Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
NickC
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

Also maybe of interest the ST Kinetics Ultimax light machine gun, 100,000 plus sales, a Jim Sullivan design. Jim Sullivan was one of the original AR 15/M16 - Stoner 63 designers, later Ruger Mini 14 and the Ultimax.

Ultimax is a "zero recoil" gun which makes it easy for rifleman to keep sight picture on target while on full auto fire with the light intermediate 5.56mm round.





mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

For a the 21st century gun, there’s this:
https://www.knightarmco.com/1075/shop/m ... un/762-amg
Although I would ask the question: “If you intend to issue belt fed guns to the section, can you outline the concept of use and training that you’ll issue with it?”
Thinking about the UOR Minimi that mostly served to turn brass into noise, according to some reports. At the very least they didn’t keep it. How do you avoid it being used in the “Crow cannon” or “big SMG” roles? Perhaps a gun group under a JNCO, with selected operators?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

mr.fred wrote:If you intend to issue belt fed guns to the section
As long as someone carries the ammo, what's

the problem?
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

As long as you’ve got someone else to carry the ammo?
And the resources to carry the ammunition to where it is needed?

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Should we have another look at the Wehrmacht in WWII, where each fire team worked around the MG34/42 with all team members carrying ammo to feed the beast.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

While the (US) plan for section-level roll-out is for before October 2022 to Infantry, Stryker and Armor Brigade Combat Teams (i.e. front line; the other half would retain current service weapons, at least initially).

... at platoon level (rather than restructuring the section around an MG) fire power the year 2025 might see the earliest roll-out. No prizes for guessing where-from the naming of functional prototypes being tried out is derived:
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-arm ... liber-too/

" Early analysis on the lightweight medium machine gun replacement .338NM version shows a similar recoil when compared to the 7.62mm, but with greater range and lethal effects at a distance.

Special Operations Command
has also been evaluating the .338NM for its own medium machine gun use, taking on a Sig Sauer version dubbed the MG 338 last year. That variant came in at 20 pounds, which is lighter than the current M240L.

The maximum range for the M240L is just under 6,000 yards. SOCOM wants a machine gun to hit targets out to 6,500 to 8,200 yards."
... lighter, a qtrtr more range with added lethality at longer ranges. To me looks likely that something will actually happen

As the same Norma Magnum round (oops :, gave it away) could be used in sniper and any section-level DMR weapons
- so more uniform at section level, most of the time
- while going from 2 rounds to... 2 rounds (no worse off in supplying the front line)
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)

NickC
Member
Posts: 975
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

Lord Jim wrote:Should we have another look at the Wehrmacht in WWII, where each fire team worked around the MG34/42 with all team members carrying ammo to feed the beast.
Out of interest Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons has different take from the Wehrmacht experience on the Russian front where the StG44 would have replaced nearly all firearms including the MG34/42, impression is that nearly all MP43/MP44/StG-44 allocated for use on the eastern front, few if any on the western front where MG34/42 still reigned supreme for the Wehrmacht units due to the shortage of StG44's and especially of its 7.92 x33 Kurz ammo?


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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote:has different take from the Wehrmacht experience on the Russian front where the StG44 would have replaced nearly all firearms including the MG34/42, impression is that nearly all MP43/MP44/StG-44 allocated for use on the eastern front
I like that uTube series as both research and presenting is good.

In this case some early history does not enter (the vid length can only be so much): namely the fact that std infantry section composition did not suit the paratroopers. They had only a pistol on them and the MG being for a two man team, there was no guarantee that the two - OR the MG and its ammo which each would land in a pouch in the vicinity of the trooper - would land anywhere near each other. So a combo of MP40 and a MG in one was needed. Mr. Schmeisser of course designed it - Mr. Kalashnikov became more famous.

Well, the German paratroopers ceased offensive action and std weapons worked fine in defence. The need was most acutely felt on the Eastern Front (auto-fire weapons proliferating in the OpFor) and hence the roll-out plan confirms Nick's point:
"The 1st Infantry Division of Army Group South and 32nd Infantry Division of Army Group North were selected to be issued the rifle, both being refitted from heavy losses on the Eastern Front. Ammunition shortages [as mentioned in the linked vid] meant the 1st ID was the only division fully equipped with it. The Kar 98k was retained as a specialist weapon for sniping and launching rifle grenades. MP 40s were used by vehicle and artillery crews and officers [PDW wasn't a going term :) at the time]. The StG 44 was issued to all infantry soldiers"

So that would have been the ideal. 4 mln planned, 1.5 ordered, under 0.5 produced and peak inventory only shortly touched above a quarter million pieces.
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: 676
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »


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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As there are so many CG enthusiasts here, surely anyone who gets the short straw, to carry it (and some rounds?) around would only get issued with a PDW
- do we have any?

If MP40 was to be relegated to a PDW role in the redesigned infantry, late WW2, then M1 carbine was originally designed as a better-than-a-pistol PDW... and I had always thought that it was pulled in from cavalry, to get something into mass production plenty quick
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

We don't have a PDW in Army service but the MoD Police have the H&K MP7 so there is a small supply chain already in existence. Also do Tank crews etc. still have the "Mini" SA80 or carbine? I believe it was updated to A2 standard and it is very compact if a little heavy still, for a weapon of its small size. We could of course issue them with the Colt Canada L119A2 which is lighter then the L85A3 but can use the same magazines as the rest of the unit. I think the Swedish CG Gunners are issued with the standard AK5 rifle and the US Army Rangers issue the ubiquitous M4.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Lord Jim wrote: Swedish CG Gunners are issued with the standard AK5 rifle
No wonder as it is a namesake: " in 1985 the Carl Gustav AK 5 was finally approved"

But a bit on a hefty side as the next guy's
https://special-ops.org/wp-content/uplo ... e-AK-5.jpg
belt-fed weapon does not look any bigger.
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)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

The AK5 is a very conventional 5.56mm AR, basically a Swedish licenced version of the FN FNC I believe, so yes it will be about the same length as the Minimi as shown in the picture. Reserve units still use the older AK4 which is a version of the H&K G3. Regarding the CG the biggest change is the reduction in both size and weight, which in the case of the latter has been substantial. It is also more ergonomic so easier to carry.

Especially in the Strike Brigades where the bulk of the direct fire will reside with the Infantry, a weapon such as the CG M4 would be indispensable at Platoon level.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

As for CG vs NLAW
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAE
carrying one or the other is not much different. Until you add the additional rounds. Carrying two NLAWS across the top of your rucksack is very doable
whereas what the German mountain troopers are doing here does not look v good for natural movement e.g. over obstacles https://pm1.narvii.com/7017/8f28436425c ... 8v2_hq.jpg
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 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:As for CG vs NLAW
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=htt ... AdAAAAABAE
carrying one or the other is not much different. Until you add the additional rounds. Carrying two NLAWS across the top of your rucksack is very doable
whereas what the German mountain troopers are doing here does not look v good for natural movement e.g. over obstacles https://pm1.narvii.com/7017/8f28436425c ... 8v2_hq.jpg
The new M4 CG weighs in at less than 7kg whereas NLAW is 12.5kg, a big difference. The Germans are carrying a panzerfaust (or bunkerfaust) which weighs in at 13.5kg.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Andy-M wrote:NLAW is 12.5kg
Comes (sealed and) fully loaded
... and then you just take the next one (if carrying two)
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Andy-M wrote:The new M4 CG weighs in at less than 7kg whereas NLAW is 12.5kg, a big difference. The Germans are carrying a panzerfaust (or bunkerfaust) which weighs in at 13.5kg.
7kg empty. 10kg loaded. More with some rounds. More if you want the fancy sights. More again if you are carrying the round(s) outside the launcher in their own carry case.
The savings come when you carry multiple rounds. The NLAW still has certain advantages.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Andy-M »

mr.fred wrote:
Andy-M wrote:The new M4 CG weighs in at less than 7kg whereas NLAW is 12.5kg, a big difference. The Germans are carrying a panzerfaust (or bunkerfaust) which weighs in at 13.5kg.
7kg empty. 10kg loaded. More with some rounds. More if you want the fancy sights. More again if you are carrying the round(s) outside the launcher in their own carry case.
The savings come when you carry multiple rounds. The NLAW still has certain advantages.
Two shots of CG for 13kg, two shots of NLAW for 25kg, the only advantage NLAW has is it can take on MBTs, in all other aspects it comes second best.

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

mr.fred wrote:
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.
does the longer barrel of the conventional minimi push the range up?

there are other options Minimi is available in 7.62x51

or the swede's developed a light FNMAG

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

marktigger wrote:does the longer barrel of the conventional minimi push the range up?

there are other options Minimi is available in 7.62x51

or the swede's developed a light FNMAG
There are other options, but none have been taken up. Read into that what you will.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ok, lets assume the three sections in a platoon, and further that in a peer conflict you will have to be prepared to deal with MBTs without much warning. One could envisage a 'universal' fire support role for CG at platoon (3) or section (1) level, but then the anti-tank capability would be very much down to luck - with not so good odds
- whereas IFVs et al the CGs could easily dispatch (range permitting; the autocannons have a nasty reach out to 2 km - clear field of vision permitting).

The way to even the decks would be if all sections were to have a vehicle fitted with MMP-like NLOS weapon launchers, this then
- eliminates the need for an anti-tank capability at company HQ platoon level
- and the CG guys in each section could carry the laser designation kit, to make the most of the NLOS option for hard or distant targets

For any other targets than AFVs there would still be not just the CG for direct fire, but also the mortar platoon (from the company) to call on
- the manpower saving from (no) AT at company level could be used for ManPads and anti-UAV arrangements; namely, just spotting (but not destroying) a drone could be a harbinger for bad news, in the form of indirect fire falling in 5 minutes time
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)

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1146
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Andy-M wrote:Two shots of CG for 13kg, two shots of NLAW for 25kg, the only advantage NLAW has is it can take on MBTs, in all other aspects it comes second best.
That is what it’s for, and it can do it better and from further away.

RunningStrong
Member
Posts: 768
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by RunningStrong »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - and the CG guys in each section could carry the laser designation kit, to make the most of the NLOS option for hard or distant targets
Don't use Laser Designators. The technology to detect, obscure and counter laser designators is increasingly available and it's neither expensive or complicated to retrofit to platforms.

A good grid and an active seeker or remotely operated system is all that's needed.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

You are right (laser is used only for - potentially remote - rangefinding with MMP). Whereas the guidance options are more akin to Spike NLOS than Javelin and its range to the family of advanced TOW (2A, TOW 2B, TOW 2B Aero and TOW Bunker Buster) missiles.
- I mentioned the vehicle preference for the launch unit as it is 11 kg on its own; while the missile itself is not that different from Javelin (but has 4-5 km range)
- sections without any vehicles (in due course we will have plenty of Boxers and JLTVs) will do best to soldier on with Javelin, though the French will give their infantry a "good load"

Keen to hear if the Spike & Javelin country (all those to the North of the Danish Straits) will get MMP in their midst (has been a contender in the Swedish competition... result?)
- Estonia won't need to buy anything as France gave them thousands of missiles when MMP started to enter 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)

Little J
Member
Posts: 676
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Little J »

Lord Jim wrote:We don't have a PDW in Army service but the MoD Police have the H&K MP7 so there is a small supply chain already in existence. Also do Tank crews etc. still have the "Mini" SA80 or carbine? I believe it was updated to A2 standard and it is very compact if a little heavy still, for a weapon of its small size. We could of course issue them with the Colt Canada L119A2 which is lighter then the L85A3 but can use the same magazines as the rest of the unit. I think the Swedish CG Gunners are issued with the standard AK5 rifle and the US Army Rangers issue the ubiquitous M4.
The L22 (SA80K) never needed upgrading to A2 std, it entered service to that spec. And with the Marines switching to the SAS's hand-me-down's (L119A1), there should be a few available if needed...
Some Marines using it on an Ex in 2019...

Post Reply