Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?
What makes it inadequate at section level

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:we again come up against what we are getting rid of, namely 'commando' mortars. 81 mm (nor HMGs) cannot keep up with the section(s). If they are held at company/ bn level, then what is there to extend the reach at section/ platoon level (AT weapons aside, when carrying such is dictated by the threat)?
Hero loiter weapons could be used by the fire support team's and command as both a support weapon or a short range UAV / Scout they have a 40km range and one hour loiter time plus a return if not used to be used again when charged

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Reach. An appropriate moniker could be a patrol MG?

The only good compromise between the two types ( a specific instance) that I can think of was the Swedish MG that was using the same 6.5 round as their AR
- they must be kicking themselves, now, having decided to 'go NATO' not that long ago

PS The Hero post appeared while I was typing. Yes, I agree. But I tried to start out in a generic way, and get futuristic later. Hero, of course, does exist. In many sizes.
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, why wait with the 'futuristic' because Heros go 'bang' and there's your surveillance then.

Don't know the movie this vid starts from
but it gives a good idea what can be carried in a rucksack
- the receiving ground station probably travels best on wheels, though. But it can be further back and direct the dispersed sections (as well as any fire support for them)
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)

Andy-M
Member
Posts: 48
Joined: 01 Jun 2015, 20:25
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Andy-M »

This is interesting, could be the way the USA military is going to go judging by how good it looks in a weapon made for 7.62mm.


User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Was interesting and impressive, but no details on weight saving/increase and pack density
... I guess one will initially need to compare with 7.62 rather than 5.56.

But the (GP)MG comes in at only a kilo more than our std section weapon, with an under-barrel grenade launcher fitted (which weighs about 1.49kg).
- give HK another job: a rebuild for this 'unitary' round :D
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)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?
What makes it inadequate at section level
Range.

NickC
Member
Posts: 969
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

My take on the 6.8mm cartridges, True Velocity, Sig Sauer and Winchester case telescoped, all designed to meet the US Army specs for a full power round replacement of the 7.62 Nato, slightly more powerful with better ballistics, US Army spec appears to be driven by need in defeating body armour. By employing new tech the 6.8 rounds lighter than the current brass 7.62 Nato round. eg True Velocity approx 30% lighter.

The intermediate power round was developed by the Germans in WW II with the 7.92 X 33 for the first assault rifles MP42/MP43/StG 44, basically the same rifle, to allow controllable full auto fire to counter the higher number of Soviet troops, demand always outstripped supply, followed post war by the Soviet 7.62 x 39 for the AK47, the 280 British/7mm Nato for the EM-2, design based on the StG 44, later the US adopted the M16 .223/5.56 Nato during the Vietnam war to replace the M14 7.62 Nato which proved a poor second to the AK47

The design of the intermediate British 7mm Nato post WW II round was slightly more powerful than the 7.92 x 33 and the 7.62 x 39 rounds so as to make it only squad round required for both assault rifles and machine guns.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?
What makes it inadequate at section level
Range.
What range do you think is needed at section level

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 450
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

The same as at platoon level. Your fire support team will have to establish a base of fire up to 25-50m behind your point section under effective enemy fire. Therefore you need overmatch of this metric and 50m. For the 7.62x39 this was 200m for AK47, 300 for AKM(S), and about 400 for the RPK. The AK74 was about same as the M4 but not as good as the L85. In an ideal world the effective range is about 5-600m. What a coincidence!

The Army has enough problems with procurement without replacing what is probably one of the better rifles with a new one in a completely new calibre.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

jimthelad wrote:Therefore you need overmatch of this metric and 50m.
Which nicely, in an indirect way defines underslung grenade launchers as section weapons only - with a 100 m undermatch
jimthelad wrote:The Army has enough problems with procurement without replacing what is probably one of the better rifles with a new one in a completely new calibre.
Agree: others go first, pls :)
- keeping an eye on developments and testing does not hurt. I think the current stock will take us to abt 2030?
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: 450
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by jimthelad »

The UGL was really bought for FIBUA, light vehicles, and reducing the need to close trenches to post a grenade. That said, the blokes seem to love them and they are a lot of fun!!

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

jimthelad wrote: In an ideal world the effective range is about 5-600m. What a coincidence!
So with in mind the L110A2 with its 5.56 rounds would be effective at section level ?

For me who is not a shooter but have been lucky enough to have fired the L-98A2 , L-85A2 , LSR , LSW , GPMG and 303 Mk3 never more than 400 meters I found them all to be effective at that range even I who I say is not a shooter could manage good groupings with the service rifles. I found the GPMG to be a handful but this would be down to the lack of time spent i.e only 500 round put down range

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1132
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Tempest414 wrote:So with in mind the L110A2 with its 5.56 rounds would be effective at section level ?
The L110 used the short “Para” barrel and the effective range was rumoured as being less than 300m.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Accurate rifle fire up to 600m is the mantra for the British Army going forward, with suppression achieved through accurate aimed fire. At anything near this range the L110A2/A3 was a "Spray and pray" option putting a lot of fire down range but not supressing the enemy as few rounds would come near enough to cause such an effect. The L129A1 increases this out to 800m. The UK has tried various ways to improve the ability of an LMG to provide accurate fire out to 600m, from increasing the barrel length to that of the M249 to assessing its 7.62mm cousin the Minimi Mk3. Non were deemed satisfactory form the Army's view point and so this plus the fact that the majority of the Army's inventory L110 were becoming warn out and the desire to lighten the load of the Infantry, has led to their removal from service

The L123A2/A3 UGL does provide excellent fire support at Section level but the possible adoption of a weapon like the USMC M32A1 six shot 40mm GL and its ability to fire Medium pressure 40mm Grenades out to 800m could offer some major advantages, especially the weight of fire such a weapon can put downrange rapidly. A point of note would be that USMC Grenadiers have an M4/M29 personnel Weapon in addition to the M32A1.

One of the few good things to come out of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has been the huge improvements in the personnel kit of the soldier and the greater firepower at his or her disposal, but we still lag quite a ways behind where the US Army is moving to. Unfortunately a lot of the items that would be advantageous for the Army to adopt fall well within the "Nice to have", category as against the "Need to have".
With other higher priority programmes existing, we are likely to see these only in the SF with their own budget for such things but at least we will know what works and what doesn't within small unit operation, the equivalent of Section Level, when it comes to raising UORs in the next conflict.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

FIST (is that the acronym for the soldier system) has been ordered in respectable quantities. And at least with that 'infrastucture' all the 'gizmos' like powered sights, not to mention nightvision goggles and such like, can be kept operating... and the best got out of the err 'kinetic' tried out and tested systems. For now
- there's always the next thing
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)

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 752
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
RunningStrong wrote:
Tempest414 wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:I think two drivers
1. at section level, one round
2. win back the infantry KM... not mile (that could be the ambition for the company)
If the driver is to get to one round type at section level why are we getting rid of the L110A2 5.56 LMG in favor of the GPMG why not the Heckler & Koch MG4 5.56mm LMG
Because 5.56 is inadequate as a MG round?
What makes it inadequate at section level
Range.
What range do you think is needed at section level
As others have alluded to, the doctrine around section attacks is changing if we implement grenade launchers in any form (personally not a fan of underslung) within a section.

And so the ability to put effective fire down on lightly prepared positions needs to be considered from greater range than the traditional 300m baseline team whilst one team approach to post a grenade.

Also, the SA80A3 is supposedly effective by the individual upto 600m. So again you want a weapon system that allows to be positioned at a baseline position whilst the section manoeuvre on the advance.

I'll confess and concede very rightfully however that I'm not an infantryman, nor do I have much experience of small arms tactics.

Little J
Member
Posts: 675
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

RunningStrong wrote:As others have alluded to, the doctrine around section attacks is changing if we implement grenade launchers in any form (personally not a fan of underslung) within a section.
The Yanks seem to be moving away from underslung launchers, the m320 being mostly employed as a stand alone... But maybe that's coz they dont have bullpup's and their m4's are getting fookin nose heavy :mrgreen:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Little J wrote:the m320 being mostly employed as a stand alone
This gives a good idea of the stand-alone weapon, out to 800 m,
- at the end (slow mow) it is worthwhile watching the round, out to that distance
- much more accurate than I ever thought (sight adjustable to slow and mid-velocity grenades)
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I know,
was just setting up a competing stall
... best practice will emerge; what a pity they won't :o ask us
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)

Little J
Member
Posts: 675
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

I wasn't referring to that, but the UGL...
(wont let me post pictures though :oops: )
https://www.google.com/search?q=m320&ne ... 20&bih=921

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Maybe we should look at a 21st century version of this?

Apologies if this has already been posted.

Little J
Member
Posts: 675
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

And Enfield were nice enough to do preliminary work on a bullpup version ;) :shifty:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Bl##dy clever, the first one in your pick (using the same one for light support as well).

With modern composites, plastics mags, bits of titanium here and there
... I wonder how much less would one of those weigh, compared to the bullpup in service?
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)

Post Reply