Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[daftandbarmy]

I'm still convinced by the research I've seen that the LMG is nothing but noise and comfort - it's an LMG employed as an automatic rifle.  The Marines seem big on the automatic rifle - there are some good reads from the Second World War on the typical sounds of an engagement.  Rifle fire (both Mauser and Enfield) until the spandau starts zipping.  Then wait for a bit, and Allied arty and mortars tend to finish it up.  Lesson - have a good machine gun but better mortars.... :facepalm: 

I'd rather see sections built around a GPMG and some sort of grenade launcher.  Crew served goodness and HE are what truely suppresses and wins engagements.  Have less guys in a section carrying linked 5.56mm and more 40mm grenades and 7.62 link.  As for a personal weapon, they don't appear to be very useful in an engagement - they basically need to protect the GPMG and the Grenade launcher.  The C8A2 is a suitable piece of kit - I wouldn't mind something even smaller (while still preserving the dignity of the Rifleman) that didn't puke all over itself everytime you pulled the trigger, but beggers can't be choosers.

Goodness me... the next thing you'll be advocating for is a larger section and a 60mm mortar integral to the platoon! 

 

[GK .Dundas]

Goodness me... the next thing you'll be advocating for is a larger section and a 60mm mortar integral to the platoon! 

And why not the U.S. Marine 13 man rifle squad has lot to recommend it and not just the fire power those three men provide. They also provide you with something I suspect a lot of us are loath to even discuss the ability to sustain casualties and continue to function as a combat capable unit. :2c:

 

[Journeyman]

Next the heretics will be recommending we'll be fielding rifle sections based upon what a vehicle may, or may not, hold.

 

[Infanteer]

7, 8, 9, 10 or 13 - I've seen the debate rage here and other places over what size a section should be.  I think I've said it here, but the number is pretty much a bean-counting device, and operations confirmed this to me when I sent out sections with every number between 5 and 15 to accomplish a task.

It's the tactics that count, and I feel at this point that a section built around a GPMG and a GL is a solid point to start for doctrine.  What the other 5 to 11 guys are doing is up to the section commander.

There is something to be said for the big squads of the Marines to absorb casualties.  That being said, it's hard to move that many guys tactically unless you are doing it in a big amphibious vehicle.

 

[GAP]

There is something to be said for the big squads of the Marines to absorb casualties.  That being said, it's hard to move that many guys tactically unless you are doing it in a big amphibious vehicle.

sniff....sniff.....sounds just like  old home week.....my battalion was an amtrac battalion, sigh...... ;D

 

[Dkeh]

Consider me ignorant, but what is the issue with a DM firing 7.62mm x 51mm?

They can be issued match grade ammo if required, or can use delinked C6 ammo in a pinch.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm still convinced by the research I've seen that the LMG is nothing but noise and comfort - it's an LMG employed as an automatic rifle.  The Marines seem big on the automatic rifle - there are some good reads from the Second World War on the typical sounds of an engagement.  Rifle fire (both Mauser and Enfield) until the spandau starts zipping.  Then wait for a bit, and Allied arty and mortars tend to finish it up.  Lesson - have a good machine gun but better mortars.... :facepalm: 

I'd rather see sections built around a GPMG and some sort of grenade launcher.  Crew served goodness and HE are what truely suppresses and wins engagements.  Have less guys in a section carrying linked 5.56mm and more 40mm grenades and 7.62 link.  As for a personal weapon, they don't appear to be very useful in an engagement - they basically need to protect the GPMG and the Grenade launcher.  The C8A2 is a suitable piece of kit - I wouldn't mind something even smaller (while still preserving the dignity of the Rifleman) that didn't puke all over itself everytime you pulled the trigger, but beggers can't be choosers.

This sounds a bit like pre 1980 sections, with the 2I/C in charge of the C-2 "det"; we could have the 2 C-9 gunners ditch the C-9's in favour of a GPMG or a Chinese 35mm grenade launcher (which is about the size and weight of a C6). Of course an even lighter GPMG would be better, and being me I would be all for a lightweight SF kit as well  (If we consider the standard for a platoon weapons det to have 2 X GPMG then this would bring a platoon to 5 X support weapons when everyone is on the ground). Section riflemen would have the 6.5mm LSAT rifle and reworked M-203 style grenade launchers (35mm grenades compatable with the AGL if practical, reworked grenades for a 500m range and flatter trajectory and M-25 type fuse and targetting system would be ideal).

Going one step further, place one GPMG in each section and have two lightweight grenade launchers with the support section to get the most bang for the buck (not giving up the MRAAW or 60mm by any means either); a GPMG can go into action very fast while the extra firepower of an AGL is best used with some more deliberation when setting up and under control of the PL 2I/C or Weapons det commander.

Dkeh, the big issue with the DM using a different rifle/calibre is logistical, plus the training bill to have yet another skill at pl and section level, plus the "Oh F**K" factor if the DM goes down for any reason. Harder hitting individual weapons (and the associated marksmanship skills) given to every section member would allow the section commander/platoon commander to deal with virtually every issue out to about 2Km in the dismounted role; if the bad guys open up engagements they are never beyond the reach of the soldier's weapons and anyone can respond right away.

 

[Dkeh]

Dkeh, the big issue with the DM using a different rifle/calibre is logistical, plus the training bill to have yet another skill at pl and section level, plus the "Oh F**K" factor if the DM goes down for any reason. Harder hitting individual weapons (and the associated marksmanship skills) given to every section member would allow the section commander/platoon commander to deal with virtually every issue out to about 2Km in the dismounted role; if the bad guys open up engagements they are never beyond the reach of the soldier's weapons and anyone can respond right away.

I can see the logistical issue of procuring new weapons systems, however if the caliber was the same at the GPMG, the rounds are already in the system, and easily procured.

In my mind, I don't see the DM as a specialty trade or asset (like a pioneer), rather, just a regular rifleman (who would normally be carrying just a C7) who scored well on their PWT, carrying a rifle with a larger punch. If, for example, they were using a C7-CT (which I admittedly do not know much about) there would be minimal additional training required to get everyone up to speed on the weapon system. Should the DM go down, the section/platoon commander can have another section member take up the DMR with minimal effort. I guess (in my opinion) the ideal DMR would function similarly enough to the C7 that the average soldier who does not need to fully strip the weapon down to its base components could operate it with minimal additional training, and would be chambered for the 7.62 x 51, to give it more of a punch at greater ranges / armored targets. Am I way out in left field here?

I fully agree with you, about additional support weapons being a great idea. An AGL or an extra GPMG would really add some punch to a section. To make up for the additional required ammo for the extra '6, have the DMR carry it ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

So tell me again.

What is wrong with the 7.62/.308/30-06/.303/7.92 generation of ammunition as a General Purpose round?  It has range.  It has stopping power.  It is workable for the close quarters battle when you want to punch through wood huts, North American Gyproc/OSB, and cinder blocks.  And it is portable by the PBI in useful quantities.

There is a place for smaller calibres / lighter weight rounds but what would be so wrong about just taking one step to the rear and issuing C6s and AR10s at the section level with Platoon Level C6s being equipped with SF kits?

For weapons  and vehicle crews there is always the FN P-90 PDW in 5.7mm.

 

[KevinB]

7mm CTA IW 16.5" bbl
7mm CTA LMG 16.5" bbl and 20" barrel
(800m capability, 1200m harassing/grazing fire capability)

6mm CTA PDW/Commander/Crew Weapon 8-10" bbl
(300m capbilty to outfight AK armed opponents)

8mm CTA MMG (around capabilities of .338LM)
(1600-2200m capability)

40mm CTA Medium Range MultiBarrel Dismount GL




Just saying  :bowing:




.260 is a nice flat paper range round -- it lacks currently useful rounds for Mil applications.  Its never going to replace 7.62x51 for Mil usage.

7x46mm UIAC is probably the best bet in a section/squad round for performance - ironically similar to the early Uk round for the EM-2

However if you go to a new cartridge - why would you not go CTA in a new style weapon?

as for the 5.7 FN gun -- honestly would you go to war with .22Mag ?  Its a pistol caliber gun -- if you want a long gun, pick a real long gun round -- dont half ass a compromise with a pistol crossover.
  I've seen real and related serious FTS from P90 lack of terminal performance.

  Jacksonville County Sherrif's Office withdrew it from SWAT usage after multiple failures, the USSS withdrew it. etc etc etc.
There is a memo out about the best way to ensure mission failure is to issue that weapon/ammo

I'm not writing that as a competitor - that was my attitude for years prior on the Hk Mp-7 and the FN P90 that the NATO idea of pistol and PDW ammo compatibility was STUPID - either you end up with a pistol that is heavy and uncontrollable due to to big a round, or you get the .17HMR/.22MAG type guns - and thats just as dumb.

 

[Kirkhill]

But the P90 worked so cool on Stargate !! ;D

OK, fair enough. It is a light round and the gun has rotate the ammunition through two axes to chamber a round.  What else could go wrong?

Having said that - is there another weapon out there that has short range stopping power, a large capacity magazine and doesn't have a lot of pointy corners that get in the way of the poor blighter carrying it while performing their primary function of delivering goodies in support of the infantry?

 

[Haligonian]

This sounds a bit like pre 1980 sections, with the 2I/C in charge of the C-2 "det"; we could have the 2 C-9 gunners ditch the C-9's in favour of a GPMG or a Chinese 35mm grenade launcher (which is about the size and weight of a C6). Of course an even lighter GPMG would be better, and being me I would be all for a lightweight SF kit as well  (If we consider the standard for a platoon weapons det to have 2 X GPMG then this would bring a platoon to 5 X support weapons when everyone is on the ground). Section riflemen would have the 6.5mm LSAT rifle and reworked M-203 style grenade launchers (35mm grenades compatable with the AGL if practical, reworked grenades for a 500m range and flatter trajectory and M-25 type fuse and targetting system would be ideal).

Going one step further, place one GPMG in each section and have two lightweight grenade launchers with the support section to get the most bang for the buck (not giving up the MRAAW or 60mm by any means either); a GPMG can go into action very fast while the extra firepower of an AGL is best used with some more deliberation when setting up and under control of the PL 2I/C or Weapons det commander.

Dkeh, the big issue with the DM using a different rifle/calibre is logistical, plus the training bill to have yet another skill at pl and section level, plus the "Oh F**K" factor if the DM goes down for any reason. Harder hitting individual weapons (and the associated marksmanship skills) given to every section member would allow the section commander/platoon commander to deal with virtually every issue out to about 2Km in the dismounted role; if the bad guys open up engagements they are never beyond the reach of the soldier's weapons and anyone can respond right away.

I'd put the M32 in the sects.  That would allow for some serious HE to go down range very quickly if necessary.  It also employs a nature of ammunition we already possess.  Although I am curious about the XM 25, however, I would wait until it is a proven commodity.

 

[a_majoor]

Putting the XM-25 fuse and rangefinder together with a larger calibre grenade (35-40mm) seems to have the best of both worlds; the 25mm may be suitable but isn't really proven yet, while you know someone will not like having the much bigger round going off overhead. (If the 25mm is to have a real role, I would actually suggest a belt or drum fed support weapon version; if one round isn't able to do the job a five round burst will certainly do).

Really, the PDW was developed back in the 1980's (evolving from much earlier work); a bullpup weapon in regular calibre keeps the same barrel and ammunition in a much shorter package. The EM-2 was the first practical weapon developed to use this idea, and the Steyr AUG was the first in service bullpup weapon adopted. In fact, the AUG had lots of innovative touches that make it perfect for service support pers who are not highly trained, including an ultra simple reticle (any target inside the circle from 0-300m will get hit), simple selector (safe and fire) and only goes to auto when the trigger is "snatched", which takes advantage of the startle reflex. Squeezing the trigger as taught provides single shots.

While this is a bit sideways from the main topic, bullpup or other compact weapons designs will also have an advantage for the regular soldiers, especially when working out of vehicles and helicopters, moving in complex terrain or in urban settings. Just ensure the barrel is long enough to provide acceptable terminal ballistics (especially since we now want our weapons to hit targets beyond 300m).

 

[Infanteer]

Just ensure the barrel is long enough to provide acceptable terminal ballistics (especially since we now want our weapons to hit targets beyond 300m).

Why?  Data shows that in an engagement, soldiers rarely (if ever) hit anything with a personal weapon.  Why should we waste time and energy designing a personal weapon we do not need?

 

[OldSolduer]

Why?  Data shows that in an engagement, soldiers rarely (if ever) hit anything with a personal weapon.  Why should we waste time and energy designing a personal weapon we do not need?

I agree. Machine guns and indirect fire do the killing, not the individual rifleman, unless he/she is a special ops type that needs a better weapon

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree. Machine guns and indirect fire do the killing, not the individual rifleman, unless he/she is a special ops type that needs a better weapon

So with what do you arm the guy that stands up and walks over to the enemy position to count the dead and take the names and addresses of the survivors? 

Perhaps a pointy stick?

 

[daftandbarmy]

IMHO, those who want to load the individual infatryman down with yet more 'combat bling', like a fancy schmancy OICWs etc, are giving up on the concept of the all arms battle. Based on my unscientific and fully biased observation, this tends to happen in armies that have been fighting COIN type conflicts, where there is more onus placed on the infantry to 'do it all'.

It would be nice to see a return to a more team based approach to fighting the ground battle that leaves the infantryman with as little extra gear/weapons as possible, including (sharp intake of breath) body armour.

Kind of like this guy:

 

[vonGarvin]

Remember these guys?

They caused us all sorts of grief from about 7 June 1944 onward for a spell.

Anyway, yes, as I often recall from my formative years as I was first joining the military, it's about a team approach. 

 

[KevinB]

Why?  Data shows that in an engagement, soldiers rarely (if ever) hit anything with a personal weapon.  Why should we waste time and energy designing a personal weapon we do not need?

Sharp stick it is...


Bullpups are ergonomic nightmares -- they seems like a good idea until issued...

*Uk Mod says the SA80 replacement WILL NOT BE A BULLPUP.



Frankly engagments will small arms and the hit probability is a training issue.
 

 

[OldSolduer]

So with what do you arm the guy that stands up and walks over to the enemy position to count the dead and take the names and addresses of the survivors? 

Perhaps a pointy stick?

Well that might work, but a good all purpose rifle would do the trick. NOT one decoarated with the latest kit - which adds to the load and the maintenance bill.

Frankly engagments will small arms and the hit probability is a training issue.
 

Partially true as well, PLUS Dr Grossman found out that some indidvidual soldiers will aim off during engagements.