Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

USMC field manual: "Organization of the Rifle Squad
The rifle squad consists of three fire teams, each of which is built around
an automatic weapon"

Watching the trends in different armies, the means (also at this unit level) to deliver effects to
"dead space" – a space that cannot be engaged with direct fire - are now deemed so important that the third MG(/ SAW) can be substituted for
- however, keeping the section manning artificially low will add a degree of difficulty to doing this
... or leave the section/ squad with one MG only. Not so good, is it?

Then there are the folks who stick to the "underslung" concept, as they know it, when (going back to the USMC again) the next step has been taken already and
" M32 is seen less as a replacement to its underslung siblings, and more as a way to beef up an infantry squad’s firepower"
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

The problem is the Army is going to be operating in "Penny Packets" as we go forward. Even now we have to trawl through numerous units to get enough bodies, kit and specialists for almost every deployment. As for MANPADs, well saying you are bringing them along but are hardly ever used is sort of living in the past. Sure in both Iraq and Afghanistan there was no hostile air power but that situation is unlikely in many possible future conflicts.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

If we’re already verging on penny packets, I see no reason to make it worse.
More specifically, if we’re planning on fighting someone with hostile air that requires HVM to counter, we really need to squash the penny packeting before we start worrying about, well, anything else.

If I’m fighting the last war, what situations do you see that would require a permanent, organic, dedicated anti-air sub unit with HVM?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

We seem to have our wires slightly crossed here. What I was trying to get across is that in all the conflicts we have fought sing the Falklands, enemy air has basically been non existent and we have had air dominance. This is great but we are in danger of assuming that will be the norm from now on. This mind set at higher levels has led to arms such as the Artillery suffering gross under investment and our whole GBAD capability being stripped back. Yes we have Land Ceptor coming in and we retain Starstreak but our formations will find themselves with only their 12.7 (if they are lucky) or good old GPMGs as their only form of defence against air attack. Treating Starstreak/MANPADs as another support weapon ensures individual units have an organic air defence capability. Training is no more than is required for Javelin. Given I advocate an increase in the manpower of out Infantry Battalions achieved by disbanding or re tasking the majority of the current "Light" role Battalions manpower would not be an issue, and the hardware is already there.

Turning to penny packets, we considering the UK can only really deploy a fully equipped heavy or in future medium Brigade as against the stated "Division" Battalion level battlegroups are going to be the core formations for future deployments. If we try to deploy a Division it would actually be a liability as we have not sufficient support and logistics to properly support a formation of that size not sufficient units fully equipped to man it. So yes in theory we can still deploy a half cocked "Division", but we will do better to deploy a fully capably "Brigade". This if course excludes both 3 Commando and 16 Air Assault, though we should probably have to deploy units from both to create a true Brigade sized formation that is fully supported. 16 Air Assault in particular needs greater investment in order for it to be equipped effectively for its role.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: I was trying to get across is that in all the conflicts we have fought sing the Falklands, enemy air has basically been non existent and we have had air dominance. This is great but we are in danger of assuming that will be the norm from now on. This mind set at higher levels has led to arms such as the Artillery suffering gross under investment and our whole GBAD capability being stripped back. Yes we have Land Ceptor coming in and we retain Starstreak but our formations will find themselves with only their 12.7 (if they are lucky) or good old GPMGs as their only form of defence against air attack. Treating Starstreak/MANPADs as another support weapon ensures individual units have an organic air defence capability
I guess we need to be going to the
GBAD thread
as a section is hardly the level at which organic AD should be embedded in; I do agree that a BG should "always" have it... but in what form (org.) and with what weapons (well, the ones we have?)
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Soviet mechanised infantry did used to cart a sa7 around in each BMP. I don’t know if current Russian infantry carry an SA16 or SA24, but Soviet and now Russian thinking has always been a bit more SAM-centric.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:Soviet and now Russian thinking has always been a bit more SAM-centric.
The whole battle-field helicopter (with ATGWs) came around as a mobile anti-tank concept, against massed armour
... so no surprise in that?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

We (Finland) have moved to having battlegroup as de facto main type of formation. They're more of a half brigade than battalion (+). Battlegroup includes 3-4 jäger companies, HQ and signals company, mortar company, artillery battalion, CSS company and engineer company.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Voldemort wrote:We (Finland) have moved to having battlegroup as de facto main type of formation. They're more of a half brigade than battalion (+). Battlegroup includes 3-4 jäger companies, HQ and signals company, mortar company, artillery battalion, CSS company and engineer company.
How does that work for you, and where does armour and anti-air fit?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

mr.fred wrote:
Voldemort wrote:We (Finland) have moved to having battlegroup as de facto main type of formation. They're more of a half brigade than battalion (+). Battlegroup includes 3-4 jäger companies, HQ and signals company, mortar company, artillery battalion, CSS company and engineer company.
How does that work for you, and where does armour and anti-air fit?
We have several types of battlegroups obviously, including armoured ones with BMP-2MD+LEO2A6 and MTLB+LEO2A4. We use both battlegroups and brigades. AA is brigade and above level asset for most units excluding armoured battlegroups which have organic AAA platoon and company.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote: I was trying to get across is that in all the conflicts we have fought sing the Falklands, enemy air has basically been non existent and we have had air dominance. This is great but we are in danger of assuming that will be the norm from now on. This mind set at higher levels has led to arms such as the Artillery suffering gross under investment and our whole GBAD capability being stripped back. Yes we have Land Ceptor coming in and we retain Starstreak but our formations will find themselves with only their 12.7 (if they are lucky) or good old GPMGs as their only form of defence against air attack. Treating Starstreak/MANPADs as another support weapon ensures individual units have an organic air defence capability
I guess we need to be going to the
GBAD thread
as a section is hardly the level at which organic AD should be embedded in; I do agree that a BG should "always" have it... but in what form (org.) and with what weapons (well, the ones we have?)
Ok point taken on the above. Maybe we should have a definitive "Future Army" thread here as well similar to the "Fantasy" thread in the naval section and the same in the RAF. I would say start anew rather than drag an old existing one back to life.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

I still quite like this idea for the GPMG gunners in the future:


I also like the Mk48 as used by US Special Forces, basically an adaptation of the Minimi Mk3 7.62x51 LMG.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Tinman wrote: As it wins contacts.
Whats the thoughts on losing (or at least returning to stores) of the 60mm mortar?

I know there's talk of CG returning but surely a mortar is better for dealing with targets in cover and for smoke and illum fire missions?
Some of the reports were its first round not being easy to get on target but generally positive. Are we doing what we did with the 51mm again?

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Recoil less rifles are notoriously heavy in terms of ammunition round weight relative to projectile weight. While engagement of point targets will favour the CG, one wonders how the platoon will cope laying down smoke or area effects.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

mr.fred wrote:While engagement of point targets will favour the CG, one wonders how the platoon will cope laying down smoke or area effects.
To me the return of a lighter CG makes sense, particularly in a world of SVBIED and increasing urban combat. But not in place of a mortar. I know illum rounds are available, but firing a CG in the air at a 45 degree angle doesn't sound healthy, plus the launch signature will be massive. Airburst ammo makes sense, but only for line of sight targets. I know UGL takes a little of the strain off the mortars, but even with medium velocity 40mm rounds it will struggle for range and payload compared to 51mm or 60mm mortars.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:the next step has been taken already and
" M32 is seen less as a replacement to its underslung siblings, and more as a way to beef up an infantry squad’s firepower"
+
Timmymagic wrote: I know UGL takes a little of the strain off the mortars, but even with medium velocity 40mm rounds it will struggle for range and payload compared to 51mm or 60mm mortars.
OK, above you have 4 alternatives (+CG from the general discussion)
- at platoon / squad level, which would you go for?
- making no assumptions about what might be available from higher level formations, to be assigned
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Mortars at Platoon level make sense if on the defensive more than the opposite. The single 51mm was useful but in a limited way, providing mainly illumination. With the 69mm yes you can reach out and touch someone at greater range and if they are behind cover but again there are major limitation. Would a single 60mm held at Platoon level be really of any use? Neither of these are really relevant when talking about the fire power of the Infantry Section. Introducing the Mk32 to replace the current underslung G/L doe make sense and its ability to use medium velocity rounds and the variety of round available are all in its favour. It is able to engage target behind cover and deliver an impressive amount of suppressive fire if needed. If you want to really hit hard then the Carl Gustav M$ fits the bill perfectly. Yes the rounds are not feather weight but they are manageable. How many LAW-80s or the newer NLAW are carried and how much did/do they weigh. The M$ also has a useful AT round able to deal with anything but the latest MBTs from the front and is far cheaper than a Javelin per shot. Both the M32 and M4 are ideal for fighting in built in up areas. If we retain the 8 man section then one fire team would have the M32 and the other the M4, both teams should have access to an LMG more importantly. As we are retaining the good old FN MAG, we should seriously look at what other nations have done to improve the weight and portability of the weapon and its ammunition. The fun video I posted above with the 500 round back pack would be a place to start as should how the US and Sweden have modified their MAGs. The alternative would be to retain the MAGs at Company level for sustained fire but issue the smaller and lighter Minimi Mk 3 variants to the sections. The fact that US SF have adopted this weapon shows that it is effective.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: If we retain the 8 man section then one fire team would have the M32 and the other the M4, both teams should have access to an LMG more importantly.
Now we have 4 of the 8 with a suppressive fire weapon (and one of the remaining "riflemen" is the section leader). When I proposed the 3 x 3 with 2 LMGs and one weapon capable of indirect fire, the ratio was 1 to 2, not 1:1 (but no exclamations of ohh-la la were forthcoming :) ).
Lord Jim wrote:issue the smaller and lighter Minimi Mk 3 variants to the sections. The fact that US SF have adopted this weapon shows that it is effective.
The context - for being effective - may be slightly different: break contact, using weight of fire? The same reason why recon sections in the Finnish army used to have LMGs, firing 1000 rpm, and of the same round (short ranged) as what other weapons in the section would use.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

arfah wrote:Seems the future requires an accurate GPMG?
A sharp shooter weapon or a suppression weapon? These kinds of targets
Average hit probabilities of machine gun fire
at different aiming ranges

Exposed target area
1.5 m x 0.3 m
and
1.2 m x 0.3 m
had a 10% difference in hit probability at 600m, but that difference shrunk to a mere per cent (unit) at 1000m

Could one say that at ranges beyond the capacity of individual's weapons, the main determinant for effectiveness (crew served or not) is the ammo feed capacity? And if you do bursts of three (no limitless ammo!) some dispersion is actually desirable?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3958
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

arfah wrote:The 7.62 LMG (BREN) was binned because it was too accurate.....

Seems the future requires an accurate GPMG?
Or a Bren with a worn barrel? :D

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

No bugger ever puts his head up when on the receiving end of a gympy. The suppression effect of the beaten zone is frightening. If you have ever been in live fire with it in support you respect the fact that there is an ovoid of hell about 5m wide at 300m and increasing by 2 every 100m just in front of you. Everyone respects the M2 but the gympy is terrifying, if you have the misfortune to have seen it's after effects you will know what I mean.

Finally we have a fast moving hard hitting section with a real variety of option for a platoon commander to exploit. The long rifle allows early suppression and dominance in the firefight, the gympy allows suppression for manouver, and the UGL gives indirect smoke and fires followed by a close in direct fire to clear trenches.

Someone has made the right call, I wish we had had that when I was a 2lt.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jimthelad wrote:about 5m wide at 300m
Don't want to bore anyone, but the M240B training manual gives information about the beaten zone w/o the gunner's adjustments, which would let one calculate the area (but that does not have much to do with the probability of being hit as the gunners [initial] accuracy is the key to that): getting fatter with
dispersion increasing, at ranges of:
500 m 1x110m
1000m 2x75
1500m 3x55
with plunging fire (raining from above) giving the roundest shape
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

arfah wrote:The 7.62 LMG (BREN) was binned because it was too accurate.
I know you're joking but thats one of the myths that refuses to die. All you have to do to widen the cone of fire is relax your grip..job done.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote:Mortars at Platoon level make sense if on the defensive more than the opposite. The single 51mm was useful but in a limited way, providing mainly illumination.
Wasn't the 51mm falling out of favour and being used for illum (very rarely) more due to the fact that the Army had stopped issuing HE rounds for practice and hardly ever letting anyone train on it? But then along came Iraq and suddenly everyone realised why it was so useful and it returned with a vengeance. The Hirtenberger 60mm was procured because there was no supply of 51mm anymore IIRC. I'd have thought that 60mm at platoon level was useful both for defence and attack. Keeping peoples heads down at range or screening with smoke let alone dealing with targets in cover would appear to be very useful. And for illum you can't beat a mortar. Pretty much every other serious military out there thinks the same...why are we so different?

I suspect we'll see the mortars being dug out of the stores in a hurry again at some point in the future...

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Thing is with cost coming down and batteries improving we could soon see Night vision/thermal optics being issued as standard kit. This would greatly reduce the need for illumination rounds and as has been pointed out the M4 can readily be used for this role with ease and there are videos of the M3 being used for this role and the simplicity of its use as such. As for mortars well the Mk32 does give substantial range capability for engaging targets behind cover. For additional rang there are the Battalions 81mm Mortars but like you said if the balloon goes up we will probably raiding every warehouse and museum to dig out weaponry to give to the troops. But as standard issue kit, having the M4 and Mk32 together with two 7.62x51 LMGs per section would be a good foundation.

Post Reply