying an anti-tank weapon

The US normally carry an AT4 per fireteam, so two per squad. Would make sense for the UK to give two NLAWs per section, one per team.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 703
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 23 May 2018, 06:35

benny14 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:the US guys looking at every third infantryman carrying an anti-tank weapon

The US normally carry an AT4 per fireteam, so two per squad. Would make sense for the UK to give two NLAWs per section, one per team.

Why would it?

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1672
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Caribbean » 13 Aug 2018, 23:01

Looks like a decision has been made. Hints that the CG may be making a return?
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/british-army-to-scrap-old-infantry-weapon-systems/
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Gabriele » 13 Aug 2018, 23:15

Contract award in theory expected by the end of the month. I understand the race was between CG and C90 Reusable only.
Of course, it could still get delayed or go tits up entirely so the mortar goes with nothing as replacement.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Aug 2018, 01:20

Nothing will happen until after the MDP is completed and published. Going for the Carl Gustav M4 makes sense as does ditching the LSW but they will need to buy more Sharpshooters as a result. I understand why the Minimi is on the way out but it needs a replacement. The obvious one would be to adopt the Minimi Mk3, both by buying modification kits for our existing stock and new build to replace the old GPMG. It fires the 7.62x51 and has very nearly the same performance of the GPMG but is far lighter. I believe it can also use the additional kit used by the GPMG such as its Tri-pod.

Probably the cheapest and most effective thing the MoD can do to improve the capability of our Armed Forces is to ensure our infantry Platoons has the most firepower they can effectively carry into battle and enough consumables to stay inthe fight long enough to win. Yet historicaaly the British soldier has had the keast amount of immediate fire power avaialable when compared to both our allies and possible opponents, only partially rectified by hasty UORs. This current policy decision, though there is some logic behind it, is in truth another cost cutting exercise cover by a media campaign. When the balloon goes up again the UOR "Wish Lid" will be dug up and the cheque book used to fill the gaps again. We never learn.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Gabriele » 14 Aug 2018, 09:02

A new order for 397 new L129A1 has already been firmed up, but i can't quite tell if they are enough because no one is sure how many were already available.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RetroSicotte
Site Admin
Posts: 2471
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:10
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby RetroSicotte » 14 Aug 2018, 09:25

Gabriele wrote:A new order for 397 new L129A1 has already been firmed up, but i can't quite tell if they are enough because no one is sure how many were already available.

I recall seeing notes of 2,000 bought during Herrick, but not of anything since.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1970
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Gabriele » 14 Aug 2018, 09:31

It started with 447 or so, then i've seen figures ranging from 1500 to 2000.

Assuming one for each fireteam; so 6 per platoon; plus 1 as Sniper No 2 in each sniper pair; the requirement would be something like 1458 and 216 (i'm leaving out the 4 specialised infantry "battalions") plus some for Royal Marines and RAF Regiment and the training margin.

If they were 3000, arguably no new purchases would have been required. 2000 and some could be about right, i suppose.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Aug 2018, 12:38

I didn't realise we had bought so many, I thought we had purchased a few hundred under a UOR for Afghanistan. Good news though and a rare case of a programme going right for once.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 723
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 14 Aug 2018, 18:50

As for the minimi, i think we should take a look at what the Danes have done with the latest M60 iteration. From what i have heard they have been getting on very well with them. It's 7.62, it's lighter than the GPMG, surely it is the best compromise? There are other alternatives of course, but i think loosing the support weapon capability altogether is a big risk - unless there is something the planners know that we don't...

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1663
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Aug 2018, 19:15

Lord Jim wrote:adopt the Minimi Mk3, both by buying modification kits for our existing stock and new build to replace the old GPMG. It fires the 7.62x51 and has very nearly the same performance of the GPMG but is far lighter. I believe it can also use the additional kit used by the GPMG such as its Tri-pod.
A Minimi firing a new intermediate round would be the ideal outcome in my view, especially if the Sharpshooter rifles could be converted to fire the same round. If the 7.62x51 case head dimensions were used as the basis for the new round and chamber pressures were maintained at 7.62x51 levels it should make for a pretty simple conversion as the bolt head could be retained.

Something in 6.5mm or 7mm would be ideal and would lose little in the way of energy or trajectory when compared to the 7.62x51 out to 600m or 800m.

Obviously introducing an intermediate round is a NATO decision but this would seem like an ideal time to do it.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3561
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 14 Aug 2018, 19:53

Obviously where the US goes with its quest for an intermediate round is key here, as the rest of NATO will follow. A lighter GPMG would be an initial step forward that could be taken before then. This is why I strongly believe the Mk3 Minimi should be given serious consideration and in fact the UK already has some. Given that the existing 5.56 Minimi can be converted to the 7.62 Mk3 and it can use many of the MAGs accessories the cost would be far less than a totally new weapon and would reduce the weight as seems to be one of the supposed criteria for the announced changes. However this last point does seem to be being used more as an excuse to remove kit or not replace it rather than being part of some true overall plan.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wurzeldub and 3 guests