Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
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 L22 (SA80K)
Well, with one of those and carrying it in one of these
the CG 'man' will have his hands free, to do what he is called on to do
... rather than having to carry and handle two weapons (one or both on slings)

PS The vid drawls on, so ignore the longer weapon part that follows
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: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Fitting a longer barrel on the L110 made little difference to its accuracy beyond 300m as this was the first thing the Army tried when looking to improve things. WE have bought a few Minimi Mk3s in 7.62x51 but these have gone to the SF. Besides the Swedes lightened FN MAG the US has the M240L which is built using many components made from titanium. I meets the weight reduction targets teh US set but it is expensive and not many, relatively speaking have been purchased.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Regarding ATGWs, Spike in all its various forms seems to be gaining a strong foothold within NATO with both Germany and Poland using the system for example. It is also in production in Europe aka the Euro Spike, and it would be interesting to see how the various version compare to the MMP. The optimal vehicle launched version appears to the the Spike-LR2 that has a range of 4-5000m and has various guidance modes including NLOS and man in the loop.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

US Army evaluated the Spike SR, 10kg/2,000m for infantry squads in the Expeditionary Warrior Experiment (AEWE) January 2021.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: SR, 10kg
:clap:
SR being double or more that the weapons at that sort of weight come in
- CG you lug on with, even after the rounds have been expended
- I believe this one has an expensive optics et al unit that one would like to take back,,, but almost fits into the back pocket (in military speak a Molle pouch on yr rucksack)
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: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Isn't Spike SR in the same class as Eryx?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

April 2020, the U.S. Army picked L3Harris and Vortex Optics to compete for the NGSW fire control system with spec to rapidly engage man-sized targets out to 600 m or greater range with an advanced optic that contains a laser range finder, a ballistic calculator and provides the shooter with an automatic, adjusted aimpoint on new picatinny 'smart' rail, the T-Worx Intelligent Rail platform, which connects to the battlefield network and integrate real-time video/data and other analytics for transmission back to the command centre.

NGSW-FCS planned procurement 250,000 units, production scheduled to begin late 2021 with a budget of $819 million over the next five years, $3,260 per unit.

1)L3HARRIS recently announced delivery of 115 production prototype systems of its fire control units, "an integrated approach to augmented aiming by combining range-finding capability, ballistic computation and environmental sensors that increase the accuracy while decreasing the time to engage a threat" Leupold & Stevens provides the optics

2)Vortex with its 1-8x 30 objective with an active reticule fire control unit, claiming 1,000 m-capable laser rangefinder, state of the art on-board ballistic engine, atmospheric sensor suite, and programmable active matrix micro-display.

Note. The drawback of laser is that can also be seen clearly on infrared cameras/optics, which will easily give away the spotter's position.

If you were to base spec on Wehrmacht experience fighting the Russians on the eastern front, the StG 44 with the intermediate power 8mm Kurz round ~300m range was near perfect rifle, so why is the US Army now specifying a new full power 6.8 x 51 round for their troops, 6.8 is the opposite extreme from the light intermediate 5.56 round which was if anything not as powerful as needed, originally 5.56/223 US grabbed first thing to hand to counter the AK47s (Russians also supplied Viet Cong with captured StG 44s) in Vietnam, subsequently US loaded 5.56 hotter, higher pressure and with heavier bullets. Now US with the new 6.8 >600m range the resultant rifle and sights will be heavier and more expensive, ammo will be heavier and troops able to carry fewer rounds for fire fight than the 5.56. Would not be surprised if the US will keep M4 5.56 for the majority of their troops, with 6.8 replacing the 7.62, so still left with two rounds.

Why the British post WW II plan was to choose a single 'ideal' intermediate cartridge, the 280/7x43 slightly more powerful than the than the 8mm Kurz. :angel:

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

NickC wrote: compete for the NGSW fire control system with spec to rapidly engage man-sized targets out to 600 m or greater range with an advanced optic that contains a laser range finder, a ballistic calculator and provides the shooter with an automatic, adjusted aimpoint
This will cost them
... all the ranges will have to be redone :)
NickC wrote: $3,260 per unit.
Does the rifle itself go into roundation errors?
NickC wrote:augmented aiming
exactly... I hate this when the folks that can 'just do it' carry no more 'value add' :)
... well, when the batteries run out; the game is 'back on'
NickC wrote: Would not be surprised if the US will keep M4 5.56 for the majority of their troops, with 6.8 replacing the 7.62, so still left with two rounds
Nope, only for the half that are not in the frontline (M1 Carbine is now called M4 ;) )
NickC wrote:Why the British post WW II plan was to choose a single 'ideal' intermediate cartridge, the 280/7x43 slightly more powerful than the than the 8mm Kurz.
- the post war Russian post-mortem looked at the Kurz and the .30 round... and came up with the round for the AK-47. Since then they have followed the fashion and - in their own words - stepped on the same rake as the NATO 5.56, The film reel rolls on...
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)

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - the post war Russian post-mortem looked at the Kurz and the .30 round... and came up with the round for the AK-47. Since then they have followed the fashion and - in their own words - stepped on the same rake as the NATO 5.56, The film reel rolls on...
Do you mean the M43 round, named for the year of its introduction? That’s the round inspired by the German round introduced in the same year?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

OK, the film can be rolled back. too.

Crete (catastrophe for paratroopers -1942 that is now - even though a victory for the high command)
- a single, selective fire weapon required. Go, fetch:

7.92 x 57 did not work.

Yes, Kurz came in and the Soviets were so impressed that they copied it, in the same year
... now we are in 1943

SKD semi-auto carbine (they had loads and loads of the American ones, to learn from)
NOR the
RPD Light Machine Gun
impressed anyone that much.

War ended. The intermediate rounds from America (a full-auto carbin, looking much the same exc. for the size of the mag had emerged) and Kurz, with an AR like weapon for it were there for every one to see; and try out.

What happened next:
AK-47 trialled (and won) in 1947
... and was introduced the next year

What is the moral of the story? Both rounds came in at the same time (in the same year)
- neither could be produced from scratch (in volume)
so... the length was "the intermediate" factor and both sides were churning out the bullet side of it (the dimension) from what they had going

Now, in this cinema, the science of it (ballistics) reel is the next one showing
- though I think much of it has already been dome upthread
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)

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: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
If you look at the additional ammunitions that had to be brought in during Afghan to deal with buildings the CG would just have meant an additional ammunition nature being brought in not a whole weapons system with its additional costs. I agree that the longer range guided missiles have a place. But I also see a direct fire weapon at that level as a useful force mulitplyer. But also for other units like logistics and support troops having a flexible weapon for local defence.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by marktigger »

mr.fred wrote:
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.
the main thing I read into that is there is nothing wrong with the GPMG (there never was it should never have been withdrawn at section level)
but you could also read lack of money or lack of imagination.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by NickC »

With ref to the US Army NGSW FCS mentioned above with its active laser rangefinder presumably just what the £100 million January 2021 British Army contract placed with Elbit for its target marking kit would easily identify and track with its CORAL thermal-imaging system?

Tried to post a pic of kit but not working for me :shh:

https://elbitsystems.com/pr-new/elbit-s ... grators%20(%E2%80%9C

Online
mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1133
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by mr.fred »

NickC wrote:With ref to the US Army NGSW FCS mentioned above with its active laser rangefinder presumably just what the £100 million January 2021 British Army contract placed with Elbit for its target marking kit would easily identify and track with its CORAL thermal-imaging system?
Depends on the wavelength of the laser and how long it’s on for.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote: to deal with buildings the CG would just have meant an additional ammunition nature being brought in
Didn't they buy hole-in-the-wall :) punchers that, once fired, weighed zero pounds/kg for the rest of the patrol?
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: 6209
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Didn't we buy the Israeli Matador hole puncher under a UOR for Iraq and/or Afghanistan?

Or was it purchased as part of the core budgets, planned previously?

Is it still in service?

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

I lost track, but seem to remember that we bought some of those 'plenty quick' and then something else (similar) from Bofors, as a follow-on
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by SW1 »

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/3 ... -launchers

British Army troops in Mali are now reportedly using tiny unmanned aircraft that can be fired from standard 40mm grenade launchers. These diminutive quad-copter-type drones can be fitted with various payloads, ranging from full-motion electro-optical video cameras to small high-explosive or armor-piercing warheads, and that can fly together as a swarm after launch.

Overt Defense was first to report that members of the U.K. Task Group in Mali had received "several hundred" Drone40s from Australian firm DefendTex. British forces are in Mali as part of the country's Operation Newcombe, which provides support to Operation Barkhane, a French-led regional counter-terrorism effort, and the United Nation's Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali, also known by its French acronym MINUSMA.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Quite amazing that with that size you can get them 12 mls forward, as long as LOS is maintained
- calling fire (are any Apaches going there?) after the laser designator has been activated is quite a bonus; of course for our 81mm mortar bombs there are no smart rounds... so something else then
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2674
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by SW1 »

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Quite amazing that with that size you can get them 12 mls forward, as long as LOS is maintained
- calling fire (are any Apaches going there?) after the laser designator has been activated is quite a bonus; of course for our 81mm mortar bombs there are no smart rounds... so something else then
It certainly is. Would be interesting if the could incorporate this with the work MBDA are doing with MMP and the french army on micro drones.

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Just watching Forgotten Weapons on YouTube and came across this weapon and an interview with the designer. A 20mm direct fire grenade launcher. Could this be the answer to replace the LMG in Infantry Sections. It has a range up to 1000m, a velocity of 300m/sec and a lethal blast radius on impact of 2m.


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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

Very interesting but would you add a person to a section or remove something like one GPMG in so having fire team 1 with this and fire team 2 with a GPMG. it is a case of weight of fire over rate of fire

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: would you add a person to a section or remove something like one GPMG in so having fire team 1 with this and fire team 2 with a GPMG
The answer could be different for mounted and Light infantry
- adding a person, in the case of the former, might not be practicable due to vehicle constraints. Having said that, they already have a third team: the one that stays with the vehicle... the vehicle typically mounting a support/ suppression weapon

In LI adding the 1 person should be the way to go; now 3 teams (not using 'fire team' as it carries a set meaning) emerge
- in 2 a GPMG or a SAW-like, lighter weapon
- in the section leader's team one of these 'grenade wonders' - need not be exactly the one pictured, though it would probably take the biscuit if all available designs were to be put side by side
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
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 3022
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

So to pull some stuff together that has been push around if we were to take a new Boxer mechanised infantry battalion and give them 80 Boxers with 6 of them fitted with Nemo 120 mortar system and 8 in CVR for recce we could then give disembarked platoons a single 60mm mortar and sections this 20mm system

As a side I was watching a video on youtube of the Wiesel 120mm mortar system witch can be carried by a Chinook this would allow the same for 16AA with 6 Wiesel 120mm mortar giving battalion level cover 60mm at platoon level and 20 mm at section level

These would be backed up by Artillery at Brigade level

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

Re: Section infantry weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Tempest414 wrote: we could then give disembarked platoons a single 60mm mortar and sections this 20mm system
With everything you have written "in" I think we can skip that 60mm and keep it in armouries for troops helo-landed, and no other - at least in the first instance - means of indirect fire further out than the AR-underslung grenades ( 300m ?)
Tempest414 wrote:the Wiesel 120mm mortar system witch can be carried by a Chinook this would allow the same for 16AA with 6 Wiesel 120mm mortar
The Wiesel is an ingenious family of AFVs, but dates back to the days when there was a full division that could be "ferried out" to somewhere else than the Central Front
... and the contract with Lufthansa allowed commandeering their Jumbos, installing stronger floor plates (pre-stored) on them, and every a/c could take seven :!: Wiesels

I believe there are only 8 of the mortar variant left in active service, so that the tactics of CH-53s taking them to where ever they might be required can be practised
- the CH-53 replacement, itself, is an 'endangered' project
... which is a pity as for getting mountain-capable troops up to Norway, plenty quick, would point to the remaining mountains troops of Germany; and getting their fire support by other means than by mule, into the right spot, again plenty quick (once on the scene) would point to exactly that kind of 'combo'
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