Section Infantry Weapons
Re: Section infantry weapons
Pretty sure I read somewhere that LSAT is an Army thing, that the Marines are being kept informed on. Rather than being something that they will get in on as soon as the army is ready to field (so the 416's should be safe).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
USMC as per above.Lord Jim wrote:anyone know the timeframe the US Army is looking at for its next generation infantry firearms?
Army request for start of prgrm straight after testing (end of summer) was not funded; they say they will resubmit after the tests, for the following year.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
Relating (from the linked) "Posted on Oct. 4, the PON notes a 27-month development period, suggesting a winner could be selected at some point in 2021."
to what Gen. Milley has been saying... that they will ask for budget in 2019 and push ahead,; that would make the 27 months to production readiness. Not selecting the winner, to do that, and burn the army's money. They would, of course, but I mean parallel tracks continueing to do the same.
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
Is this for CT or traditional case? It's not the spc round, so related to LSAT?
Re: Section infantry weapons
They are not (yet) specifying a preference for case type. They have selected a projectile, and given requirements for weight reduction compared to a traditional brass case, but are willing to entertain multiple approaches to creating a lighter weapon+ammo at this stage. Textron will bid CT and be the early favorite, but others are likely to bid hybrid cases and will be considered in this round of development.Little J wrote:Is this for CT or traditional case? It's not the spec round, so related to LSAT?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
The right approach. Basically saying that "we have done the homework for you" as for the effects that at best can be achieved at range... indeed a couple of decades worth of homework, lab & trialsHalidon wrote: are willing to entertain multiple approaches to creating a lighter weapon+ammo
- you, the industry, take the projectile as a given, backwards integrate it to a gun that can make best use of it (cartridge, linking, chamber pressures, length of barrel that (as a minimum) will work, recoil...)
- hey, this is a competition! See you at the ranges, next summer
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
The lighter the weapon and rounds, the more rounds the infantryman will carry.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
The Ruskies tried the trick, by making the AK-47 into AK-74. For the same weight as the former plus 180 rounds you can carry the latter, with 300 for it
- still, after a decade of experience, a senior representative of Russian military said "oh boy, why did we have to step on the same rake as them" as in NATO/ the US
- still, after a decade of experience, a senior representative of Russian military said "oh boy, why did we have to step on the same rake as them" as in NATO/ the US
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
I always carried more, plus link, plus more.
Contacts burn through ammunition, then some. It gets emotional.
Contacts burn through ammunition, then some. It gets emotional.
Re: Section infantry weapons
Less shit, more link. We jumped with 12x 30 5.56, 200 of the same in bandoliers, 100 rds link for the gympy, and 2 days food ( chances of living past that were slim!!).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
Tony Williams has this as part of his intro on UKLandPower, but obviously his talking about "average" soldier, average as in build:
"To summarise, the total load weighs 63.9 kg, divided as follows:
Assault Order, including VIRTUS system with 4.99 kg body armour, CBRN kit (4.71 kg), rifle and 4 magazines: 31.5 kg
Patrol Order, including more clothing, belted MG ammunition, etc: 16.26 kg
Marching Order, including more rations, sleeping bag, shelter etc: 16.17 kg.
Since the average weight of a soldier is around 70 kg, that means that he (or she) will be carrying very nearly their own weight when in Marching Order, and still nearly 48 kg in Patrol Order.
Furthermore, the total of 63.9 kg doesn’t include: spare batteries for radios; 40mm grenades; and additional ammunition (in Afghanistan, troops carried 7 or 8 magazines of 5.56mm, plus 200 rounds of 7.62mm link – considerably more than assumed in these calculations).
Just a reality (vs. John Rambo-ism) check...
"To summarise, the total load weighs 63.9 kg, divided as follows:
Assault Order, including VIRTUS system with 4.99 kg body armour, CBRN kit (4.71 kg), rifle and 4 magazines: 31.5 kg
Patrol Order, including more clothing, belted MG ammunition, etc: 16.26 kg
Marching Order, including more rations, sleeping bag, shelter etc: 16.17 kg.
Since the average weight of a soldier is around 70 kg, that means that he (or she) will be carrying very nearly their own weight when in Marching Order, and still nearly 48 kg in Patrol Order.
Furthermore, the total of 63.9 kg doesn’t include: spare batteries for radios; 40mm grenades; and additional ammunition (in Afghanistan, troops carried 7 or 8 magazines of 5.56mm, plus 200 rounds of 7.62mm link – considerably more than assumed in these calculations).
Just a reality (vs. John Rambo-ism) check...
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
My bwt 92 kg. Our standard drop weight 76kg. You lose 4.6kg of weight when you land (chutes) and about another 20 when you ditch your bergen for closing up to a contact but it is fucking heavy. There is a reason why P company was such a twat!!!
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
[quote="jimthelad"] There is a reason why P company was such a twat!!![/quote
OK, so the RGR have their maroon beret
... but have not done the next bit... for the wings?
OK, so the RGR have their maroon beret
... but have not done the next bit... for the wings?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
If you are referring to the Royal Ghurka Rifles then I suspect they would jump without a chute!! The Ghurkas are just about the hardest troops in the world. They deploy with their own bodyweight carried or sometime in excess. In my opinion the Ghurkas are the best light infantry in the world, they seem to instil fear and respect in everyone. The kit is heavy period. If you are airmobile or LI then it needs to be carried period! The good news is when it starts to get sporty you can unload weight quickly. The reason why the fitness regimen for LI, 3Cdo, 16 AAB is so high is to allow this. Even the Bish on deployment carried 56 kg in Oman (clerical gear, company first aid kit, spare batteries for the Satcom and radios, and 2 camel pak).
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
I agree with all you say (and they are also lovely people; I have a lot of opportunity to observe at close range).
But is any unit within the Gurkha Brigade (1 RGR included, though they are assigned as airmobile) parachute qualified?
But is any unit within the Gurkha Brigade (1 RGR included, though they are assigned as airmobile) parachute qualified?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
Not really sure. There will be some elements who will have cross trained up to tactical air insertion level but most will be the rotor borne or assault aviation landing trialled in the 90's (definitely not for the faint hearted). There was a Ghurka para battalion along with a Guards para battalion but they were lost prior to 1980's.
Re: Section infantry weapons
Wasn’t there a blanket approach for 16AA that all have the pink hat, regardless of (P), company? Or other arduous courses?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
That's what I was after... and wings added later (if at all)?
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
What do you do once a sniper's nest has been spotted?
Put an AA cannon round trough it, from a rifle (!) https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... Newsletter ... of course
- hard to believe that it is all one-man portable (easily? says the article)
- and if the nest is hardened, use AP as opposed the HE
Put an AA cannon round trough it, from a rifle (!) https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/201 ... Newsletter ... of course
- hard to believe that it is all one-man portable (easily? says the article)
- and if the nest is hardened, use AP as opposed the HE
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Section infantry weapons
Even better use an "Clever" round to punch through tthe wall and go bang inside.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
Would be, but I doubt that anyone makes them for AA use (that's where the barrel has been 'borrowed from'.Lord Jim wrote:Even better
- even our coke-can CTA uses a sequence of three rounds: one for the hole, and two more, of AB kind, through the hole
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Section infantry weapons
Not true. The CT40 Point Det can penetrate structures with it's electronic fuse.ArmChairCivvy wrote:Would be, but I doubt that anyone makes them for AA use (that's where the barrel has been 'borrowed from'.Lord Jim wrote:Even better
- even our coke-can CTA uses a sequence of three rounds: one for the hole, and two more, of AB kind, through the hole
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
The General Purpose Round Point Detonating - Tracer (GPR-PD-T) High explosive munitionRunningStrong wrote: our coke-can CTA uses a sequence of three rounds: one for the hole, and two more, of AB kind, through the hole
Not true. The CT40 Point Det can penetrate structures with it's electronic fuse.
= true
If not even more true, but nevertheless can be more effective as per 3:30 to 3:40 on this one
to back up that what I said is not not-true = true (too )
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)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1354
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Section infantry weapons
I'd take that Janes statement with a shovel of salt.ArmChairCivvy wrote: If not even more true, but nevertheless can be more effective as per 3:30 to 3:40 on this one
to back up that what I said is not not-true = true (too )