UK Platoon Weapons and the Weight Capability Myth

[shauny1987]

I'm not sure how I came across this, I think I was looking for info on the modern British weapons because despite being British (and always paying interest to the military), the weapons used in CMBF were new to me!!!

I think it's a good read that has some good arguments, on the age old subject of the Infantry Weapon.

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Owen,_UK_Platoon_Weapons.pdf

Enjoy.

[dan/california]

Outstanding article! Are their any similar articles relating this subject to the amount of firepower on call at the company level? More mortars and/or ATGM type systems radically effect the overall lethality at range. What I am trying to say is can the infantry section get by with less firepower if the company weapon platoon has more?

[shauny1987]

Outstanding article! Are their any similar articles relating this subject to the amount of firepower on call at the company level? More mortars and/or ATGM type systems radically effect the overall lethality at range. What I am trying to say is can the infantry section get by with less firepower if the company weapon platoon has more?

Sounds like too specific a situation for anything i've seen. If i see anything similar though i'll post!

*thats British company level firepower over american platoon level argument isnt it? sounds like something that would have literature on it.

**have had a look around, haven't seen anything! I'd like to read about that too

[flamingknives]

There are a number of good articles on the RUSI website. This one:

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf

by Jim Storr is quite interesting.

If you want to know about British Infantry weapons, try this:

http://army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1457.aspx

The sharpshooter rifle and the shotguns are not modelled (both post-date CM:SF's time period) and the L96 sniper's rifle and the L2A1 ILAW is not covered (both are in CM:SF) but otherwise they are all in.

[shauny1987]

Joint Fires - The Challenges To Come

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/deakin_RDS_feb2010.pdf

Involves use of artillery and air.

[dan/california]

There are a number of good articles on the RUSI website. This one:

http://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Real_Role_of_Small_Arms_RDS_Summer_09.pdf

by Jim Storr is quite interesting.

If you want to know about British Infantry weapons, try this:

http://army.mod.uk/equipment/support-weapons/1457.aspx

The sharpshooter rifle and the shotguns are not modelled (both post-date CM:SF's time period) and the L96 sniper's rifle and the L2A1 ILAW is not covered (both are in CM:SF) but otherwise they are all in.

The first article quoted above is simply outstanding.

[shauny1987]

The first article quoted above is simply outstanding.

Indeed, that site is great!

[ScubaSam]

Interesting article, that platoon weapons one, but I'm not entirely convinced by his argument. He seems to initially advocate the LSW over the LMG, citing its increased accuracy combined with a supposed ability to cause the same amount of suppresion. This I would argue with - the LSW is magazine fed, and has no interchangable barrel system, both facts he has overlooked. It's fairly unsuited to the task of suppresion in the same way as an LMG or a GPMG.

The idea of replacing SA80s with PDWs like the MP7 or P90 I find a bit far fetched as well...surely replacing it with a weapon that is only effective out to 200m (because most engagements happen there) means that the same problem will reoccur (poor marksmanship + that weapon, meaning soldiers cannot hit anything at 200m) and you will end up with engagements taking place even closer, leading to you buying an even smaller weapon...and so on.

I think the UK could maybe do with something like the M32 Grenade launcher, mind. Though the chap carrying it might object to having it and an SA80, so perhaps theres room for some other weapon there.

[shauny1987]

The idea of replacing SA80s with PDWs like the MP7 or P90 I find a bit far fetched as well...surely replacing it with a weapon that is only effective out to 200m (because most engagements happen there) means that the same problem will reoccur (poor marksmanship + that weapon, meaning soldiers cannot hit anything at 200m) and you will end up with engagements taking place even closer, leading to you buying an even smaller weapon...and so on.

Cant agree more, I saw an article after stating the average engagement range in Afganistan was 300m-1000m, which wayyyyy throws out this argument IN CONTEMPORARY AND ONGOING CONFLICTS.

So yeah, agree completely Sam.

[Lethaface]

The MP7 is just much more slicker then any SA80 so thats obviously the reason

But there are plenty of arguments he didn't name, for example non standard munition logistic problems and of course hard $$$.

In my opinion ideally any troop formation should have a variety of weapons to choose from, which are decided ad hoc. Given that most infantry ride in a vehicle it should be possible to have every infantry soldier 'own' two weapons; for example an SA80 and a MP7. Then in situations where less weight is welcome (MOUT) and short ranges are expected, one could go for a MP7 whereas for patrolling mountain ridges the SA80 is selected.

This post will probably result in me being overthrown with logistical nightmare scenario's as well and the chaos that will result from troops having the option to choose from more then 1 weapon etc etc. However given all soldiers are Professionals and combined with the logistic might of western countries, I would say this should not be ruled out for asymmetric warfare.

Of course for full scale conventional warfare there is much to be said in favor of uniformity etcetera. However almost all the warfare in the last decades is asymmetric and it seems we didn't find a solution for that just yet. This might not be the silver bullet but I guess it doesn't hurt to think more outside the box and leave all wisdom from conventional warfare to what it is.

That is if we don't want Xe Services or the like do all our asymmetric fighting of course.

[vincere]

Interesting article, that platoon weapons one, but I'm not entirely convinced by his argument. He seems to initially advocate the LSW over the LMG, citing its increased accuracy combined with a supposed ability to cause the same amount of suppresion. This I would argue with - the LSW is magazine fed, and has no interchangable barrel system, both facts he has overlooked. It's fairly unsuited to the task of suppresion in the same way as an LMG or a GPMG.

The idea of replacing SA80s with PDWs like the MP7 or P90 I find a bit far fetched as well...surely replacing it with a weapon that is only effective out to 200m (because most engagements happen there) means that the same problem will reoccur (poor marksmanship + that weapon, meaning soldiers cannot hit anything at 200m) and you will end up with engagements taking place even closer, leading to you buying an even smaller weapon...and so on.

I think the UK could maybe do with something like the M32 Grenade launcher, mind. Though the chap carrying it might object to having it and an SA80, so perhaps theres room for some other weapon there.

Similarly, he cites a test of x rounds per minute passing a single target. Yes the LSW may be better performing in that test but real world would have more targets and the target moving too. The belt fed LMG wins at this, and as you have said sustaining the rate for longer.

That said good debate prevoking article.

[c3k]

Interesting articles. The danger is, as just posted, assuming that past trends equal future certainties.

If I knew I was engaging a force which only had effective small arms engagement ranges up to 200 meters, I'd ensure my weapon and men were effective at 201 meters and break off any fight which closes in. Yeah, easier to do on a whiteboard than in real life, but every decision has a consequence.

If, in general, small arms do not contribute anything to the fight (a gross simplification of the argument), why not give every member of the section extra 40mm grenades, LMG ammo, and just a personal side arm? That way the effective weapons (grenade launchers and support weapons, be they LMG's or heavy barrelled rifles) get more ammo.

In the recent Iraq fighting, what has the average engagement range been? There's been a lot of door to door action, so that makes it around 10 meters?

At some point, it the range dimunition argument needs to stop.

Also, a tiny weapon ignores the psychological dimension. It feels good to carry a club to a fight. (Sure, YOU feel good with your club, I'll carry a handgun.) But a weapon with some size and heft adds an intangible level of confidence over one like the MP-7 pictured. (This has NOTHING to do with objective effectiveness; this focuses on operator subjectiveness.)

Good stuff, nonetheless. Thanks for the links.

Regards,

Ken

[shauny1987]

This post will probably result in me being overthrown with logistical nightmare scenario's as well and the chaos that will result from troops having the option to choose from more then 1 weapon etc etc. However given all soldiers are Professionals and combined with the logistic might of western countries, I would say this should not be ruled out for asymmetric warfare.

I hate to prove you right, but a squad (especially a British one) having several different ammunition types just doesnt seem to effective.

Surely easier logistics would counteract any benefit gained by the addition of one or 2 MP7's in a squad?

[ScubaSam]

I'm surprised the SA80 L22 Carbine never really took off outside the tank world...A lighter rifle for guys carrying 51mm mortars / anti-tank weapons / extra ammunition for comrades might make sense.

It is a fair point that the SA80 is bloody heavy...I've heard weight was actually *added* to the front in order to achieve the right balance in the operators hands, what with it being a bullpup and all. I do love the stat about it having greater barrel length than an M16 while being shorter overall than an M4...but those two weapons are featherweight in comparison.

[Lethaface]

shauny1987,

I didn't meant one or two MP7's, more like 6x MP7, 1x Minimi and 1x Marksman rifle for example.

The point was more that obviously weapons for CQB are not good for long distance engagements, and vice versa. Given the professional soldiers and available logistics it could be possible to provide all soldiers deployed in conflict zones a choice per mission.

And regarding logistics; if a danger close precision dropping of a 2.000lb JDAM bomb is no logistics nightmare, why should a drop of 2.000lb of 5.7 ammo be one?

--

Edit: I didn't mean that squads have to carry two types of ammunition with them all the time, everywhere. However that doesn't mean that the same net results can't be achieved using vehicles, base supplies, etcetera.

The weight thing is quite important as well in my opinion. Try playing a game of mout paint ball with you in full combat gear VS a guy in a t-shirt and shortpants only. I bet he'll be running circles around you. When I see modern soldiers I often ponder how they could even look around in that bulky suit of theirs, with pockets and thingies sticking out everywhere. It must feel like a walking cage

2nd Edit: To make my vague post a bit more clear; NATO armies are adapted to asymmetric warfare but not designed to fight asymmetric warfare. Many counter arguments against specific proposed changes are based on cognitions from conventional warfare. While these cognitions are presumably still valid, they aren't applicable to every conflict.

Since I am not even an amateur in this field I do not know if my suggestion would be any good. I'm just trying to look at the problem logically and go from there

[shauny1987]

shauny1987,

I didn't meant one or two MP7's, more like 6x MP7, 1x Minimi and 1x Marksman rifle for example.

The point was more that obviously weapons for CQB are not good for long distance engagements, and vice versa. Given the professional soldiers and available logistics it could be possible to provide all soldiers deployed in conflict zones a choice per mission.

And regarding logistics; if a danger close precision dropping of a 2.000lb JDAM bomb is no logistics nightmare, why should a drop of 2.000lb of 5.7 ammo be one?

--

Edit: I didn't mean that squads have to carry two types of ammunition with them all the time, everywhere. However that doesn't mean that the same net results can't be achieved using vehicles, base supplies, etcetera.

The weight thing is quite important as well in my opinion. Try playing a game of mout paint ball with you in full combat gear VS a guy in a t-shirt and shortpants only. I bet he'll be running circles around you. When I see modern soldiers I often ponder how they could even look around in that bulky suit of theirs, with pockets and thingies sticking out everywhere. It must feel like a walking cage

Oh fair enough, my bad

[dan/california]

I am all for wining the war we are currently fighting, and increasing the effective range of infantry squads in Afghanistan is important. However the odds of the next cluster#$&$$ being somewhere that has both extremely long lines of sight and the same level of impassibility to mechanized forces is rather low. It worth keeping the discussion open about what is the ideal mix in more "average" situations. The article on suppression above is the best explanation I have ever read on the subject, and the only one with good quantitative data.

Indeed, based on the troop and fire densities in Afghanistan at the common ranges in which engagements occur, it is almost unique in the LOW percentage of time troops on both sides spend in the somewhat suppressed state common in most other conflicts. The application of air and artillery is obviously the exception to this rule when the communications loop can be closed in time to bring fires to bear.

[Ryujin]

It seems like jumping all the way back SMGs might be a bit too much. While the MP7/P90 mentioned have more of "mini rifle rounds" with an effective range of about 200m, since most engagements occur under 300m, it seems like it would be a stretch at times for the SMG. But if you give up on actually hitting the target at 300m, I guess it might still be effective. Perhaps a purpose designed weapon and round would be best.

I'm more a fan of spending ridiculous amounts of money to address the whole missing the target by 6 meters in the first place. Things like powered exoskeletons capable of lifting hundreds of pounds and integrated fire control/stabilization. Make em lethally accurate and weight a non-issue. It'd be mere billions to outfit a battalion I'd imagine. Nobody liked all those other government programs anyway .

[Secondbrooks]

Funny thing is that PDWs would suit for moving assault soldiers which job is to get close and use surprise and swift action to overcome enemy defenses... Is western soldier already overly burdened for that? Will he be swift and determed for resolving charge after 200-300 meters of crawling? Or will he be just sack of sweat and heavily breathing bones which isn't able to think straight or challenge enemy in close combat. I personally don't believe so, weights have already gone over the top.

Other than that interesting idea.

[dan/california]

It seems like jumping all the way back SMGs might be a bit too much. While the MP7/P90 mentioned have more of "mini rifle rounds" with an effective range of about 200m, since most engagements occur under 300m, it seems like it would be a stretch at times for the SMG. But if you give up on actually hitting the target at 300m, I guess it might still be effective. Perhaps a purpose designed weapon and round would be best.

I'm more a fan of spending ridiculous amounts of money to address the whole missing the target by 6 meters in the first place. Things like powered exoskeletons capable of lifting hundreds of pounds and integrated fire control/stabilization. Make em lethally accurate and weight a non-issue. It'd be mere billions to outfit a battalion I'd imagine. Nobody liked all those other government programs anyway .

When the quoted cost of keeping a soldier in the Stan is a cool one million a year, is there ANY piece of kit for squaddie that is too expensive? I mean another 50 or 100 grand in equipment is irrelevant compared to that number. Even more so if there is any possibility of the gear in question lasting even two deployments

[dan/california]

An exoskeleton with a fully automatic, fully stabilized, fully computerized 7.62 and a grenade launcher would surely put the fear of god in them don't you think. The real trick would be if the gun can lean back so it can be fired from a prone position. Oh and a shot finder system networked thru the whole squad, with an option for automatically laying the gun on detected shooters.

Make me stop, I am enjoying this too much.

[dan/california]

On a related note, the XM-25 grenade launcher was supposed to go the sandbox for a combat evaluation this summer but I haven't heard a peep about how its going.

XM-25 link

http://defensetech.org/?s=xm-25&x=0&y=0

Personnel shot finder

http://defensetech.org/category/soldier-systems/