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.
Little J
Member
Posts: 505
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 14 Aug 2018, 20:08

Replacing gpmg (maybe not all of them) with the mk.3 would appear to be the best option, if the L110's are still reusable there's a cost benefit (as apposed to just ditching them). Its 762 and 556 capable - so if the muppets in Whitehall change their minds (before the yanks choose NATO's next calibre) you can re-issue 556 again without to much fuss. Everyone's already trained on the L110's.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 14 Aug 2018, 21:05

If the 5.56mm minimi is proven to be inaccurate, why would it be a good idea to replace the Mag with a Minimi in 7.62?
The Minimi isn’t as robust, as widely trained or as well known as the Mag. It is lighter but that comes at the cost of reliability, controllability and ability to sustain fire.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Aug 2018, 21:29

mr.fred wrote:If the 5.56mm minimi is proven to be inaccurate, why would it be a good idea to replace the Mag with a Minimi in 7.62?
The Minimi isn’t as robust, as widely trained or as well known as the Mag. It is lighter but that comes at the cost of reliability, controllability and ability to sustain fire.
The key would be settling on a maximum of 2 types of ammunition, just as is the case now with 5.56 and 7.62 as any more than 2 types and it would end up a logistical nightmare.

Is it conceivable that a single round could be developed that would replace both the 5.56 and 7.62?

After all its not that long ago the 7.62 was doing everything.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 14 Aug 2018, 21:41

The answer to that question depends on what you want a unified cartridge to do.
You could almost certainly develop a single cartridge for infantry sections, but you may find that you would still want a heavier round for vehicle and tripod mounted weapons.
Equally, you could define an infantry combat round that covers all bases and find that you would like something a bit smaller and lighter for support troops whose primary role is not small arms engagement.
The whole mess changes somewhat depending on what the opposition is likely to carry - if your opponents are regularly wearing body armour, the balance changes.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 14 Aug 2018, 22:00

mr.fred wrote:You could almost certainly develop a single cartridge for infantry sections, but you may find that you would still want a heavier round for vehicle and tripod mounted weapons.
In that case that sounds like 7.62 and ...... something.

The 6.5mm and 7mm would seem like the obvious contenders but compared to 5.56, increased recoil is going to be a consideration again as will the modified training required to mitigate it.

Balistically the 7mm is king of the hill but very little penetrates like a 6.5mm especially if driven at high velocity due to its high sectional density. Could the dangers of over penetration in urban areas be a limiting factor?

It would be hard to develop a round that was optimised to penetrate body armour at reasonable distances and not increase the over penetration risk in urban areas.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 14 Aug 2018, 23:54

You probably wouldn’t go for 7.62mm NATO for mounted or crew served weapons. Certainly the original 7.62 NATO was selected as being ballistically similar to the 30.06 M2(?) ball, which was a downloaded version of a cartridge designed for machine guns. (Gross simplification, Hatcher’s Notebook has the details)

Plus calibre is only part of it. a 7.62 M43 is not the same as a 7.62mm NATO, just as a 6.5mm Type 38 is different to a 6.5mm Grendel or Creedmoor.

Considerations of over penetration are also not linear with power. A long spitzer bullet may end up travelling less distance post impact that a shorter, more stable, projectile, having upset and damaged itself on initial impact.
What you might find with a longer range cartridge is that you run an increased risk of fratricide or collateral damage in a complex environment, where friendlies or civilians backstop your shots to a considerable distance.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 15 Aug 2018, 00:26

mr.fred wrote:If the 5.56mm minimi is proven to be inaccurate, why would it be a good idea to replace the Mag with a Minimi in 7.62?
The Minimi isn’t as robust, as widely trained or as well known as the Mag. It is lighter but that comes at the cost of reliability, controllability and ability to sustain fire.


Have you experience of using the Minimi? I know there were problems when it was first introduced but the weapon has evolved some what over the decades, often based on feed back from the users. From what I have seen, anyone who has used the MAG can use the Minimi with little difficulty. It has a longer barrel though no as long as the MAGs but still has a greater effective range than the 5.56 version but it weights a third less than the MAG. We already have around 300 lying around the place and purchasing the modification kits would be a way of increasing the Section/Fire Teams firepower in a cost effective manner. I would rather see this than the Sections loosing their base of fire weapons entirely as seems to be on the cards with the withdrawal of the Minimi without replacement as it seems they won't be getting MAGs instead.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Aug 2018, 00:38

mr.fred wrote:You probably wouldn’t go for 7.62mm NATO for mounted or crew served weapons. Certainly the original 7.62 NATO was selected as being ballistically similar to the 30.06 M2(?) ball, which was a downloaded version of a cartridge designed for machine guns.
The 7.62x51 is ideally suited as a fully automatic machine gun round with a fairly low case capacity vs bore diameter ratio. It's actually ballistically inferior to the old 30/06 round round used in the Garand but the shorter case length helps reduce feeding issues. It's interesting that when the Americans adopted the 7.62x51 round the British wanted to go with a 7mm intermediate round. It appears over half a century later we may almost end up back where we started.

If not 7.62 for crewed and mounted weapons what are you thinking? Straight to .50 cal or something in between? Ballistically not much of interest between 30 cal and 50 cal apart from the .338 Lapua which is a fantastic long range round for single shot use but the chamber pressures would be much too high for automatic purposes.

mr.fred wrote:7.62 M43 is not the same as a 7.62mm NATO, just as a 6.5mm Type 38 is different to a 6.5mm Grendel or Creedmoor.
Agreed. If looking for a single infantry section round I think it's unlikely the 6.5 Grendel would be a contender simply due to its case head diameter being different to the 7.62x51. It's actually based on the 7.62x39 Russian case so who knows want country might end up adopting it if NATO go with a 6.5 :D

The Creedmoor would be a contender but again chamber pressures would be a bit high for automatic purposes. Personally I think Lapua have the answer with the 6.5x47 although again chamber pressures may again be on the high side so maybe a 7x47 version would keep pressures within acceptable limits.

Ritchie
Junior Member
Posts: 9
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 18:04
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Ritchie » 15 Aug 2018, 17:34

Regarding the withdrawal of the LSW, LMG and 60mm mortar I spotted this post on Arrse (yes, I know it's from Arrse, but nevertheless ...) dated 1st August and thought it might shed some light on the situation.

"I'm sure everyone here would like some more info.

I went and had a chat with a Lt Col who helped look into the whole shebang.

He informed me it's saving the army 19 million pounds a year to get rid of these weapons. He also said the tests were pretty conclusive and that their preferred coa was to get the longer barrels. Except.. upon testing the longer barrels proved to be less accurate due to barrel whip.

ITC Catterick is now getting a massive uplift in GPMG. I saw them this morning."


Now with regard to what was said about a "massive uplift in GPMG" at Catterick Infantry Training Centre, this would suggest that although the GPMG is currently held at platoon level, provision is being made to deploy GPMG in section as an expedient where and when it is needed.

Thoughts please ...

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 15 Aug 2018, 19:23

F****ng A! 1x GPMG, 1x Sharpshooter, 2x UGL, and 4 x L85A3 per section with a C G would be great.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2367
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Location: Niue
Contact:

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby arfah » 15 Aug 2018, 20:03

-<>-<>-<>-
-<>-<>-<>-

Why this forum is pish!

1: Ineffective moderators
2: Too many fantasists ruining dedicated equipment threads with notions of what gun/mortar/artillery/missiles the equipment should have because it makes their panties moist.

downsizer
Member
Posts: 730
Joined: 02 May 2015, 08:03

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby downsizer » 15 Aug 2018, 20:14

arfah wrote:L7A2 GPMG. Not a lot can beat giving it big licks with the general!

Not sure how it will fit into “Fight Light” though?

The US has a variant they call the M240L. L= Lighter


He lives!

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 15 Aug 2018, 21:22

Poiuytrewq wrote:It's actually ballistically inferior to the old 30/06 round round used in the Garand but the shorter case length helps reduce feeding issues

Which .30-06 though? The M1 or the M2? The 7.62mm is similar, though slightly downloaded, to the M2, which is itself a downloaded version of the M1.

Most 6.5mm and up cartridges under consideration out perform the 7.62mm NATO at range, so you might find it worthwhile reverting to something like the M1 .30-06 or going to something a bit larger like the .338 NM.
jimthelad wrote:F****ng A! 1x GPMG, 1x Sharpshooter, 2x UGL, and 4 x L85A3 per section with a C G would be great.

If you don’t have to carry it, perhaps? I’d suggest keeping the CG out of the section, instead retaining disposable shoulder launched weapons, and only having one UGL and using the saved weight for more ammunition or shoulder launched weapons. With the GPMG, it might be better that it be provided as a team that is supernumerary to the section (i.e. 10 man nominal section with the GPMG as a gun group supporting a 7-8 man nominal manoeuvre group) CG operating team, if you have it, lives at platoon HQ.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Member
Posts: 852
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 15 Aug 2018, 21:58

mr.fred wrote:Which .30-06 though? The M1 or the M2? The 7.62mm is similar, though slightly downloaded, to the M2, which is itself a downloaded version of the M1.
I suppose it comes down to how you measure ballistic efficiency. The 3 rounds have different bullet weights between 150gr and 173gr and consequently different muzzle velocities and recoil levels. Of the 3, the 7.62x51 is probably the best compromise as the 'all rounder' option.

mr.fred wrote:Most 6.5mm and up cartridges under consideration out perform the 7.62mm NATO at range, so you might find it worthwhile reverting to something like the M1 .30-06 or going to something a bit larger like the .338 NM.
For a long range belt fed round the .338 Norma Magnum would be a great place to start and probably finish....
IMG_0537-440x358.jpg

Still looks small compared to the .50 cal :D

http://soldiersystems.net/2017/03/20/gd/
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

benny14
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby benny14 » 16 Aug 2018, 04:09

Ritchie wrote:Now with regard to what was said about a "massive uplift in GPMG" at Catterick Infantry Training Centre, this would suggest that although the GPMG is currently held at platoon level, provision is being made to deploy GPMG in section as an expedient where and when it is needed.

Thoughts please ...

Doubt this means much. Most likely just increased weapons for training with L110A2 going out.

The new sections are going to be:
4x L86A2
2x L86A2 UGL
2x L129A1

GPMG will continue to be held at platoon level, and available to sections as needed, as it has been for a long time.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 16 Aug 2018, 21:11

Poiuytrewq wrote:I suppose it comes down to how you measure ballistic efficiency. The 3 rounds have different bullet weights between 150gr and 173gr and consequently different muzzle velocities and recoil levels. Of the 3, the 7.62x51 is probably the best compromise as the 'all rounder' option.

I was going for how the M2 ball and the 7.62 NATO were almost the same projectile weight (about 3 grains, or 2%, in it) and about the same MV (20m/s, 2.5%, in it)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Aug 2018, 22:22

It is going to take a new round having substantial benefits over both the NATO 5,56mm and NATO 7.62mm for it to be adopted. I think we are more likely to see incremental improvements in the performance of the existing rounds and also to the weapons involved first. There will as a result though be a lot of investment by both Governments and Industry as they continue to search for the Holy Grail of small arms ammunition.

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 317
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 16 Aug 2018, 22:56

benny14 wrote:
Ritchie wrote:Now with regard to what was said about a "massive uplift in GPMG" at Catterick Infantry Training Centre, this would suggest that although the GPMG is currently held at platoon level, provision is being made to deploy GPMG in section as an expedient where and when it is needed.

Thoughts please ...

Doubt this means much. Most likely just increased weapons for training with L110A2 going out.


Dont you mean L85A3?

The new sections are going to be:
4x L86A2
2x L86A2 UGL
2x L129A1

GPMG will continue to be held at platoon level, and available to sections as needed, as it has been for a long time.

Tinman
Member
Posts: 227
Joined: 03 May 2015, 17:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Tinman » 17 Aug 2018, 10:19

jimthelad wrote:F****ng A! 1x GPMG, 1x Sharpshooter, 2x UGL, and 4 x L85A3 per section with a C G would be great.


Plus G17, I’ll carry the L85a3 please and as much link the general needs.

As it wins contacts.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 19 Aug 2018, 04:04

How about adding one of these to each platoon!!


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 8341
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 11 Sep 2018, 12:56

It is official now, as firearmsblog has picked up from

"The September issue of Soldier, the British Army’s official magazine, sheds some light on how platoons will be equipped now that the Minimi/L110A3 has been dropped. The 8 man infantry section will now be equipped with 1 general purpose machine gun (the 7.62x51mm L7A2 /FN MAG), 1 L129A1 7.62x51mm Sharpshooter Rifle, 2 L85A2 or A3’s with underslung L123A1 40mm grenade launcher (the AG SA80, an adaptation of Heckler & Koch’s AG36) and 4 standard L85A2 or A3 rifles."

Should have been:
in infantry 9 men, with 3 x 3 and a GPMG in two of those
while
in AI accepting the facts of life (a section dismounting being 6, whether the commander stays in the wagon ... and the deputy dismounts, or... ) you end up with 2 x 3 plus another three beefed up by an auto-cannon

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 1941
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 11 Sep 2018, 19:15

I wonder if we get involved with a medium ground deployment in the near to medium future, how long it will be until there are numerous additions to the infantry's arsenal? With the AI I would rather see six man fire teams but with the platoon increased to four sections/vehicles. The composition would be as announced minus two troopers with standard L85A3s. At Platoon level there would be onw command vehicle containing a Command Section including a Sniper team and a vehicle carrying a Weapons Section with two three man fire teams with one Carl Gustav M4 84mm RCL and two L85A3s. This increases the size of an Infantry Platoon which is a good thing. It would be do able as we could slightly increase the number of Warrior s going through the upgrade programme and it would greatly increase the capability of both the Armoured Infantry Battalions. Each Company would have three platoons and could have up to two Javelin teams and two 81mm Mortars attached form the Support Company when required. If we went for a more heavily armed Boxer with a manned turret I would use the same organisation.

I would like the "Pedestal" Starstreak issued to Infantry units to be held a Battalions level rather then also concnetrated in the RA Regiments. They should retain the SP variants but having integral AD capability is something we have lacked consistently and is something needed.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 11 Sep 2018, 19:32

I think that it’s important to remember that, in the British army at least, the organisation and equipment charts do not necessarily bear any resemblance to what is deployed on the ground. The battalion and regimental organisations are administrative. A section of any particular strength will most likely be under strength for left-out-of-battle, casualties, and a host of other reasons.

Consider: what is the difference between the infantry battalion having an organic MANPAD section and having a MANPAD section attached to them from an air defence regiment?

benny14
Member
Posts: 555
Joined: 16 Oct 2017, 16:07
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby benny14 » 11 Sep 2018, 20:06

mr.fred wrote:I think that it’s important to remember that, in the British army at least, the organisation and equipment charts do not necessarily bear any resemblance to what is deployed on the ground. The battalion and regimental organisations are administrative.

The British Army in the field operates around battlegroups.

mr.fred
Member
Posts: 556
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby mr.fred » 11 Sep 2018, 20:20

benny14 wrote:The British Army in the field operates around battlegroups.

Indeed, with attachments from other units as appropriate.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests