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.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.
In that case that sounds like 7.62 and ...... something.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.
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 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.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.
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 6.5mr.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.
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
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
jimthelad wrote:F****ng A! 1x GPMG, 1x Sharpshooter, 2x UGL, and 4 x L85A3 per section with a C G would be great.
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: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.
For a long range belt fed round the .338 Norma Magnum would be a great place to start and probably finish....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.
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 ...
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.
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.
jimthelad wrote:F****ng A! 1x GPMG, 1x Sharpshooter, 2x UGL, and 4 x L85A3 per section with a C G would be great.
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.
benny14 wrote:The British Army in the field operates around battlegroups.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests