UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

Section infantry weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 12 Nov 2018, 21:20

That's what I was after... and wings added later (if at all)?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 338
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby jimthelad » 12 Nov 2018, 22:38

Not sure, i left quite a while ago, would need to check.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Dec 2018, 14:19

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

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3068
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Dec 2018, 19:26

Even better use an "Clever" round to punch through tthe wall and go bang inside.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 01 Dec 2018, 21:35

Lord Jim wrote:Even better


Would be, but I doubt that anyone makes them for AA use (that's where the barrel has been 'borrowed from'.
- even our coke-can CTA uses a sequence of three rounds: one for the hole, and two more, of AB kind, through the hole

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby RunningStrong » 02 Dec 2018, 08:25

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Even better


Would be, but I doubt that anyone makes them for AA use (that's where the barrel has been 'borrowed from'.
- even 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.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Dec 2018, 09:03

RunningStrong 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.


The General Purpose Round Point Detonating - Tracer (GPR-PD-T) High explosive munition
= 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 :thumbup: )

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 211
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby RunningStrong » 02 Dec 2018, 09:41

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 :thumbup: )

I'd take that Janes statement with a shovel of salt.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3068
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 02 Dec 2018, 17:00

The CAT40 has the capability to use ammunition with smart fused, the French are going to use it on their new 6x6 Recce, but the question is whether the UK will spend the money to be able to use it. Mind you these are pretty big weapons for a Section to carry unless their waggon can be classed as part of the section :D

Little J
Member
Posts: 552
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Little J » 20 Dec 2018, 15:48

I said before that the Desert Tech MDR (in its early concept guise) could be a good replacement for the SA80, turns out its been modelled on the A1's reliability and build quality :silent: :wtf:



Maybe they need to hand it over to HK to get a version that works :lol:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3068
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Dec 2018, 06:22

I think in its A3 guise, the L85 will probably be good enough until someone actually decides where the US/NATO are going to go with small arms. The British Army seems to think the being able to put accurate suppressing fire out to 600m with the A3 back up by the DMR if adequate for an infantry fire team, with a G/L available if needed. What I think needs to be looks at short term in ensuring the Platoon has enough integral firepower with the same at Company level. The question I have is should we standardise across all the infantry or have unique loadouts for 16 Air Assault/3 Commando, Armoured/Mechanised Infantry units and the remaining Infantry. Would this be based on what they are able to carry, what integral transportation they require, what support are they likely to receive and so on. At section level there probably would be little difference, it is more in the number and type of support weapons available. An example would be Mortars. 166 Air Assault and 3 Commando really are limited to the 81mm that can be man packed, but the Armoured/Mechanised Infantry could have SP 120mm Mortars. What are other people ideas?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 07:37

Lord Jim wrote:accurate suppressing fire out to 600m with the A3 back up by the DMR if adequate for an infantry fire team, with a G/L available if needed

That's not quite the infantry half mile that the US wants to regain (the declared goal)

Lord Jim wrote:unique loadouts for 16 Air Assault/3 Commando, Armoured/Mechanised Infantry units and the remaining Infantry

Isn't infantry the can opener that needs to work, regardless of the type of can? So I would set the question rather by the type of mission, and keeping the starting set up fairly standardised
- e.g. in urban combat you would need many more granades than underslung (while the barrel is "otherwise busy") can usefully put out, so a tripod mounted addition (more for the platoon than section?) would be called for; and heavy (buckshot) shotguns :) for breaking down doors... you can't make a hole in the wall every single time?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3068
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Lord Jim » 21 Dec 2018, 17:07

Have we got an underslung Shotgun available for our L85s like the US has on its M4s?

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 17:53

Lord Jim wrote: underslung Shotgun available for [our L85s like the US has on its] M4s


A good spot; looks like Nokia has hived off the brand that denoted diamond-studded phones made for the Middle East market?
"manufactured by Vertu Corporation[2] [...] attracted the interest of soldiers being deployed to Afghanistan who wanted to reduce the number of individual weapons they had to carry by using a shotgun as a rifle attachment instead of a discrete weapon."

Is buckshot normally loaded with more gunpowder than what is ordinary with shotguns; to give it more "kicking in power" for doors? I guess the recoil would still be no more than for sending a grenade out to several hundred meters

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Caribbean » 21 Dec 2018, 19:17

A breaching round is different from buckshot. Breaching rounds are usually a slug, formed from a metal powder bound in a wax matrix, that blows through the object immediately in front of the barrel, then disintegrates within a few inches into a harmless (relatively) powder (you still have the remains of the door hinge, or whatever, flying around at high speed, though :shock: ). I think combat shotgun shells often have reduced loads compared to sporting rounds, to reduce recoil, allowing the user to stay "on target" more easily (they also tend to use much larger shot (2 to 20 to a shell) or slugs and be used at shorter ranges than sporting rounds).
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 19:25

Caribbean wrote:larger shot (2 to 20 to a shell) or slugs and be used at shorter ranges


Yep, at ranges of a couple of meters... was hesitating to use the term grape shot (one up from buck) and with that explanation above, was the right thing to do (ie. not the same)

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Caribbean » 21 Dec 2018, 19:39

ArmChairCivvy wrote:grape shot

That's a tad larger :D Maybe 10-20 shot to the pound. Quite effective if you have a demi-Culverin or larger hanging around to fire it from. Though not exactly "section level", even "back in the day".
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Dec 2018, 19:50

ArmChairCivvy wrote:
Caribbean wrote:larger shot (2 to 20 to a shell) or slugs and be used at shorter ranges
Yep, at ranges of a couple of meters... was hesitating to use the term grape shot (one up from buck) and with that explanation above, was the right thing to do (ie. not the same)
A few things to consider,

At short range, say less than 3 metres, all shotgun cartridges are effectively slugs as the shot column has not had a chance to spread out. The amount of kinetic energy contained in a simple shotgun round at close range is simply astonishing.

Large shot sizes are very prone to ricochet which can be hazardous for both the operator and the intended target. Worth bearing in mind if firing in enclosed spaces with concrete and steel present.

Solid slugs penetrate very very well. It takes a lot of stud walls or hollow block walls to stop a 12ga slug. Over penetration can be a problem even when compared with 5.56 rounds. Unlike 5.56 rounds which tend to deform and tumble (rapidly shedding energy) when in contact with something at high velocity (near the muzzle) 12ga slugs tend to just keep going and going and going. Firing 12ga slugs in confined spaces is a risky business for all involved.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 19:52

Caribbean wrote:"back in the day".

That was when they designed the wide avenues for Paris. Coming together at higher ground so that you can just turn the same guns... repeat & rinse
- though in the modern day they just bought Boris's water cannon. Not second, but third :) hand

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 19:56

Caribbean wrote: a slug, formed from a metal powder bound in a wax matrix, that blows through the object immediately in front of the barrel, then disintegrates within a few inches into a harmless (relatively) powder


Yes, and I had heard about this - to minimise that ricochet & over-penetration risk - but have never seen one... as they are not for sale "over the counter".
- so rare that there is not even a "trade" term for it?

Online
User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 1472
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Poiuytrewq » 21 Dec 2018, 20:19

ArmChairCivvy wrote:so rare that there is not even a "trade" term for it?
It's a Hatton round.

https://clucas.com/hatton-round/

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 21 Dec 2018, 21:14

must only be used in Magnum Shotguns!

Could probably stop a bear, but you would have to wait until the CQB moment... and it would still land on you. Dead or not
- bur the other examples spelled out (@1.5 m range) are quite impressive

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
Location: England

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby Caribbean » 21 Dec 2018, 22:53

Poiuytrewq wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:so rare that there is not even a "trade" term for it?
It's a Hatton round.

https://clucas.com/hatton-round/

Seems to go by the name of Johnson in the US

https://gumgullyprovision.com/product/12-gauge-2-34-johnson-door-breaching-round/

Plus, of course, EDC stuff, like APDS, Incendiary, flechette, chain shot and the aptly named Thor's Hammer and Dragon's Breath -accompanied by an impressively long list of places where all of these are illegal
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10163
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 22 Dec 2018, 05:22

Caribbean wrote: Dragon's Breath -accompanied by an impressively long list of places where all of these are illegal

Can't even order "Bear Bangs" x-border (modified distress signal rockets); this one would have more bear stopping/ scaring power: "Dragons Breath Round has been improved and now produces a wall of fire for approximately 400 feet. …….. The incendiary metal compound contained inside burns when fired at over 5000 degrees fahrenheit"
- of course keeping the other shotgun barrel for the 'door slug' best used at ranges between 3-10m

Ever so slightly off thread; back to business

J. Tattersall
Junior Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 21 Dec 2016, 20:30
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Postby J. Tattersall » 26 Dec 2018, 22:24

On small arms i keep seeing different stories on line. Is the US going for 6.5 mms or 6.8 mm for its new rifle calibre? I'm guessing that whatever it chooses will be followed by us, the Canadians, the Aussies and other NATO.


Return to “British Army”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests