Page 33 of 33

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 15 Apr 2019, 21:35
by Voldemort
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

Posted: 15 Apr 2019, 22:01
by Voldemort
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.


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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 15 Apr 2019, 22:45
by jimthelad
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

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 12:01
by Voldemort
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.


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!

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 13:54
by Lord Jim
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?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 14:33
by Voldemort
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


Organisation is set and transport is organic. Jägers in regional troops have either BVs, tractors or XAs as transport.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 15:21
by mr.fred
Lord 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?

Anywhere between none and 16, depending on the requirements and logistics

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 22:39
by whitelancer
Voldemort wrote:I would like to see a golf bag approach being taken into use.


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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 16 Apr 2019, 23:25
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 18 May 2019, 13:49
by Lord Jim
An interesting weapon, the 7.62 especially would be useful as a Section weapon or even in a Fire Team.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 21 May 2019, 19:50
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 05 Jun 2019, 20:23
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 18 Jun 2019, 19:00
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 18 Jun 2019, 22:01
by Caribbean
Voldemort wrote:humble Antioch hand grenade

Is this the one you mean?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOrgLj9lOwk

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 02:04
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 10:00
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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 11:29
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 17:41
by whitelancer
Why not return to the LSW?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 18:21
by mr.fred
whitelancer wrote:Why not return to the LSW?

It doesn't offer enough extra capability to offset the weight.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 22 Jun 2019, 22:55
by whitelancer
mr.fred wrote:It doesn't offer enough extra capability to offset the weight.

What capabilities had you in mind?

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 23 Jun 2019, 10:36
by mr.fred
Range, accuracy, ability to sustain fire.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 26 Jun 2019, 16:16
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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 26 Jun 2019, 16:19
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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 26 Jun 2019, 17:16
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.

Re: Section infantry weapons

Posted: 26 Jun 2019, 17:31
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