Section Infantry Weapons
Re: Section infantry weapons
Over in the Warrior thread, There’s been a bit of discussion on shoulder launched AT and the comparison between reusable launchers like the CarlGustav and disposable weapons like the NLAW and ASM / Matador. It’s interesting, but probably belongs here more that there.
Personally I favour the disposables as they are simpler and, for a round and launcher, lighter. The CG wins out over more rounds (more than two for the ASM and more than one vs the NLAW), but that’s before anything other than iron sights or ammunition carriers. In the case of the NLAW, the disposable system is also much more capable*.
With disposable systems, every round of ammunition is usable, without a separate launcher, so you can disperse the capability across sections or fireteams.
*the NLAW has a much larger warhead (100mm+ vs <84mm) and has an Overfly Top Attack (OTA) capability. Compared with the Javelin profile, which goes up before diving down, the NLAW flies level and uses sensors to detonate the warhead as the missile flies over the target. The Swedish BILL missile does the same thing and is where the technology comes from.
Personally I favour the disposables as they are simpler and, for a round and launcher, lighter. The CG wins out over more rounds (more than two for the ASM and more than one vs the NLAW), but that’s before anything other than iron sights or ammunition carriers. In the case of the NLAW, the disposable system is also much more capable*.
With disposable systems, every round of ammunition is usable, without a separate launcher, so you can disperse the capability across sections or fireteams.
*the NLAW has a much larger warhead (100mm+ vs <84mm) and has an Overfly Top Attack (OTA) capability. Compared with the Javelin profile, which goes up before diving down, the NLAW flies level and uses sensors to detonate the warhead as the missile flies over the target. The Swedish BILL missile does the same thing and is where the technology comes from.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
I agree that this is the place (initially you suggested vehicle mounting to give a quick reaction capability, while the dismounts err, dismount (if that is practical).mr.fred wrote:that’s before anything other than iron sights or ammunition carriers. In the case of the NLAW, the disposable system is also much more capable*.
- I agreed, but then somehow the discussion was directed to an either/ or vs. autocannon
RE; the quote, NLAW can also be effectively used in other than pitch-dark conditions with (e.g.) NLAW VV3X (Patria) nightsight
- under strict orders not to leave that part behind
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
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
I tried to find a vid (they are on the web, but browsers are getting worsemr.fred wrote: NLAW has a much larger warhead (100mm+ vs <84mm) and has an Overfly Top Attack (OTA) capability
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
Now that we have taken two steps fwrd, to move the discussion onto this thread, let me take one back, namely:
breach-loaded mortars are not of much use in anti-tank role, though against other targets they (e.g. AMOS/ NEMO) can work out to 1 km in direct fire mode
- whether it is possible to fire (with a low loading) an NLAW-like mortar bomb, before its own rocket motor igniting, is an interesting question
- e.g. the mentioned sensor (to detonate the charge at the right time) would have to withstand the higher g's that would go with such a method. The Ruskies (and Ukrainians, helping e.g. Cockerill) do launch missiles with much longer range through the tank cannon barrel... with a different purpose: to extend the engagement range
There is no right place for this one: perhaps supporting a single squad, pinned down, and a wheeled platform making it into close proximity fast enough and carrying enough varieties of rounds/ bombs for 'all occasions'
... while definitely not being a squad weapon
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 have little doubt that NLAW is a good weapon system, but there is also a place for the CG especially in tis light weight M4 guise. It is now as portable as the ever present RPG-7 and it family but has access to smarter and more varied ammunition types and it is here that the real usefulness of the Weapon system exists.
With its substantial weight loss the M4 CG has given he weapon a new lease of life and after he US Army Rangers had great success with its immediate predecessor the M3, the US Army is now considering making it general issue and the USMC plans to use it to replace its existing SMAW. IT has recently also been adopted by the Australian Army and many others are rediscovering the weapon.
The UK is falling back into its old ways by reducing the fire power of its infantry now we are basically back on a peace time footing with operations in the Middle East finally winding down (hopefully). The idea of reducing the load each soldier carries is a laudable objective, but how we configure the Infantry must not be based on the Last War manual.
We scrambled left and right to increase the range and weight of firepower the infantry were able to lay down, using UORs to obtain everything from modified M72s, to AT4s to 60mm Mortars and so on. The Army now has the NLAW and Matador, though there are quite a few comments on various blogs that the troops are not totally happy with the latter. To these we add Javelin which is the Infantry's hardest hitting weapon, but has been used as a very effective but expensive bunker buster in resent conflicts. Should we be looking at something that has a similar capability but cheaper?
Many nations have adopted the guidance kit to turn the air launched fin stabilised rocket into precision weapons, as a much cheaper alternative to AGMs and ATGMs Would it be possible to have a ground launched version, using the same laser seeker? There are many light weight MLRS systems out there mounted on 4x4s or even man packed. Surely it would be worth looking at and if one takes into account the number of warhead options the CVR-7 we use on the Apache has from HE to Flechette to smoke have a system able to be carried and launched by the Infantry would give them a weapon system with good range and accuracy, and negate the need to use expensive guided missiles in roles for which they have been pressed onto service. WE have limited stocks and in a high intensity conflict they are going to be needed for use against the threat they were designed for.
With its substantial weight loss the M4 CG has given he weapon a new lease of life and after he US Army Rangers had great success with its immediate predecessor the M3, the US Army is now considering making it general issue and the USMC plans to use it to replace its existing SMAW. IT has recently also been adopted by the Australian Army and many others are rediscovering the weapon.
The UK is falling back into its old ways by reducing the fire power of its infantry now we are basically back on a peace time footing with operations in the Middle East finally winding down (hopefully). The idea of reducing the load each soldier carries is a laudable objective, but how we configure the Infantry must not be based on the Last War manual.
We scrambled left and right to increase the range and weight of firepower the infantry were able to lay down, using UORs to obtain everything from modified M72s, to AT4s to 60mm Mortars and so on. The Army now has the NLAW and Matador, though there are quite a few comments on various blogs that the troops are not totally happy with the latter. To these we add Javelin which is the Infantry's hardest hitting weapon, but has been used as a very effective but expensive bunker buster in resent conflicts. Should we be looking at something that has a similar capability but cheaper?
Many nations have adopted the guidance kit to turn the air launched fin stabilised rocket into precision weapons, as a much cheaper alternative to AGMs and ATGMs Would it be possible to have a ground launched version, using the same laser seeker? There are many light weight MLRS systems out there mounted on 4x4s or even man packed. Surely it would be worth looking at and if one takes into account the number of warhead options the CVR-7 we use on the Apache has from HE to Flechette to smoke have a system able to be carried and launched by the Infantry would give them a weapon system with good range and accuracy, and negate the need to use expensive guided missiles in roles for which they have been pressed onto service. WE have limited stocks and in a high intensity conflict they are going to be needed for use against the threat they were designed for.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
We could have an Apache on four wheels, having the cannon as a suppression weapon and the guided rockets for launching from a bit further back, by infantry actually designating the targets (after calling the 'fires').Lord Jim wrote:it would be worth looking at and if one takes into account the number of warhead options the CVR-7 we use on the Apache has from HE to Flechette to smoke have a system able to be carried and launched by the Infantry would give them a weapon system with good range and accuracy
- jltv is easy to associate wit infantry
- with Shinkensi's air-mech the plan was to reduce Abrams weight (by trading down to a 105 mm gun, and then compensate for the firepower and range loss by attaching guided rockets to the sides of the turret)... that was a while
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_e_biggrin.gif)
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
70mm rockets like the CRV7 or 120mm launched munitions are hardly section weapons. Vehicle-mounted weapons are their own thing
The same applies, albeit to a lesser degree, to the CG. It may be able to fire lots of different natures, but each one needs it’s own round, which makes it more suited to a dedicated team at platoon, company or battalion level. Compared to a Javelin, it is short ranged, inaccurate and lacks the observation capability. It is very much cheaper, which is no bad thing.
Section firepower is an interesting topic, to which we should ask: what is firepower?
It it the effect you have on the enemy or the amount of ammunition you can convert into noise?
In terms of shoulder launched weapons. We’ve gone from the AT4 to NLAW, from something that might reach to 300m and might trouble an obsolescent MBT to something that will reach out to 600m and stands a good chance of killing a modern MBT. We’ve gone from M72 to Matador, again going from 200m to 400m and a substantial increase in explosive weight. That sounds like a firepower increase to me.
The same applies, albeit to a lesser degree, to the CG. It may be able to fire lots of different natures, but each one needs it’s own round, which makes it more suited to a dedicated team at platoon, company or battalion level. Compared to a Javelin, it is short ranged, inaccurate and lacks the observation capability. It is very much cheaper, which is no bad thing.
Section firepower is an interesting topic, to which we should ask: what is firepower?
It it the effect you have on the enemy or the amount of ammunition you can convert into noise?
In terms of shoulder launched weapons. We’ve gone from the AT4 to NLAW, from something that might reach to 300m and might trouble an obsolescent MBT to something that will reach out to 600m and stands a good chance of killing a modern MBT. We’ve gone from M72 to Matador, again going from 200m to 400m and a substantial increase in explosive weight. That sounds like a firepower increase to me.
Re: Section infantry weapons
Agreed we are moving towards Platoon or even Company level kit here. Don't get me wrong the NLAW and Matador are improvements on what came before, but the sections are going to be down to just the L85s, one with a G/L and the DMR. Hopefully there will be some L7s at platoon level at that is where the CGs would fit in. The Javelins are spread about, and the suggestion I made was for a weapon system to do the job we have been using the Javelin for in Iraq and Afghanistan, name engaging buildings and other location occupied by the enemy, that would be cheaper to buy and use. Again it would be spread about the unit. We do still attach weapons teams to Sections I assume, or so they operate totally independently?
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
A good point, as we are now in April of 2019, the below attempted to give an answer:mr.fred wrote:Section firepower is an interesting topic, to which we should ask: what is firepower?
It it the effect you have on the enemy or the amount of ammunition you can convert into noise?
"Reports that the British Army was firmly considering moving away from suppression in favour of precision in infantry fire-fights surfaced at a specialist Soldier Technology conference in London in early 2016 and at a Future Soldier Technology conference this spring more detail surfaced. One of the current underlying British Army’s mantras is ‘Fight Light’ and in this context casting some weapons types might make sense.
Both the 5.56mm L86A2, generally known as the Light Support Weapon, and the 5.56mm L110A3 Light Machine Gun, the FN Minimi, will be withdrawn from service at the end of the current fiscal year (i.e. by April 2019), along with the M6C-640 60mm mortar. It has been stated that to partially compensate for this reduction in firepower of the infantry section the number of 7.62mm L129A1 Sharpshooter rifles could be increased, but to date there is no sign of an order being placed for more of these, and it has also been hinted that the hand-held mortar will be replaced by another system currently under
evaluation." from 12 Aug 2018
UK News, joint-forces.com
As we have over 3000 of those rifles, assuming 1 per section would cover 21.000 front line infantry
- scale that with the A-stan numbers, of the total deployed (at peak) 3000 were frontline infantry. For the sniper's number two, for A-stan needs the MoD purchased 580 PLRF 15C’ Pocket laser Rangefinders from the Swiss company Vectronix in 2008.
- I presume that at normal section level there is no number two, but all optics used are attached to the weapon? Take the specialists away, and you can still kit out 2000 sections and have a good number in armouries. As the trained infantry numbers hover around 25k (add 10% on top, from Gurkhas in infantry roles... and not forgetting the RM) how many sections does that make?
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
Precision fire could almost be seen as harking back to the days of the L1A1 with the troops using carefully aimed semi-auto fire to engage the opposition. Now I know full auto with a 7.62 Battle Rifle was more like one shot on target the rest aimed at low flying aircraft, but precision fire can limit the frontage a given formation can supress to any extent. Now this may work in situation like Afghanistan but what happens when you are engaging an opponent who has a major numerical advantage backed up by their own suppressive fire capability.
I might not be explaining this well but I worry that the "Fight Light", mantra maybe one of those ideas that sound great in the class room but has little bearing on what happens in a firefight. Are we making the capabilities of the Infantry so taught that the number of casualties it can suffer before not being able to effectively control it frontage becomes too few.
It is amazing how many times people have tried to remove the 7.62 GPMG from the Infantry Section in many armies yet when a conflict erupts they seem to find their way back either officially or unofficially. I think a similar thing happened in the Falklands where stocks of old 7.62 LMGs (Brens) were emptied overnight.
If we are going to pursue this "Fight Light", doctrine an extensive series of very realistic exercises at least up to Company level need to be undertaken, investigating various load outs for the Infantry from Fire Team upwards, to identify the best compromise between fire power and mobility. This also needs to include their transport platforms and what additional stores these are to carry as well as examine the more sci fi unmanned platforms like those being trialled by the US Army.
I might not be explaining this well but I worry that the "Fight Light", mantra maybe one of those ideas that sound great in the class room but has little bearing on what happens in a firefight. Are we making the capabilities of the Infantry so taught that the number of casualties it can suffer before not being able to effectively control it frontage becomes too few.
It is amazing how many times people have tried to remove the 7.62 GPMG from the Infantry Section in many armies yet when a conflict erupts they seem to find their way back either officially or unofficially. I think a similar thing happened in the Falklands where stocks of old 7.62 LMGs (Brens) were emptied overnight.
If we are going to pursue this "Fight Light", doctrine an extensive series of very realistic exercises at least up to Company level need to be undertaken, investigating various load outs for the Infantry from Fire Team upwards, to identify the best compromise between fire power and mobility. This also needs to include their transport platforms and what additional stores these are to carry as well as examine the more sci fi unmanned platforms like those being trialled by the US Army.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
Our Finnish friend here (can't remember which one as there seems to be two) gave some guidance on this aspect, how it has been considered (when I was quoting old numbers). Something like this:Lord Jim wrote: this may work in situation like Afghanistan but what happens when you are engaging an opponent who has a major numerical advantage backed up by their own suppressive fire capability.
Section 8 ->9
Platoon 30 ->45
BG 1500-1700 -> 2400
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
Can you remember any further details. I seem to remember that the Finns had a quite a few PKs scattered around including one on a dedicated AA mount. IF we gave the L7s back to the Sections as a starting point I would be happier. They will already be carrying two types of ammunition so that argument is mute, and I doubt any soldier would begrudge carrying a belt of 7.62 in addition to his personal load if it meant they where bringing a L7 to the party. A well trained gunner on a L7 can put precision burst down range consistently but also has the ability, to increase his rate of fire to compensate for the movement of a fire team.
A few nations, Sweden amongst them, have gone on to develop lighter variants of the FN MAG by modifying their existing weapons, so for use to look at doing the same would be a fairly inexpensive route to take if needed and far cheaper then buying a new platform. Saying all that I think we have been over this ground before so will leave it there.
A few nations, Sweden amongst them, have gone on to develop lighter variants of the FN MAG by modifying their existing weapons, so for use to look at doing the same would be a fairly inexpensive route to take if needed and far cheaper then buying a new platform. Saying all that I think we have been over this ground before so will leave it there.
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Section infantry weapons
Vaguely: the increased section size gives 3 three fire teams... 2 (!) with a PK in it.Lord Jim wrote:Can you remember any further details.
- additionally about every third man has an AT weapon of some kind. At the section level mainly the 66 mm LAW-like weapons
- the above needs to have its ' strategic measurements' compared to NLAW (brackets) as the former is for dealing with IFVs and the latter with MBTs
Reach 300m (600m)
Penetration 300mm (500mm) - note OTA option for NLAW
Weight 3.3 kg (12.5 kg)... if you need to be dragging something like that around, I would give the bloke an AR (or RK for the Finns) with a folding stock so as to save him from constantly clobbering himself
![Smile :)](./images/smilies/icon_e_smile.gif)
The weight (comes with weight of fire, as a bonus) to me would suggest that this is for dismounts - not normal infantry. Jaeger units' dismounts enjoying protected mobility (but far from being AI - who do exist, but in small numbers. Can't be huge as IFVs i the country total 200 in 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)
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Section infantry weapons
A possible precursor to changing the 5.56 for something heavier both in terms of weight and recoil?ArmChairCivvy wrote:...the British Army was firmly considering moving away from suppression in favour of precision in infantry fire-fights...
A good plan as long as you can see the enemy, optics etc would need to improve.
Re: Section infantry weapons
With their current 5,56 ammo, the British Army think they have sufficient range until they need to change calibre due to NATO/US adopting a new one. They believe the current 5.56 ammo is capable of delivering precision fore out to 600m. Add to that the fire from the Section intended 7.62 DMR and that is the structure of the Section with regards to small arms.Poiuytrewq wrote:A possible precursor to changing the 5.56 for something heavier both in terms of weight and recoil?
Re: Section infantry weapons
But wasn't that also the time when the section machine gun was a belt-fed GPMG?Lord Jim wrote:Precision fire could almost be seen as harking back to the days of the L1A1 with the troops using carefully aimed semi-auto fire to engage the opposition.
Given the battle drills featuring the Lee Enfield and Bren focussed on the Bren as a base of fire, why should the SLR/GPMG mix remove emphasis from the machine gun?
Can it? Is it always the case, or only sometimes, or rarely? How do you define "suppression" and how do you measure it?Lord Jim wrote:Now I know full auto with a 7.62 Battle Rifle was more like one shot on target the rest aimed at low flying aircraft, but precision fire can limit the frontage a given formation can supress to any extent.
That would seem to me to be the textbook situation for artillery rather than expect your section firepower to deal with it. Furthermore, if you measure suppression purely by weight of ammunition expended I fear that you may be missing something.Lord Jim wrote:Now this may work in situation like Afghanistan but what happens when you are engaging an opponent who has a major numerical advantage backed up by their own suppressive fire capability.
Where do the classroom instructors come from? How do you know that it isn't your ideas that seem sound in theory but are lacking in practice?Lord Jim wrote:I might not be explaining this well but I worry that the "Fight Light", mantra maybe one of those ideas that sound great in the class room but has little bearing on what happens in a firefight. Are we making the capabilities of the Infantry so taught that the number of casualties it can suffer before not being able to effectively control it frontage becomes too few.
And you know that this sort of investigation has not occurred how?Lord Jim wrote:If we are going to pursue this "Fight Light", doctrine an extensive series of very realistic exercises at least up to Company level need to be undertaken, investigating various load outs for the Infantry from Fire Team upwards, to identify the best compromise between fire power and mobility. This also needs to include their transport platforms and what additional stores these are to carry as well as examine the more sci fi unmanned platforms like those being trialled by the US Army.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Section infantry weapons
Depends on your definition of precision. A 5.56 round over 300m in high wind is a lottery and even in windless conditions trying to maintain even 2 MOA at 600m is tough. The LSW makes life a bit easier with the longer barrel and bipod but really it's the 5.56 round that's running out of steam.Lord Jim wrote:They believe the current 5.56 ammo is capable of delivering precision fore out to 600m.
An intermediate 6.5mm or 7mm round would really help out to 600m and if high rates of fully automatic fire wasn't normally required then the concerns about excessive recoil and barrel heating would be less of an issue.
My comment about suitable optics I think is valid. Obviously if you can't see it you can't hit it but high magnification optics on fully automatic weapons leads to big trouble very quickly, especially in hot weather. Is the 4x ELCAN really the right choice for precision out 600m and beyond? Generally 1x magnification per 100m is a good rule of thumb so maybe an upgrade up to 6x would sensible whilst still maintaining a CQB sight for the close stuff. In low light conditions this would make a big difference to help make the first few rounds count.
Maybe the best time to make a fundamental change would be when the L85A3 finally bows out. Procuring another 5.56 weapon to replace the L85 would seem unwise but if an ammo change is in the pipeline will the US and the rest of NATO have made up their minds by the mid 2020's? Highly unlikely.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 1352
- Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52
Re: Section infantry weapons
Nope. British army states a fire team can suppress at 600m, not an individual.Lord Jim wrote:They believe the current 5.56 ammo is capable of delivering precision fore out to 600m.
Re: Section infantry weapons
In Finland all infantry are jägers. The most common type of infantry would be those in battlegroups. The BGs are over 2000 strong, jäger companies depending on whether they're mounted in XAs are 260-300 strong and have 3/4 jäger platoons each 40+ strong depending on vehicle type. Each platoon has command section with PL, 2IC, medic, signalist, two runners (most likely motorbike/ATVs), and driver, FO squad with FO, FO NCO, signalist and two FO enlisted, three jäger squads that are all 9 strong, each with 2 PKMs and the platoon also has one NSV which can be mounted on ATV. Weapons at platoon and squad level include RKs, PKMs, NSV, LAWs, APILAS for now (will be retired soon) and a whole bunch of mines. At coy level there are AT section with NLAWs, sniper section, extra FO section and mortar platoon with 3x 81mm mortars as what comes to firepower.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Re: Section infantry weapons
As you can see almost everything is disposable making it easy to reinforce platoons and sections. Moving AT capability from one platoon to another doesn't mean weakening the other as it would if CG was the main weapon for the purpose but only reallocating mines and other AT weaponry. The company can use the NSVs together as a firesupport element and even the platoons can muster a very formidable firesupport element with 6 PKMs and an NSV.Voldemort wrote:In Finland all infantry are jägers. The most common type of infantry would be those in battlegroups. The BGs are over 2000 strong, jäger companies depending on whether they're mounted in XAs are 260-300 strong and have 3/4 jäger platoons each 40+ strong depending on vehicle type. Each platoon has command section with PL, 2IC, medic, signalist, two runners (most likely motorbike/ATVs), and driver, FO squad with FO, FO NCO, signalist and two FO enlisted, three jäger squads that are all 9 strong, each with 2 PKMs and the platoon also has one NSV which can be mounted on ATV. Weapons at platoon and squad level include RKs, PKMs, NSV, LAWs, APILAS for now (will be retired soon) and a whole bunch of mines. At coy level there are AT section with NLAWs, sniper section, extra FO section and mortar platoon with 3x 81mm mortars as what comes to firepower.
Re: Section infantry weapons
Suppression eats ammo at fearsome rate no matter what calibre. Suppression would only be used in an under fire extraction of personnel or in the final stage of a section assault. I think what we are referring to is covering fire, ie 'If i stick my head up I MIGHT get slotted' not 'Holy shit if you are up there then clear a space for me'. Effective enemy fire is relative to the recipient, the first time if a round comes within a 100m then you are doing your best snake impression (or at least I did), after that it needs to be danger close. Well aimed single rounds often have more effect than spray and pray. If our enemy thinks we can reach out and touch at 600m then they will stay down. If not then we need to work out how to carry more ammo.
Re: Section infantry weapons
I would like to see a golf bag approach being taken into use. Have varying weaponry in the section transport and take it to use case by case basis. Expecting grueling close combat built up terrain? Grab a few M320s or Milkors. Need heavy supporting firepower? Take out the M2!jimthelad wrote:Suppression eats ammo at fearsome rate no matter what calibre. Suppression would only be used in an under fire extraction of personnel or in the final stage of a section assault. I think what we are referring to is covering fire, ie 'If i stick my head up I MIGHT get slotted' not 'Holy shit if you are up there then clear a space for me'. Effective enemy fire is relative to the recipient, the first time if a round comes within a 100m then you are doing your best snake impression (or at least I did), after that it needs to be danger close. Well aimed single rounds often have more effect than spray and pray. If our enemy thinks we can reach out and touch at 600m then they will stay down. If not then we need to work out how to carry more ammo.
Re: Section infantry weapons
I didn't say an individual I said the British Army.
I do like how the Finns have organised things, it seems they have a set organisation, and transport is used when applicable. As for the M4 CG, I see it as a supplementary weapon at Platoon or Company level, used almost as direct fire 84mm artillery with an AT capability.
Regarding the effects of enemy fire, the nearest I have got to being on the receiving end has been enjoying Paintball and Airsoft and even then once you hear "Rounds", impacting near you, you take cover ASAP.
As for Matador, does anyone actually know how many NLAW and Matador would be issued to a Section/Platoon on active service? Is it possibly the case that for every Matador issued a Section would lose a NLAW?
I do like how the Finns have organised things, it seems they have a set organisation, and transport is used when applicable. As for the M4 CG, I see it as a supplementary weapon at Platoon or Company level, used almost as direct fire 84mm artillery with an AT capability.
Regarding the effects of enemy fire, the nearest I have got to being on the receiving end has been enjoying Paintball and Airsoft and even then once you hear "Rounds", impacting near you, you take cover ASAP.
As for Matador, does anyone actually know how many NLAW and Matador would be issued to a Section/Platoon on active service? Is it possibly the case that for every Matador issued a Section would lose a NLAW?
Re: Section infantry weapons
Organisation is set and transport is organic. Jägers in regional troops have either BVs, tractors or XAs as transport.Lord Jim wrote:I do like how the Finns have organised things, it seems they have a set organisation, and transport is used when applicable
Re: Section infantry weapons
Anywhere between none and 16, depending on the requirements and logisticsLord Jim wrote:As for Matador, does anyone actually know how many NLAW and Matador would be issued to a Section/Platoon on active service? Is it possibly the case that for every Matador issued a Section would lose a NLAW?
- whitelancer
- Member
- Posts: 619
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
Re: Section infantry weapons
Couldn't agree more. Whatever the choice of weapon's allocated to sections, companies and battalions, it cannot suite all situations. What's required is greater flexibility in choice of weapon's and their relative numbers, depending on the type of terrain and nature of the operation being conducted.Voldemort wrote:I would like to see a golf bag approach being taken into use.