Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

A golf bag approach would require more training, both in the weapons and to be able to make an informed decision about when to use what.
Though to a degree, there is already a golf bag approach, at least in terms of additional munitions and how the higher level assets are distributed. Keeping specialist kit in dedicated sub units that can be distributed out to other sub units as required ensures that the specialist kit is operated by people trained in its employment.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

An interesting weapon, the 7.62 especially would be useful as a Section weapon or even in a Fire Team.

Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 3956
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Poiuytrewq »

Whoever said the 6.8mm was the future?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... achine-gun

The 6.5mm and .338 combination is ballistically the smart way to proceed. It will be interesting to see how this works out.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Voldemort »

One every soldiers' weapon that I think is somewhat underestimated is the humble Antioch hand grenade. Nowadays they come in all shapes, sizes and warheads. You got blast, frag, blastfrag, incendiary, modular. You can stack up modules to make a half a kilo blast grenade or have a small under 200gr frag grenade that you can toss around like candies on a christmas eve.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

As far as I am aware there is no planned version of the Javelin that will include a fibre optic link allowing a man in the loop operations. Should we be looking at supplementing or replacing our Javelins with a newer system? Something like the Spike LR2 or the new French weapon the MMP? Maybe we should look at equipping 3 Cmdo Brigade and/or 16 Air Assault with a newer weapon leaving the rest of the Army and RAF Regiment with the Javelin for now? Adopting the Spike LR2 would provide some commonality with the NLOS system we purchased under a UOR during the war in Afghanistan which could lead the latter being adopted as a long range ATGW and precision fire weapon for our light high readiness formations.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2783
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Caribbean »

Voldemort wrote:humble Antioch hand grenade
Is this the one you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

After the announcement of the retirement of the LMG from the British Army, I strongly believe that we are falling into the trap of reducing the firepower of the Infantry Section too much, especially if there is no ready access to a GPMG within the Platoons. That got me thinking about this and the use of the DMR within the Sections. Thinking out of the box, what I am about to suggest may seem a little strange. What I believe the Army needs is a modern take on the old Bren Gun, a weapon renown for its reliability and accuracy both in single and automatic fire modes. What I am suggesting is a weapon built out of modern materials to reduce weight, chambered to 7.62x51 and fed through 30 round magazines loaded from the top. With optics fitted on the side as per the old Bren sights I believe this weapon could carry out the role of a DMR, but with the advantage that it can also lay down very accurate automatic fire due to is relatively slow rate of fire. Such a weapon would no doubt way more than a DMR but nor by much necessarily. The gunner could carry between 180 and 240 rounds in 6 to 8 magazines and the rest of the section could easily carry an additional 1 or 2 each. In the auto fire mode the quick change barrel would allow the gunner to fire for an extended period of time of required, and it would not be hard for him to carry 1 0r 2 additional barrels. It is the increased accuracy that would differentiate this weapon form the many 7.62 LMGs that have appeared in recent years, as would its dual role. And it is exactly this that would make this weapon a perfect fit with the British Army's new doctrine of aimed suppressive fire, but with the bonus and increasing the Sections fire power considerably should the need arise.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

To avoid cargo cult engineering; first you have to determine how much of the Bren's reliability, accuracy and rate of fire derives from its weight.
Then (or perhaps before) actually define and quantify reliability and accuracy. The Bren will have been judged by standards of the time, whereas now we will have different expectations.
Then you have to build something that fits your requirements, because "Looks like a Bren" does little to nothing for the actual performance.

In off-the-shelf mode, the Knights Armaments latest offering might be worth a look - low rate of fire, available in 7.62 and 5.56mm, only fractionally heavier than an SA80... (at least before you start putting ammunition and optics on it)*, quick change barrel.

Or, as I am a bit of an admirer of it, the Polish Grot rifle range. It's modularity would stretch to a heavy barrel 7.62 rifle with scope to fit drum magazines. Since the barrel change mechanism is quite straight forward (from a user's perspective) it might even be possible to make it quick change. If the rest of the section also equips with it then you have a common manual of arms.

* and that's for the 5.56 version - the 7.62 version is liable to be a touch heavier

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Cheers for the follow up. I wasn't intending to make a case for an actual "Bren" but rather a weapon to fulfil a similar role with improved accuracy of traditional LMGs to enable it to undertake precision fire in both semi-auto and possibly full auto modes. As pointed out the Knights Designs weapon would be worth a look at as would a 7.62 version of the Israeli Negev. Both have soft recoil like the Ultimax greatly improving their accuracy.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by whitelancer »

Why not return to the LSW?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

whitelancer wrote:Why not return to the LSW?
It doesn't offer enough extra capability to offset the weight.

User avatar
whitelancer
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 05 May 2015, 22:19
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by whitelancer »

mr.fred wrote:It doesn't offer enough extra capability to offset the weight.
What capabilities had you in mind?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Range, accuracy, ability to sustain fire.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

The LSW was never an effective squad weapon for fire teams.
The whole idea of a support weapon is to keep the targets' heads down whilst the troops move forward, having a light calibre weapon with an in-built 30 round stoppage was never going to fling enough lead to make them keep their heads down plus the rounds don't spread out enough to supress returning fire.
The GPMG was always effective, it wasn't meant to be pinpoint accurate but to chuck a lot of rounds out and make them duck.
The 7.62 round is far more capable against semi-hardened shelter too.
Never seen a 5.56 penetrate anywhere near as effectively, that's for sure.
Like to see an LSW fire SF out to 1800 yds .

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Must add, pity the L85 / 86 are bullpup & closed bolt.
Would have loved to see them at max rattle with a Beta Mag on.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Has anyone had experience of actually using the old 7.62 LMG/Bren? My only experience was on the range where I did find it pretty accurate and very controllable on full auto. I do like the top loading magazine method even though it has fallen out of favour as it is far easier to change mags prone or when resting the weapon on something. Obviously with the LMG firing the weapon from the shoulder whilst standing or kneeling was a non starter for obvious reasons.

With modern materials and design it must be possible to shave quite a lot of the weight of such a weapon and as has been pointed out "Light weight" 7.62 LMGs do exist out there but whether they would have the accuracy for precision semi-auto fire is the question I have. A weapon would at least have to have a soft recoil system like the Ultimax or Negev, and a lower rate of fire than many existing weapons. These should allow a weapon to deliver very accurate controlled three to five rounds bursts onto a target, which seems to be the aim of the British Army's new doctrine.

Using 30 round magazines should allow a fire team to carry over 400 rounds of ready to use ammo for the weapon between them. Unlike the old days of one Bren per section, I would allocate one of these weapons per fire team in addition to their two L85A3s plus one fitted with a UGL.

User avatar
clivestonehouse1
Member
Posts: 71
Joined: 25 Jun 2019, 19:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by clivestonehouse1 »

Used the LMG version of a Bren on ranges many years back when I was an Air Cadet (early 80's) and for a very short period when I went into the RAF (only about 6 months or so) when on armed gate stag.
Loved the weapon although by then it was seriously old kit.
Extremely accurate and fun to shoot.
Still, the GPMG was a git to carry (especially when loaded down with a bergan and spare link) but well worth the embuggerance when it came time to convert rounds to brass scrap.
SF kit was a real pain though, tripod / C2 & posts / spare barrels etc were always not fun to lug around in the field but so much nicer to sit back and blat tracer all over the job.

Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

New 60mm Mortar from Rheinmetall looks interesting.
https://www.janes.com/article/90430/rhe ... ial-forces

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

Yes but only makes sense if we move to the 120 mm mortar for Coy, Bn, and mechanised units and issue this at Plt level as a 2 man fire team attached to the standard 3 x 8 +4 Plt from the heavy support coy. Otherwise we have 2 light mortars (81mm , 60mm) with overlapping roles. Also, if we switch to CG then it is heavier, less versatile, and has a higher logistical footprint.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote:Yes but only makes sense if we move to the 120 mm mortar for Coy, Bn, and mechanised units and issue this at Plt level as a 2 man fire team attached to the standard 3 x 8 +4 Plt from the heavy support coy. Otherwise we have 2 light mortars (81mm , 60mm) with overlapping roles. Also, if we switch to CG then it is heavier, less versatile, and has a higher logistical footprint.
I'm minded to disagree, to an extent. A 60mm mortar operated as a direct-fire weapon does not overlap with an 81mm weapon used as an indirect observed-fire weapon. Moreover, if a 60 is light and a 120 is heavy, then an 81 is medium, not a light.
What you could do with a 60mm weapon that can be used as an indirect weapon is issue it to units where weight of logistics is critical but weight of fire is less so. Something like a peace-keeping operation over a wide area that still needs some indirect firepower deployed with the infantry to project smoke and illum and the occasional HE bomb.

60mm and the ammunition to go with it might be overly heavy as a platoon weapon (and definitely not a section weapon per the thread title) but the ability to project smoke and illum (and a bit of HE) to rifle range and beyond isn't a bad thing.
Plus a mortar has a much smaller firing signature than a recoilless rifle.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

There is no way anyone would operate the 60mm mortar in direct fire I'm afraid. The firing position would leave the gunner and loader very exposed so their use is danger close accurate indirect fire in support of sections in contact or prosecuting an attack, or, use of obscurants in the support of the same. It would be a useful boost to platoon firepower with the retention of NLAW, LAW80, and LAW66 but it would mean that C G would not be purchased.

I am not convinced the C G is the right choice anyway due to the logistical footprint and the expense of the ammo. Personally I would buy/retain the 60mm mortar, keep the UGL 1 per fireteam, keep direct unguided AT at 1 per section, and give the support Coy 120mm mortars. The new variant is not much heavier than the 81mm mortar which is going to need major relifing soon anyway and would give a welcome boost for rapid reaction troops.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Ah one of the things at the top of my wish list, give the infantry 120mm mortars, mounted on the Boxer (for Armoured and Mechanised Infantry) and on the MRV(P)/JLTV for lighter units. Retain the 81mm as an option for some units like the RM and Paras.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

jimthelad wrote:There is no way anyone would operate the 60mm mortar in direct fire I'm afraid.
Soldiers have done just thatfor the past hundred years or so.
jimthelad wrote:The firing position would leave the gunner and loader very exposed
True of any weapon system if you take up an exposed firing position. Nothing says that you have to though.
You can take a protected firing position with a commando mortar more easily than you can with a recoilless anything.
Image
Case in point. These guys aren't much, if at all, more exposed compared to a rifleman or machinegunner.
jimthelad wrote:It would be a useful boost to platoon firepower with the retention of NLAW, LAW80, and LAW66 but it would mean that C G would not be purchased.
LAW80 has been out of service for nearly two decades. LAW66 (as an anti-tank weapon) has been out of service for twice that long, though the light anti-structure munition (LASM) is based off the same weapon but I think that was a UOR for Afghanistan (and hence out of service again)
Whether that means that you can have unguided AT at section level depends on if you count NLAW as guided or not.
jimthelad wrote:give the support Coy 120mm mortars. The new variant is not much heavier than the 81mm mortar which is going to need major relifing soon anyway and would give a welcome boost for rapid reaction troops.
Which model is that? The lightest I can find is ~150kg, vs. ~40kg for the L16/M252. Not even slightly comparable and that before you look at the 14kg bombs for the 120mm compared to 4kg bombs for the 81mm. You could carry a 81mm mortar and 25 bombs for the weight of the lightest 120mm and one bomb. Or three 81mm tubes for every 120mm tube, plus three 81mm bombs for every 120mm bomb.

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: three 81mm tubes for every 120mm tube, plus three 81mm bombs for every 120mm bomb.
As long as we consider mortars as suppression weapons (US Army/ USMC have adopted guidance sets, mainly for use in MOUTS) the above is a point, and beyond man-handled mobility:
- there is twice as much fragmentation (anti-infantry. let's forget about trying to penetrated protected vehicles with mortars) coming out of a kg/ ton of 81 mm bombs vs. 120 mm
- so in the above example fire once and you get 2 x 3=6 times more fragmentation, and the dispersed impact points cover a wider area , too
... and lose one weapon/ crew? You are still in the game (and the section you were supporting is not left to its own devices). On patrol, in the mountains? Yes, may be then a 60 mm should be carried (as a special issue)
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

I am not trying to be confrontational and send this thread into the fantasy arguments that seem to dog other parts of the forum BUT:

The days of man packing mortar tubes and rounds are over. In the 'fight fast, fight dispersed' mentality especially against numerically superior forces then you have to be mobile. By that i mean that even light role units will be wheeled and have to shake out and deploy rapidly before moving. I agree the 120mm is heavier in real terms and has a higher logistical deployment weight but this is mitigated by the fact we are now expected to aggregate and suppress a peer force before dispersing. I would select the 120 for range and suppression effects at a 1 for 1 replacement for the 81 for all Inf Btn. The 81mm might have a role for SF and airborne units but as a former heavy support group officer I know my oppo in the mortar coy would have preferred the 120 as long as he didn't have to manpack it. 16 AA is now looking seriously at how they can leverage the A400M fleet and there is a lobby to retain the upgraded CVRT fleet (24 units I think). The days of carrying everything mercifully are over with the exception of mountain and jungle warfare. In the latter, a mortar is about as much use as a lace condom- you cant see shit to hit until you are within direct fire range.

MrF, you are right about the unit weight, but it is a null argument if you have vehicles, and there are some very good multi-effect fuses and different loads including a top attack anti-armour round from SAAB which would give the light units a serious indirect anti-amour capability. This would break up an armoured formation before contact and allow more effective use of the AT systems used by such formations (trust me I spent several years doing this!!).

Yes LAW66/80 were withdrawn from service but have you been in an armoury recently? Not the rifle racks but in the back? Ours had a nice shiny front office but the deep store and workshop had a lot of withdrawn kit: a few Bren, L1A1, Sterling, MP5, Daimeco C5, LAW66, LAW80, and even a few M79. When we went to the sandbox, everything was on the table and we lobbed a lot of 66 and 80's out. The L1A1 was carried by the sniper spotters as a support weapon and really did the biz.

Lastly, firing a 60mm in direct fireis going to get you killed. Your picture is of the old 2" weapon, a great bit of kit but a UGL is of far more use and gives a higher rate of fire. To fire a mortar in such a situation you would need to lower the barrel, reload, rasie and resight, then fire. The 2 operators in the above photo are defiladed in a ditch with what appears to be cover to eyeline and therefore the barrel is not in direct sight. Don't get me wrong, the 60mm would be a great bit of kit at Plt level and in my opinion better than CG as long as we retain NLAW at 1 per section and the UGL at 1 per fireteam. Add in the GPMG at 1 per section and you would finally have the section firepower footprint you could make an impact with.

I know that this is going to spark some comments but it does come from some operational experience.

Post Reply