Section Infantry Weapons

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

With the reality of high intensity fighting we are seeing today in Ukraine is the losses of capability like simmylary to the post bellow which happened with the exit from service of the FN Minimi need to be brought back urgently
Your thoughts are welcome ????

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

The poor accuracy of the Minimi beyond 200m and the corresponding ineffectiveness at being able to supress an enemy at that range and beyond left the weapon really only acting as a morale booster for those troop using it. The British Army has decided that accurate rifle fire, of which the L-85A2/A3 is capable of up to 600m is far more effective. The USMC is of a similar mind with its use of teh M-27 (HK416). Both services are now using the FN MAG is various guises to provide longer range fire, if and when this is required. Lightning the FN MAG is seen as advantage to aim for, something the US Military have done with the M240L, but this is very expensive as it uses titanium parts to achieve this.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post (total 2):
Ritchieleonard

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jun 2022, 22:57 The poor accuracy of the Minimi beyond 200m and the corresponding ineffectiveness at being able to supress an enemy at that range and beyond left the weapon really only acting as a morale booster for those troop using it. The British Army has decided that accurate rifle fire, of which the L-85A2/A3 is capable of up to 600m is far more effective. The USMC is of a similar mind with its use of teh M-27 (HK416). Both services are now using the FN MAG is various guises to provide longer range fire, if and when this is required. Lightning the FN MAG is seen as advantage to aim for, something the US Military have done with the M240L, but this is very expensive as it uses titanium parts to achieve this.
I am absolutely in accord with the above but we have to take in the input we are receiving from the frontlines in Ukraine and the needs for a light machine gun has not gone away the beltfeed gun will always be more capable that a magazine rifle and in this the British Army are a bit alone in having removed a entire capability every buddy else is continuing with the combination of the light in its more modern form as the FN minimi mk3 ore like in the Bundeswehr with the combination of HK MG 4/MG5 whenever you need bee like below

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 04 Jun 2022, 02:11 Wasn't there an off route mine developed using the LAW-80 back in the day? There are calls for the scaterable anti tank mine layers such as the one we had using the Stormer chassis to be brought back. Should be a simple idea to develop a Boxer Module with that option. Give them to the Royal Engineers as additional modules which they can use when needed and when not they can use the Specialist Engineering module instead.
LAW80 Command Mine
Image

This partly replaced a French mine used by the UK before, used an EFP.
Image

As for the Ranger mine scattering system, and the highly effective bar mine, we'd need to exit a number of treaties in order to bring them back. Truth is we need to look at the Mine and Cluster Munition treaties following the Ukraine war. Unilaterally removing capability whilst our main enemies didn't was a daft idea...

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 3224
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Timmymagic »

Lord Jim wrote: 07 Jun 2022, 22:57 The poor accuracy of the Minimi beyond 200m and the corresponding ineffectiveness at being able to supress an enemy at that range and beyond left the weapon really only acting as a morale booster for those troop using it. The British Army has decided that accurate rifle fire, of which the L-85A2/A3 is capable of up to 600m is far more effective. The USMC is of a similar mind with its use of teh M-27 (HK416). Both services are now using the FN MAG is various guises to provide longer range fire, if and when this is required. Lightning the FN MAG is seen as advantage to aim for, something the US Military have done with the M240L, but this is very expensive as it uses titanium parts to achieve this.
Partly that was as a result of using the short barreled Para version. Purchasing some longer barrels could make them far more effective.

User avatar
Tempest414
Senior Member
Posts: 5550
Joined: 04 Jan 2018, 23:39
France

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Tempest414 »

The biggest plus for the light MG is the ability to carry one round type i.e the 5.56 in a section this as said was found not to work due to the 5.56 round its self more than anything else not having the effect needed beyond 500 meters which is where any fire support weapon really need to start the effect of the 7.62 GPMG is massive between 500 and 1500 meters

The want for a single section round may be solved by a move to 6.8

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

The British Army carried out trials with the longer barrelled LMG to see if it would help matters and the results we not good, with little improvement in accuracy, or at the very least not up to the level required by the Army. Yes ordering the short barrelled "Para" version was a mistake, but that is all water under the bridge as further work by the Army led them to realise they could suppress an Enemy more effective and out to 600m by used accurate rifle fire from the L-85A2/A3. AS has been mentioned previously, it is recognised that for an opponent to be suppressed he or she has to feel rounds passing within a meter and repeatedly.

Yes having a common round is the way to go. When adopting the M249 SAW the US Army went with the rifle cartridge used my the M15A2 to achieve this. Now with the NGSW programme they are adopting a rifle, the M5 that uses the same cartridge as the M250 Automatic Rifle or LMG to most of us. This is because they see future infantry tactic revolving around the M250 and wanted a round that was trues effective in a Machine Gun, something the 5.56 wasn't according to teh US Army and the British Army.

The USMC have taken a route similar to the British Army and have replaced their M249s with M27s with good optics to allow their gunners to accurately engage target out to around 600m. They then purchase M27 for use as a DMR and now aim to make it their standard issue rifle, replacing the M16/M4 through the backdoor so to speak. Nor all units have completed this change though and how the results or the NGSW may affect things is unknown. Possibly M27s to service and support Marines and M5s and M250s to the Marine Infantry, just a thought.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

This looks a bit awkward to lug around...

https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/202 ... rt-weapon/

The latest incarnation can engage targets out to 900 meters with a range of different ammunition types. Details on the weapon are still thin and development of the SSW40 is set to be completed in 2023.
These users liked the author Little J for the post:
jedibeeftrix

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Agreed. You can give anyone an M320 stand alone GL, as the US Marines and Army have done, replacing many of their older M203s. It is very light and is not restricted on the length of 40 Grenades it can use. This may be a better alternative to the L123A3 underslung grenade launcher currently issued.

mr.fred
Senior Member
Posts: 1468
Joined: 06 May 2015, 22:53
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by mr.fred »

Lord Jim wrote: 17 Jun 2022, 23:19 ou can give anyone an M320 stand alone GL, as the US Marines and Army have done, replacing many of their older M203s. It is very light and is not restricted on the length of 40 Grenades it can use. This may be a better alternative to the L123A3 underslung grenade launcher currently issued.
You realise that the M320 and the L123 are the same H&K launcher? Making it standalone in UK service would only require the shoulder stock
These users liked the author mr.fred for the post (total 2):
RunningStrongTimmymagic

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Yes, although I believe the barrel of the M320 is slightly shorter to make it more compact, which amongst other things makes the M320 lighter than taking the G/L of a L123 and adding the stock. However the main point was that having a stand alone Grenade launcher may be the way forward, as it can be used by anyone in the Section and it plus standard L85A3 does way less tan the combined L123AA3. It would also be an easy change to implement and not cost too much.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

With a little (a lot ) bit of envy you look of this program that has passed the halfway mark and think with admiration to the General Staff of the French Army who shielded this program from in this order:
Engineers who dreamed for the Starship troopers gun.
Procurement Authority burocrats who didn't know what they were doing.
Inerested Members of Parliament who lobbied for their small local gunsmith .
Fn-Herstal management who thought they had this thing looked up .
In the end the results speak for themselves.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Little J wrote: 17 Jun 2022, 17:59 This looks a bit awkward to lug around...
Agree, but the TFB text has this part (from the manufacturer) to 'explain'
"Due to the 40mm MV ammunition, the development of the SSW40 is closely related to the turret independent secondary weapon system (TSWA, Turmunabhängige Sekundärwaffenanlage in German) for the Puma infantry fighting vehicle. The TSWA enables the engagement of targets in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle"
- reminds me of (at least) the early versions of Merkava, which had a 60mm(?) mortar in addition to the MG, to protect the immediate vicinity of the vehicle. The former operated by the commander (as envisaged to be needed only in special situations)
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)

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

When you travel in style!!!!
H&K416f

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by jimthelad »

Still couldn't hit a barn door at 200m though.

Little J
Member
Posts: 973
Joined: 02 May 2015, 14:35
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Little J »

The rifle or the user?

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 507
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by jimthelad »

Possibly both! Definitely the rifle.

leonard
Member
Posts: 191
Joined: 21 May 2016, 17:52
Italy

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by leonard »

In seeing this offical photo presentation you begin to ask when to much is becoming the new normal ??????

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

"How much", is the complex equation most Militaries are now facing. We wnat individual sodiers to have many capabilities which at present are provided by equipment that weighs too much and is too bulky. Over time things will improve in both thse criteria as well as the size and number of batteries needed. However we need to load up troops now so that we work out how to use them when equipped so, and learn what is essential and what will be nice to have. Optics are going to be especially important, both fitted to a individual weapon and to the soldiers helmet. The US Army is leading the way with this and it will be interesting to see how long it takes for others to follow. The British Army is in a god position on this as we should be replacing the L85A2/A3 around 2030 even though this is not officially part of the current Equipment plan. With home grown improvements to the vision enhancing capabilities for our Infantry's helmets and possible adoption of the US Army's M5 and M250 together wither their advanced optics and new rounds. Additionally we could rechamber the L7 to the new round or replace both it and the M2 .50cal With the LMG.338 being developed in the US for the same roles. The reduction in size and more flexible shape of batteries together with their longer lives will allow them to possible become integral within a Soldier's equipment vest. Foldable screens will allow for more convenient display options, as will the improvements of Helmet mounted displays. I predict the majority of these technologies will be in place by the beginning of the 0240s. but we need to get the basics in place by the beginning of the 2030s.
These users liked the author Lord Jim for the post:
leonard

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

Video from Forces News regarding the BAe Systems factory where the MoD has its ammunition made. Interesting regarding it only working at 50% capacity and the fact they have developed a light weight 5.56 round.

User avatar
Cooper
Member
Posts: 347
Joined: 01 May 2015, 08:11
Korea North

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Cooper »

To me, this just shows the vulnerability of our wartime supply chain.

All I see is a 'all our eggs in one basket' production facility, that in time of a major conflict would be targeted for destruction by all sorts missiles from the enemy.

One cruise missile launched from a Russian sub in the North Sea, getting through our pitiful defences, and boom, our ammunition production capability is gone for however many weeks/months it would take to get back online.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1432
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by NickC »

A possible future alternative method of making ammo, if to be believed more accurate and uses less powder and so cooler prolonging life of rifle/barrel ?


BB85
Member
Posts: 218
Joined: 09 Sep 2021, 20:17
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by BB85 »

When ammunition is so highly restricted and discouraged in terms of civilian sales we only have a big enough market to have one large scale manufacturer. There are plenty of factories in the US and Europe that could supply us as a back up.
I'm sure if we sourced our ammo directly from the US or Eastern Europe it would be a fraction of the price it is from BAE.
I believe UK ammo is amongst the best in Europe, is be curious to know if BAE is developing alternatives like this composite ammo that was considered for the US next squad rifle. It might need to meet nato dimension specs to be successful though. If it means reduced weight and recoil for the same muzzle velocity I could see a marker for it.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 7314
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Lord Jim »

IF BAe can produce one million rounds a week at half capacity, it does make one wonder if we have been increasing our ammunition reserves on the quiet for a while or shipping latge amount of 5.56 and 7.62 NATO to Ukraine. AS for what would happen if BAE System's site was taken out by enemy missiles, the US and NATO have reserves, increasing as we speak to cover a short period of time and there are numberous sites able to manufacture more if needed. The worrying shortage is in more advanced weaponry like NLAW, Javelin and LMM. WE have very low stocks at present and are replenishing them slowly only to original limits it seems. Our stocks need to be at a bear minimum the same as those we held in the 1970s and 1980s be ideally creater, together with the means to get them to the fornt line rapidly.

Caribbean
Senior Member
Posts: 2784
Joined: 09 Jan 2016, 19:08
United Kingdom

Re: Section Infantry Weapons

Post by Caribbean »

Interestingly, there seems to be something of an ammunition shortage in the UK (and the US) at the moment. Even pure target shooting calibres, like competition-grade .22LR are affected. I suspect much of it is to do with diverting propellant supplies to manufacturing ammunition for Ukraine, though one theory is that a lot of Americans are "prepping" for either WW3 or the next Civil War (depending on your political viewpoint).

Once again, I think the Government should look at re-opening UK production of propellants and other explosives - it's strategic capability that should never have been allowed to die.
The pessimist sees difficulty in every opportunity. The optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.
Winston Churchill

Post Reply