UK Defence Forum

The platoon houses did not have any guns

wrong * wrong = makes it right (btw, they did not have any allocated CGs either... bad tactics, made worse by inappropriate support weapons?)

can you not set the fuzes to explode on leaving the barrel ?

one reason the old L14 Carl gustav should never have been replaced it should have goten more and different projectiles and evolved from an Anti tank gun to an infantry support weapon. As it has in other armies!

It was a heavy twat and you could carry only a few rds per fire team. The UGL x 2 and 2 NLAW per section has a higher combat peristence.

I quite agree with the above (jim's) comment as you can only carry so much.

The 105 mm and CG flechette round comments I have made (with the added comment on the next-gen Claymore) were directed at base/perimeter defence situations (where general support weapons - the LG - or specifically issued and stored at the base weapons -the CG - can even out the disparity in the numbers on the immediately opposing sides). Before the cavalry arrives or CAS can either arrive or persist on the scene.

jimthelad wrote:It was a heavy twat and you could carry only a few rds per fire team. The UGL x 2 and 2 NLAW per section has a higher combat peristence.

agree if you are in a "Limited" conflict and your enemy doesn't have heavy armour. The Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders kept them and the Americans are buying them the M3 version is lighter. And with the new Ammo natures much more flexible than NLAW

The US Army Rangers have been using the "Light weight" M3 for over a decade and never leave home without them. Its range and variety of ammunition have made it a vital part of their armoury. Being able to fire air burst rounds to hit targets in defilade at over 1200m and having almost double the range of the RPG-7 is quite useful. The US Army began issuing the M3 to units in Afghanistan in 2011. The latest M4 is less than half the weight of the original well loved M2, and also slightly shorter with the same ammo and performance as the M3. It can also be fitted with modern sights and can use programmable rounds in conjunction with these. These are capabilities the UGL and NLAW cannot match though they are an improvement over what we had in the past.

Apparently, the army is considering bringing back the Carl Gustav... in exchange for losing (again) the platoon mortar. And possibly the LMG too.

Of course, it is more likely that the mortar ends up going without anything coming to replace it...

LordJim wrote:The latest M4 is less than half the weight [...]. It can also be fitted with modern sights and can use programmable rounds in conjunction with these.

Considering a platoon's "sphere of influence" I don't think losing the range afforded by a mortar is a high price to pay for a more versatile (and luggable when you consider the weight of the rounds as well) weapon.
- losing the LMG, though...

i'd agree about loosing the Light Machine gun if it was being replaced By GPMG. The light mortar should be kept in the inventory just like the 2inch and 51mm mortars where when the L14 was in service.

I just find it amazing these were all carried in the platoon but now its an either or.

If my understanding is correct, the GPMG used to be issued at a section level, unless i have completely made that up?

If we did go for the CGM4 and perhaps even looked towards getting more GPMGs out in the field at a platoon level and upwards that'd be a pretty hefty step up in tactical firepower and versatility from what i can see - especially given the selection of rounds that are available for the CG. It could also fill the niche for a truly cheap and cheerful, but still reasonably effective, anti-tank/anti-structures weapon which neither NLAW, nor the ASM ever really were.

If we did go down the CG route again, i does beg the question as to where it would leave either the NLAW and the ASM, though? They are probably a whole lot more effective in absolute terms than the CG at their respective roles, but they have the cost to match. Knowing the MoD/Treasury, the bean counters would want something to give since capability overlap - no matter how sensible/desirable at times - is a dirty, dirty word in Whitehall.

Go back to using Javelin for anti-armour (not for everything) and have the (now) more luggable CG for the rest?
- NLAW is heavy, and isn't its "USP" that it can penetrate a lot of armour (as in RHA, before ERA and active defences are factored in)

NLAW's whole thing is its anti-armour power in such a comparitively small package.

There aren't a lot of one man portable weapons out there that are guided, have a 1km range and a top attack mode.

Really, alongside Brimstone it's one of our "aces" in terms of anti-tank technology, and criminally overlooked at times in terms of its capabilities for the infantry.

Looking forward to Think Defence's complex weapons writeup on it.

Any update on the ammo situation for the 105s, btw?

Guys,

need the Breach weight on the 105mm light gun or my Bdr/ Number 1 is going to tear me a new one.

............

I don't know I'm afraid Cpl WhoFlungDung.

Breech or Breech Block?

............

Not heard of any problems with the L118s recoil system. Were the problems only with the L119A3?

RetroSicotte wrote:NLAW's whole thing is its anti-armour power in such a comparitively small package.

There aren't a lot of one man portable weapons out there that are guided, have a 1km range and a top attack mode.

Really, alongside Brimstone it's one of our "aces" in terms of anti-tank technology, and criminally overlooked at times in terms of its capabilities for the infantry.

Looking forward to Think Defence's complex weapons writeup on it.

Any update on the ammo situation for the 105s, btw?

Not sure if we ever got as far as the ammo varieties and whether they are keeping up with what is available for 155?

And while I whole-heartedly subscribe to the effectiveness of NLAW (vs. cost, weight...) it is not guided (see the bolded part above).

Even the recently introduced guided rockets have "precision" added to their name, meaning a mainly pre-determined flight path, with just a final polish to it, to achieve precision.
- whereas NLAW flight path is totally determined by two calculations: a sensor that calculates the speed of target - at that moment in time when the user tracks it sideways, and another sensor that does a windspeed correction (sniper rifles have this, too). A third sensor detects the target (when and if it is under the flight path), so that again is a pure timing thing for the detonation, no guidance.
- might sound like knit-picking, but that is why they are affordable (as they are not missiles)

jakebradley wrote:Guys,

need the Breach weight on the 105mm light gun

jimthelad wrote:Postby jimthelad » 26 Jul 2016, 21:24
I don't know I'm afraid Cpl WhoFlungDung.

A gem!

ArmChairCivvy wrote:NLAW flight path is totally determined by two calculations: a sensor that calculates the speed of target - at that moment in time when the user tracks it sideways, and another sensor that does a windspeed correction (sniper rifles have this, too). A third sensor detects the target (when and if it is under the flight path), so that again is a pure timing thing for the detonation, no guidance.
- might sound like knit-picking, but that is why they are affordable (as they are not missiles)

NLAW has an edge against commonly available systems that offer "blinding" against "lasing" after detecting that lasing is happening.

Therefore you need to have also something else, lighter, in the repertoire. And it is a "missile"! Though it only covers 50 to 1500 mtrs:
"demonstrated for 15 international delegations in December 2016.

"We believe the Spike SR is the lightest, smallest, most cost-effective, and most capable fire-and-forget electro-optical shoulder-launched stand-off missile you can find today on the battlefield," a Rafael source said.

The Spike SR is the newest and smallest member of Rafael's Spike family, with a missile that is 98 cm long. According to Rafael, its control launch unit (CLU) weighs 1.2 kg with battery and the missile and launch tube together weigh 8.6 kg, meaning the total weight of the system is just under 10 kg.

No other fire-and-forget missile systems in this weight class are currently in production."

- Rafael describes the Spike SR's seeker and motor as design breakthroughs. "The missile does not have a separate booster to expel it from its launch tube, with this task being performed by one 'unified' motor."
- for the weight of an SLR carried (the bolded bit); take out an IFV... sharks! There is no self (re)loading icluded, in that weight

[quote="ArmChairCivvy"

Not sure if we ever got as far as the ammo varieties and whether they are keeping up with what is available for 155?

And while I whole-heartedly subscribe to the effectiveness of NLAW (vs. cost, weight...) it is not guided (see the bolded part above).

Even the recently introduced guided rockets have "precision" added to their name, meaning a mainly pre-determined flight path, with just a final polish to it, to achieve precision.
- whereas NLAW flight path is totally determined by two calculations: a sensor that calculates the speed of target - at that moment in time when the user tracks it sideways, and another sensor that does a windspeed correction (sniper rifles have this, too). A third sensor detects the target (when and if it is under the flight path), so that again is a pure timing thing for the detonation, no guidance.
- might sound like knit-picking, but that is why they are affordable (as they are not missiles)[/quote]

and what is the cost per round of NLAW and guided munitions?

by NLAW are you meaning the bofors system in service with the infantry and if so are you advocating the infantry takes over its own fire missions using NLAW? resupply should be very interesting to put id mildly.

marktigger wrote:if so are you advocating the infantry takes over its own fire missions using NLAW?

I am not advocating the CG renessaince currently seen in the US. Nor am I advocating the carry-yr-own artillery in the form of Javelins as seen in A-stan. For the latter, not just the resupply,but the price of a round.

personally i think the Charlie gee should be brought back its allot more flexible than the LAW94 ever was. We should have moved them from anti tank weapons role to a support weapon role with HE, Smoke, Illum rounds and HEAT as a secondary role.

marktigger wrote: to a support weapon role with HE, Smoke, Illum rounds and HEAT as a secondary role.

If only... the Glorious Glosters had had them with flechette rounds. Would not have run out of ammo, but done short work of the attacking two divisions.
- but in reality they are too heavy, relative to alternatives
- good to stock them for base defence, though, with the said rounds