Page 30 of 60

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 02 Dec 2018, 17:00
by Lord Jim
The CAT40 has the capability to use ammunition with smart fused, the French are going to use it on their new 6x6 Recce, but the question is whether the UK will spend the money to be able to use it. Mind you these are pretty big weapons for a Section to carry unless their waggon can be classed as part of the section :D

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 20 Dec 2018, 15:48
by Little J
I said before that the Desert Tech MDR (in its early concept guise) could be a good replacement for the SA80, turns out its been modelled on the A1's reliability and build quality :silent: :wtf:



Maybe they need to hand it over to HK to get a version that works :lol:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 06:22
by Lord Jim
I think in its A3 guise, the L85 will probably be good enough until someone actually decides where the US/NATO are going to go with small arms. The British Army seems to think the being able to put accurate suppressing fire out to 600m with the A3 back up by the DMR if adequate for an infantry fire team, with a G/L available if needed. What I think needs to be looks at short term in ensuring the Platoon has enough integral firepower with the same at Company level. The question I have is should we standardise across all the infantry or have unique loadouts for 16 Air Assault/3 Commando, Armoured/Mechanised Infantry units and the remaining Infantry. Would this be based on what they are able to carry, what integral transportation they require, what support are they likely to receive and so on. At section level there probably would be little difference, it is more in the number and type of support weapons available. An example would be Mortars. 166 Air Assault and 3 Commando really are limited to the 81mm that can be man packed, but the Armoured/Mechanised Infantry could have SP 120mm Mortars. What are other people ideas?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 07:37
by ArmChairCivvy
Lord Jim wrote:accurate suppressing fire out to 600m with the A3 back up by the DMR if adequate for an infantry fire team, with a G/L available if needed
That's not quite the infantry half mile that the US wants to regain (the declared goal)
Lord Jim wrote:unique loadouts for 16 Air Assault/3 Commando, Armoured/Mechanised Infantry units and the remaining Infantry
Isn't infantry the can opener that needs to work, regardless of the type of can? So I would set the question rather by the type of mission, and keeping the starting set up fairly standardised
- e.g. in urban combat you would need many more granades than underslung (while the barrel is "otherwise busy") can usefully put out, so a tripod mounted addition (more for the platoon than section?) would be called for; and heavy (buckshot) shotguns :) for breaking down doors... you can't make a hole in the wall every single time?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 17:07
by Lord Jim
Have we got an underslung Shotgun available for our L85s like the US has on its M4s?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 17:53
by ArmChairCivvy
Lord Jim wrote: underslung Shotgun available for [our L85s like the US has on its] M4s
A good spot; looks like Nokia has hived off the brand that denoted diamond-studded phones made for the Middle East market?
"manufactured by Vertu Corporation[2] [...] attracted the interest of soldiers being deployed to Afghanistan who wanted to reduce the number of individual weapons they had to carry by using a shotgun as a rifle attachment instead of a discrete weapon."

Is buckshot normally loaded with more gunpowder than what is ordinary with shotguns; to give it more "kicking in power" for doors? I guess the recoil would still be no more than for sending a grenade out to several hundred meters

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 19:17
by Caribbean
A breaching round is different from buckshot. Breaching rounds are usually a slug, formed from a metal powder bound in a wax matrix, that blows through the object immediately in front of the barrel, then disintegrates within a few inches into a harmless (relatively) powder (you still have the remains of the door hinge, or whatever, flying around at high speed, though :shock: ). I think combat shotgun shells often have reduced loads compared to sporting rounds, to reduce recoil, allowing the user to stay "on target" more easily (they also tend to use much larger shot (2 to 20 to a shell) or slugs and be used at shorter ranges than sporting rounds).

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 19:25
by ArmChairCivvy
Caribbean wrote:larger shot (2 to 20 to a shell) or slugs and be used at shorter ranges
Yep, at ranges of a couple of meters... was hesitating to use the term grape shot (one up from buck) and with that explanation above, was the right thing to do (ie. not the same)

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 19:39
by Caribbean
ArmChairCivvy wrote:grape shot
That's a tad larger :D Maybe 10-20 shot to the pound. Quite effective if you have a demi-Culverin or larger hanging around to fire it from. Though not exactly "section level", even "back in the day".

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 19:50
by Poiuytrewq
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote:larger shot (2 to 20 to a shell) or slugs and be used at shorter ranges
Yep, at ranges of a couple of meters... was hesitating to use the term grape shot (one up from buck) and with that explanation above, was the right thing to do (ie. not the same)
A few things to consider,

At short range, say less than 3 metres, all shotgun cartridges are effectively slugs as the shot column has not had a chance to spread out. The amount of kinetic energy contained in a simple shotgun round at close range is simply astonishing.

Large shot sizes are very prone to ricochet which can be hazardous for both the operator and the intended target. Worth bearing in mind if firing in enclosed spaces with concrete and steel present.

Solid slugs penetrate very very well. It takes a lot of stud walls or hollow block walls to stop a 12ga slug. Over penetration can be a problem even when compared with 5.56 rounds. Unlike 5.56 rounds which tend to deform and tumble (rapidly shedding energy) when in contact with something at high velocity (near the muzzle) 12ga slugs tend to just keep going and going and going. Firing 12ga slugs in confined spaces is a risky business for all involved.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 19:52
by ArmChairCivvy
Caribbean wrote:"back in the day".
That was when they designed the wide avenues for Paris. Coming together at higher ground so that you can just turn the same guns... repeat & rinse
- though in the modern day they just bought Boris's water cannon. Not second, but third :) hand

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 19:56
by ArmChairCivvy
Caribbean wrote: a slug, formed from a metal powder bound in a wax matrix, that blows through the object immediately in front of the barrel, then disintegrates within a few inches into a harmless (relatively) powder
Yes, and I had heard about this - to minimise that ricochet & over-penetration risk - but have never seen one... as they are not for sale "over the counter".
- so rare that there is not even a "trade" term for it?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 20:19
by Poiuytrewq
ArmChairCivvy wrote:so rare that there is not even a "trade" term for it?
It's a Hatton round.

https://clucas.com/hatton-round/

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 21:14
by ArmChairCivvy
must only be used in Magnum Shotguns!

Could probably stop a bear, but you would have to wait until the CQB moment... and it would still land on you. Dead or not
- bur the other examples spelled out (@1.5 m range) are quite impressive

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 Dec 2018, 22:53
by Caribbean
Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:so rare that there is not even a "trade" term for it?
It's a Hatton round.

https://clucas.com/hatton-round/
Seems to go by the name of Johnson in the US

https://gumgullyprovision.com/product/1 ... ing-round/

Plus, of course, EDC stuff, like APDS, Incendiary, flechette, chain shot and the aptly named Thor's Hammer and Dragon's Breath -accompanied by an impressively long list of places where all of these are illegal

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Dec 2018, 05:22
by ArmChairCivvy
Caribbean wrote: Dragon's Breath -accompanied by an impressively long list of places where all of these are illegal
Can't even order "Bear Bangs" x-border (modified distress signal rockets); this one would have more bear stopping/ scaring power: "Dragons Breath Round has been improved and now produces a wall of fire for approximately 400 feet. …….. The incendiary metal compound contained inside burns when fired at over 5000 degrees fahrenheit"
- of course keeping the other shotgun barrel for the 'door slug' best used at ranges between 3-10m

Ever so slightly off thread; back to business

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 26 Dec 2018, 22:24
by J. Tattersall
On small arms i keep seeing different stories on line. Is the US going for 6.5 mms or 6.8 mm for its new rifle calibre? I'm guessing that whatever it chooses will be followed by us, the Canadians, the Aussies and other NATO.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 00:09
by Little J
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/

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 06:35
by ArmChairCivvy
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"?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 16:46
by Lord Jim
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 27 Dec 2018, 20:33
by ArmChairCivvy
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?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:13
by Tinman
I’ve been on the receiving end of accurate rifle fire at 800+ mtrs.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:27
by jimthelad
SVD? Came across a few in the Gulf, mercifully the users weren't that great.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 28 Dec 2018, 19:32
by ArmChairCivvy
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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 29 Dec 2018, 06:33
by Lord Jim
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?