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.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Aug 2019, 02:42

New 60mm Mortar from Rheinmetall looks interesting.
https://www.janes.com/article/90430/rhe ... ial-forces

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 30 Aug 2019, 08:31

Yes but only makes sense if we move to the 120 mm mortar for Coy, Bn, and mechanised units and issue this at Plt level as a 2 man fire team attached to the standard 3 x 8 +4 Plt from the heavy support coy. Otherwise we have 2 light mortars (81mm , 60mm) with overlapping roles. Also, if we switch to CG then it is heavier, less versatile, and has a higher logistical footprint.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 747
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 30 Aug 2019, 19:49

jimthelad wrote:Yes but only makes sense if we move to the 120 mm mortar for Coy, Bn, and mechanised units and issue this at Plt level as a 2 man fire team attached to the standard 3 x 8 +4 Plt from the heavy support coy. Otherwise we have 2 light mortars (81mm , 60mm) with overlapping roles. Also, if we switch to CG then it is heavier, less versatile, and has a higher logistical footprint.

I'm minded to disagree, to an extent. A 60mm mortar operated as a direct-fire weapon does not overlap with an 81mm weapon used as an indirect observed-fire weapon. Moreover, if a 60 is light and a 120 is heavy, then an 81 is medium, not a light.
What you could do with a 60mm weapon that can be used as an indirect weapon is issue it to units where weight of logistics is critical but weight of fire is less so. Something like a peace-keeping operation over a wide area that still needs some indirect firepower deployed with the infantry to project smoke and illum and the occasional HE bomb.

60mm and the ammunition to go with it might be overly heavy as a platoon weapon (and definitely not a section weapon per the thread title) but the ability to project smoke and illum (and a bit of HE) to rifle range and beyond isn't a bad thing.
Plus a mortar has a much smaller firing signature than a recoilless rifle.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 31 Aug 2019, 10:45

There is no way anyone would operate the 60mm mortar in direct fire I'm afraid. The firing position would leave the gunner and loader very exposed so their use is danger close accurate indirect fire in support of sections in contact or prosecuting an attack, or, use of obscurants in the support of the same. It would be a useful boost to platoon firepower with the retention of NLAW, LAW80, and LAW66 but it would mean that C G would not be purchased.

I am not convinced the C G is the right choice anyway due to the logistical footprint and the expense of the ammo. Personally I would buy/retain the 60mm mortar, keep the UGL 1 per fireteam, keep direct unguided AT at 1 per section, and give the support Coy 120mm mortars. The new variant is not much heavier than the 81mm mortar which is going to need major relifing soon anyway and would give a welcome boost for rapid reaction troops.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 31 Aug 2019, 16:32

Ah one of the things at the top of my wish list, give the infantry 120mm mortars, mounted on the Boxer (for Armoured and Mechanised Infantry) and on the MRV(P)/JLTV for lighter units. Retain the 81mm as an option for some units like the RM and Paras.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 747
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 31 Aug 2019, 21:17

jimthelad wrote:There is no way anyone would operate the 60mm mortar in direct fire I'm afraid.

Soldiers have done just thatfor the past hundred years or so.
jimthelad wrote:The firing position would leave the gunner and loader very exposed

True of any weapon system if you take up an exposed firing position. Nothing says that you have to though.
You can take a protected firing position with a commando mortar more easily than you can with a recoilless anything.
Image
Case in point. These guys aren't much, if at all, more exposed compared to a rifleman or machinegunner.

jimthelad wrote:It would be a useful boost to platoon firepower with the retention of NLAW, LAW80, and LAW66 but it would mean that C G would not be purchased.

LAW80 has been out of service for nearly two decades. LAW66 (as an anti-tank weapon) has been out of service for twice that long, though the light anti-structure munition (LASM) is based off the same weapon but I think that was a UOR for Afghanistan (and hence out of service again)
Whether that means that you can have unguided AT at section level depends on if you count NLAW as guided or not.

jimthelad wrote:give the support Coy 120mm mortars. The new variant is not much heavier than the 81mm mortar which is going to need major relifing soon anyway and would give a welcome boost for rapid reaction troops.

Which model is that? The lightest I can find is ~150kg, vs. ~40kg for the L16/M252. Not even slightly comparable and that before you look at the 14kg bombs for the 120mm compared to 4kg bombs for the 81mm. You could carry a 81mm mortar and 25 bombs for the weight of the lightest 120mm and one bomb. Or three 81mm tubes for every 120mm tube, plus three 81mm bombs for every 120mm bomb.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 11755
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Sep 2019, 06:08

mr.fred wrote: three 81mm tubes for every 120mm tube, plus three 81mm bombs for every 120mm bomb.


As long as we consider mortars as suppression weapons (US Army/ USMC have adopted guidance sets, mainly for use in MOUTS) the above is a point, and beyond man-handled mobility:
- there is twice as much fragmentation (anti-infantry. let's forget about trying to penetrated protected vehicles with mortars) coming out of a kg/ ton of 81 mm bombs vs. 120 mm
- so in the above example fire once and you get 2 x 3=6 times more fragmentation, and the dispersed impact points cover a wider area , too
... and lose one weapon/ crew? You are still in the game (and the section you were supporting is not left to its own devices). On patrol, in the mountains? Yes, may be then a 60 mm should be carried (as a special issue)

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 01 Sep 2019, 10:21

I am not trying to be confrontational and send this thread into the fantasy arguments that seem to dog other parts of the forum BUT:

The days of man packing mortar tubes and rounds are over. In the 'fight fast, fight dispersed' mentality especially against numerically superior forces then you have to be mobile. By that i mean that even light role units will be wheeled and have to shake out and deploy rapidly before moving. I agree the 120mm is heavier in real terms and has a higher logistical deployment weight but this is mitigated by the fact we are now expected to aggregate and suppress a peer force before dispersing. I would select the 120 for range and suppression effects at a 1 for 1 replacement for the 81 for all Inf Btn. The 81mm might have a role for SF and airborne units but as a former heavy support group officer I know my oppo in the mortar coy would have preferred the 120 as long as he didn't have to manpack it. 16 AA is now looking seriously at how they can leverage the A400M fleet and there is a lobby to retain the upgraded CVRT fleet (24 units I think). The days of carrying everything mercifully are over with the exception of mountain and jungle warfare. In the latter, a mortar is about as much use as a lace condom- you cant see shit to hit until you are within direct fire range.

MrF, you are right about the unit weight, but it is a null argument if you have vehicles, and there are some very good multi-effect fuses and different loads including a top attack anti-armour round from SAAB which would give the light units a serious indirect anti-amour capability. This would break up an armoured formation before contact and allow more effective use of the AT systems used by such formations (trust me I spent several years doing this!!).

Yes LAW66/80 were withdrawn from service but have you been in an armoury recently? Not the rifle racks but in the back? Ours had a nice shiny front office but the deep store and workshop had a lot of withdrawn kit: a few Bren, L1A1, Sterling, MP5, Daimeco C5, LAW66, LAW80, and even a few M79. When we went to the sandbox, everything was on the table and we lobbed a lot of 66 and 80's out. The L1A1 was carried by the sniper spotters as a support weapon and really did the biz.

Lastly, firing a 60mm in direct fireis going to get you killed. Your picture is of the old 2" weapon, a great bit of kit but a UGL is of far more use and gives a higher rate of fire. To fire a mortar in such a situation you would need to lower the barrel, reload, rasie and resight, then fire. The 2 operators in the above photo are defiladed in a ditch with what appears to be cover to eyeline and therefore the barrel is not in direct sight. Don't get me wrong, the 60mm would be a great bit of kit at Plt level and in my opinion better than CG as long as we retain NLAW at 1 per section and the UGL at 1 per fireteam. Add in the GPMG at 1 per section and you would finally have the section firepower footprint you could make an impact with.

I know that this is going to spark some comments but it does come from some operational experience.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 01 Sep 2019, 10:42

mr.fred wrote:
jimthelad wrote:Yes but only makes sense if we move to the 120 mm mortar for Coy, Bn, and mechanised units and issue this at Plt level as a 2 man fire team attached to the standard 3 x 8 +4 Plt from the heavy support coy. Otherwise we have 2 light mortars (81mm , 60mm) with overlapping roles. Also, if we switch to CG then it is heavier, less versatile, and has a higher logistical footprint.

I'm minded to disagree, to an extent. A 60mm mortar operated as a direct-fire weapon does not overlap with an 81mm weapon used as an indirect observed-fire weapon. Moreover, if a 60 is light and a 120 is heavy, then an 81 is medium, not a light.
What you could do with a 60mm weapon that can be used as an indirect weapon is issue it to units where weight of logistics is critical but weight of fire is less so. Something like a peace-keeping operation over a wide area that still needs some indirect firepower deployed with the infantry to project smoke and illum and the occasional HE bomb.

60mm and the ammunition to go with it might be overly heavy as a platoon weapon (and definitely not a section weapon per the thread title) but the ability to project smoke and illum (and a bit of HE) to rifle range and beyond isn't a bad thing.
Plus a mortar has a much smaller firing signature than a recoilless rifle.


In Finland under 81mm mortars are mini, 81mm is light and 120mm is heavy

All mortars can be used in what is called assisted direct fire. This is a method to fire a mortar from behind a cover to a target without FOs. 60mm is its best in assisted direct fire role. I won't go into details but it's an easy method. Nothing fancy or difficult about it. 66 LAW as anti-TANK weapon might be obsolete but not as anti-ARMOR weapon.

81mm is, as stated above, most effective against INFANTRY per tonne of ammunition of all indirect fire weapons. What you need is to step up your game and set up mortar companies, platoons are so 1964. This enables better autonomy.

No mortar should operate without vehicles. You just can't tranport enough ammo even if the mortar itself can be carried, or then you're not fighting a real enemy but some ragtags. ATV is the bare minimum for even light mortars.

~UNiOnJaCk~
Member
Posts: 724
Joined: 03 May 2015, 16:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ~UNiOnJaCk~ » 01 Sep 2019, 11:01

jimthelad wrote:I am not trying to be confrontational and send this thread into the fantasy arguments that seem to dog other parts of the forum BUT:

The days of man packing mortar tubes and rounds are over. In the 'fight fast, fight dispersed' mentality especially against numerically superior forces then you have to be mobile. By that i mean that even light role units will be wheeled and have to shake out and deploy rapidly before moving. I agree the 120mm is heavier in real terms and has a higher logistical deployment weight but this is mitigated by the fact we are now expected to aggregate and suppress a peer force before dispersing. I would select the 120 for range and suppression effects at a 1 for 1 replacement for the 81 for all Inf Btn. The 81mm might have a role for SF and airborne units but as a former heavy support group officer I know my oppo in the mortar coy would have preferred the 120 as long as he didn't have to manpack it. 16 AA is now looking seriously at how they can leverage the A400M fleet and there is a lobby to retain the upgraded CVRT fleet (24 units I think). The days of carrying everything mercifully are over with the exception of mountain and jungle warfare. In the latter, a mortar is about as much use as a lace condom- you cant see shit to hit until you are within direct fire range.

MrF, you are right about the unit weight, but it is a null argument if you have vehicles, and there are some very good multi-effect fuses and different loads including a top attack anti-armour round from SAAB which would give the light units a serious indirect anti-amour capability. This would break up an armoured formation before contact and allow more effective use of the AT systems used by such formations (trust me I spent several years doing this!!).

Yes LAW66/80 were withdrawn from service but have you been in an armoury recently? Not the rifle racks but in the back? Ours had a nice shiny front office but the deep store and workshop had a lot of withdrawn kit: a few Bren, L1A1, Sterling, MP5, Daimeco C5, LAW66, LAW80, and even a few M79. When we went to the sandbox, everything was on the table and we lobbed a lot of 66 and 80's out. The L1A1 was carried by the sniper spotters as a support weapon and really did the biz.

Lastly, firing a 60mm in direct fireis going to get you killed. Your picture is of the old 2" weapon, a great bit of kit but a UGL is of far more use and gives a higher rate of fire. To fire a mortar in such a situation you would need to lower the barrel, reload, rasie and resight, then fire. The 2 operators in the above photo are defiladed in a ditch with what appears to be cover to eyeline and therefore the barrel is not in direct sight. Don't get me wrong, the 60mm would be a great bit of kit at Plt level and in my opinion better than CG as long as we retain NLAW at 1 per section and the UGL at 1 per fireteam. Add in the GPMG at 1 per section and you would finally have the section firepower footprint you could make an impact with.

I know that this is going to spark some comments but it does come from some operational experience.


Sounds sensible to me.

Might be a stupid suggestion however, but why not retain 81mm at a company level within a format like the one you describe above? Wouldn't the benefits of having slightly heavier, organic indirect fire support (81mm vs 60mm) outweigh potential logistics/tactical mobility related drawbacks?

Also, might the potential near term introduction of emebedded equipment carrier platforms (autonomous or otherwise), as seems to be the direction of travel, also be a factor to consider here? If the idea is for them to alleviate the load off the dismounted infantry, could that not be enough to allow the 81mm a stay of execution in the above scenario?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 01 Sep 2019, 11:36

~UNiOnJaCk~ wrote:
jimthelad wrote:I am not trying to be confrontational and send this thread into the fantasy arguments that seem to dog other parts of the forum BUT:

The days of man packing mortar tubes and rounds are over. In the 'fight fast, fight dispersed' mentality especially against numerically superior forces then you have to be mobile. By that i mean that even light role units will be wheeled and have to shake out and deploy rapidly before moving. I agree the 120mm is heavier in real terms and has a higher logistical deployment weight but this is mitigated by the fact we are now expected to aggregate and suppress a peer force before dispersing. I would select the 120 for range and suppression effects at a 1 for 1 replacement for the 81 for all Inf Btn. The 81mm might have a role for SF and airborne units but as a former heavy support group officer I know my oppo in the mortar coy would have preferred the 120 as long as he didn't have to manpack it. 16 AA is now looking seriously at how they can leverage the A400M fleet and there is a lobby to retain the upgraded CVRT fleet (24 units I think). The days of carrying everything mercifully are over with the exception of mountain and jungle warfare. In the latter, a mortar is about as much use as a lace condom- you cant see shit to hit until you are within direct fire range.

MrF, you are right about the unit weight, but it is a null argument if you have vehicles, and there are some very good multi-effect fuses and different loads including a top attack anti-armour round from SAAB which would give the light units a serious indirect anti-amour capability. This would break up an armoured formation before contact and allow more effective use of the AT systems used by such formations (trust me I spent several years doing this!!).

Yes LAW66/80 were withdrawn from service but have you been in an armoury recently? Not the rifle racks but in the back? Ours had a nice shiny front office but the deep store and workshop had a lot of withdrawn kit: a few Bren, L1A1, Sterling, MP5, Daimeco C5, LAW66, LAW80, and even a few M79. When we went to the sandbox, everything was on the table and we lobbed a lot of 66 and 80's out. The L1A1 was carried by the sniper spotters as a support weapon and really did the biz.

Lastly, firing a 60mm in direct fireis going to get you killed. Your picture is of the old 2" weapon, a great bit of kit but a UGL is of far more use and gives a higher rate of fire. To fire a mortar in such a situation you would need to lower the barrel, reload, rasie and resight, then fire. The 2 operators in the above photo are defiladed in a ditch with what appears to be cover to eyeline and therefore the barrel is not in direct sight. Don't get me wrong, the 60mm would be a great bit of kit at Plt level and in my opinion better than CG as long as we retain NLAW at 1 per section and the UGL at 1 per fireteam. Add in the GPMG at 1 per section and you would finally have the section firepower footprint you could make an impact with.

I know that this is going to spark some comments but it does come from some operational experience.


Sounds sensible to me.

Might be a stupid suggestion however, but why not retain 81mm at a company level within a format like the one you describe above? Wouldn't the benefits of having slightly heavier, organic indirect fire support (81mm vs 60mm) outweigh potential logistics/tactical mobility related drawbacks?

Also, might the potential near term introduction of emebedded equipment carrier platforms (autonomous or otherwise), as seems to be the direction of travel, also be a factor to consider here? If the idea is for them to alleviate the load off the dismounted infantry, could that not be enough to allow the 81mm a stay of execution in the above scenario?


You have them already so why get get rid of them? I don't see why you couldn't have 60 at plt, 81 at coy and 120 at bn.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 01 Sep 2019, 12:45

Unfortunately the MoD dont follow common sense. They procure and sustain existing systems based on a through life cost basis. I doubt they will allow it and insist on 1 or the other (81/120). Assisted direct fire is a great concept but certainly I found it marginal in contact using the 51mm. The biggest issue was fire control when the unit tended to be strung out and in contact. The Plt Sgt always carried the tube and was a great operator but often he was where he should be in the rear of the attack and it made for difficult shot placement if he didn't have eyes on.

Sadly, the light units (16 AA, 3 Cdo) often still do manpack the tubes and rounds. We all used to carry 81mm rds on the drop and tried to offload them asap. I totally agree that wheeled units and possibly UGV are the way forward.

UJ, keeping both seems a great idea but unfortunately might lead to logistics headache and MoD interference. Maybe for 16AA and the SF units it might make more sense. In addition, it would need the whole fleet to be re-lifed, not just the handful done so far which ultimately might be nearly as expensive as buying new.

V, I'm not so sure about the 81mm/120mm/tonne information now. It originally came form studies done by DARPA/Rand in the early nineties and was being discussed when I was going through Sandhurst. I suspect the new 120mm with smart fuse and prefragmented casing might be as effective. In addition the versatility of rounds on the market far eclipses the 81mm. I tried to find more recent articles on debate but they all cite the original and seem to take it forward.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 01 Sep 2019, 13:03

jimthelad wrote:prefragmented casing might be as effective. In addition the versatility of rounds on the market far eclipses the 81mm. I tried to find more recent articles on debate but they all cite the original and seem to take it forward.


But then we're comparing apples and oranges, not apples and apples. Same improvements can be applied to 81mm and have been applied.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 747
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 01 Sep 2019, 14:53

jimthelad wrote:The days of man packing mortar tubes and rounds are over. In the 'fight fast, fight dispersed' mentality especially against numerically superior forces then you have to be mobile. By that i mean that even light role units will be wheeled and have to shake out and deploy rapidly before moving.

At no point did I refer to man-packing mortars. Weight on some operations is critical - air mobile is the obvious one, but even vehicle mobile operations can be constrained by weight. If nothing else, a kg carried of one thing is a kilo of something else that you cannot carry.
jimthelad wrote:Lastly, firing a 60mm in direct fireis going to get you killed. Your picture is of the old 2" weapon, a great bit of kit but a UGL is of far more use and gives a higher rate of fire. To fire a mortar in such a situation you would need to lower the barrel, reload, rasie and resight, then fire. The 2 operators in the above photo are defiladed in a ditch with what appears to be cover to eyeline and therefore the barrel is not in direct sight.

This may be a semantic thing, but to me direct firing is where the firer can see the target and make his own corrections. If direct fire is impossibly dangerous for a mortar then it must also be impossibly dangerous for any other direct fire weapon.
jimthelad wrote:Yes LAW66/80 were withdrawn from service but have you been in an armoury recently? Not the rifle racks but in the back? Ours had a nice shiny front office but the deep store and workshop had a lot of withdrawn kit: a few Bren, L1A1, Sterling, MP5, Daimeco C5, LAW66, LAW80, and even a few M79. When we went to the sandbox, everything was on the table and we lobbed a lot of 66 and 80's out. The L1A1 was carried by the sniper spotters as a support weapon and really did the biz.

I can't say I have, but I know people who have been armourers. While it might be possible to have small arms tucked away somewhere, it seems most unlikely with the level of accountants involved. Having LAW66 (or at least something that looks like it) is not beyond the realms of possibility, since I am not sure on the status since Afghanistan and variants are still in production. It would be all but impossible to have a live LAW80. They were "wooden" rounds that had a fixed life, and were disposed of in the early-to-mid 2000's.
You might see a drill round, but not a live one. If you did find a live one today, the appropriate procedure would be to call an ATO, not issue it.
The last operational use of LAW80 would have been the early Op Telics.



Voldemort wrote:In Finland under 81mm mortars are mini, 81mm is light and 120mm is heavy

In Starbucks the sizes are apparently "Short", "Tall", and "Grande" but in plain English you could still describe them as small, medium and large. The point was that a 60mm mortar is not in the same category as an 81mm mortar.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Voldemort » 01 Sep 2019, 15:01

mr.fred wrote:In Starbucks the sizes are apparently "Short", "Tall", and "Grande" but in plain English you could still describe them as small, medium and large. The point was that a 60mm mortar is not in the same category as an 81mm mortar.


Yes, it was just "*adjusts glasses* I know following about the topic even though the info is useless"-type of comment. Yes, they are fundamentally different and need different designations.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 01 Sep 2019, 16:13

MrF, as i said at the start, I'm not trying to drag the thread down! Certainly the last time I was in green (or sandy to be precise) there were 80's still in the armoury. They would certainly be lifed but I read somewhere some of the later batches were retained after testing (although they are likely to have gone now).

Direct fire with a mortar is a risky business I fear. It takes longer to establish a sighting picture and is impossible to fire from prone as with an UGL. Rushing a round or rounds is just as likely to kill your own troops. Using it in such a way would be less accurate in my experience with the 51mm but I've never fired a 60mm so maybe it is different. This is one of the major drawbacks with the CG as well due to the venturi vents unless they have redesigned the backblast. This is why the firing post of the Milan was a periscopic sight to elevate the tube and back blast above the legs of the firer. I think CG was used prone but I think it came with some serious health warnings (ready to be corrected by any CG users here); it was withdrawn before i joined.

As for man-packing gear, I all too aware about a kg here is one less elsewhere. We still had to carry the rounds as well as MILAN tubes but fortunately we ditched them as soon as we could. Probably best to agree we have differing opinions based on personal experience.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 747
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 01 Sep 2019, 19:06

jimthelad wrote:Direct fire with a mortar is a risky business I fear. It takes longer to establish a sighting picture and is impossible to fire from prone as with an UGL. Rushing a round or rounds is just as likely to kill your own troops. Using it in such a way would be less accurate in my experience with the 51mm but I've never fired a 60mm so maybe it is different.

I can only imagine that you have a different understanding of "direct fire" than I do. The 60mm mortar Lord Jim linked to upthread can be used in the same fashion as a two inch mortar. The image I posted is a two inch mortar being used in what I understand to be direct fire, with both gunner and loader prone.

Firing a recoilless weapon when prone usually involves having the tube diagonal relative to the body and legs (or the legs and body diagonal relative to the tube).

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 434
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby whitelancer » 01 Sep 2019, 19:42

I think what you are referring to is what I would call semi indirect. In this situation at least one of the mortar team can see the target however the mortar itself can be behind cover, in a ditch behind a wall or bank etc. The team member with eyes on then directs the fire much as a MFC would.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 747
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 01 Sep 2019, 21:03

whitelancer wrote:I think what you are referring to is what I would call semi indirect. In this situation at least one of the mortar team can see the target however the mortar itself can be behind cover, in a ditch behind a wall or bank etc. The team member with eyes on then directs the fire much as a MFC would.

What if the member who can see is the gunner?

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 434
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby whitelancer » 01 Sep 2019, 22:35

mr.fred wrote:What if the member who can see is the gunner?


All the team should be able to operate the mortar besides it will normally be the team leader doing the spotting and directing of fire. Its not that they will be far apart. The mortar could be behind a wall or bank with the observer a few feet away looking over or around it.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby clivestonehouse1 » 01 Sep 2019, 23:50

There is absolutely no way in hell that any armoury would hold live ammo or explosives in stock.
Having worked in an armoury AND a Defence Munitions facility in past years I know this for a fact.
Drill weapons / subcal launchers for sure but certainly not loaded and ready to pop.
Handling and storage of class 1 munitions is strictly controlled and monitored whether that be rounds, pyro or explosive.
The only people that would retain class 1 would be ATO EOD teams who have their own storage facilities.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 02 Sep 2019, 23:22

High readiness units always carried 1 fire unit (NATO) in the armoury. At least they did until 2001 when I left. Deep store for us was Beith, not sure what was carried there but they always came up with the goods when asked. Not sure what goes on now but in the bad old days that was the case. I'll defer to your better judgement.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby clivestonehouse1 » 02 Sep 2019, 23:28

jimthelad wrote:High readiness units always carried 1 fire unit (NATO) in the armoury. At least they did until 2001 when I left. Deep store for us was Beith, not sure what was carried there but they always came up with the goods when asked. Not sure what goes on now but in the bad old days that was the case. I'll defer to your better judgement.
Defence Munition sites like Beith hold whatever is in common use in their catchment area.
Down my end it's mostly naval stuff (TLAM, Spearfish and other ship munitions) but also SAA, pyro etc.
We do get shipments from Beith and other DM sites as necessary.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3989
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 10 Sep 2019, 17:04

Well if we actually wanted a replacement for the MAG/GPMG here is another possibility from Poland (I think).
https://www.janes.com/article/90883/msp ... -to-norway

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 376
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 10 Sep 2019, 18:15

Better to go down the Finnish route and rework the GPMG. Don't mess with perfection !


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

 

 

cron