Platoon Weapons

[Compost]

Due to lack of alternate views on the 8.59mm LWMMG it seems appropriate to change a query of 23 May into a prediction: LWMMG is intended as a MG for sniper teams. After all US snipers do not currently employ many rifles chambered for the 250 grain 8.59mm Lapua Magnum. So assuming a US military intention that its 8.59mm sniper rifles will in future be standardized on the shorter cased 300 grain Norma Magnum cartridge, the LWMMG and its lightweight ‘Norma Magnum’ barrel make reasonable sense.

One associated development is that US snipers and also marksmen will possibly cease using 7.62mm Magnum (.308 Winchester Magnum) rifles. More importantly it suggests substantial changes in sniper doctrine and operations.

[ganulv]

One associated development is that US snipers and also marksmen will possibly cease using 7.62mm Magnum (.308 Winchester Magnum) rifles. More importantly it suggests substantial changes in sniper doctrine and operations.

The option of a single weapon well-suited for use by snipers, designated marksmen, and machine gunners could be a very good thing. But it could be a very bad thing if that leads the three roles to be bundled.

[Compost]

The option of a single weapon well-suited for use by snipers, designated marksmen, and machine gunners could be a very good thing. But it could be a very bad thing if that leads the three roles to be bundled.

Although some US marksmen have been using 7.62mm Magnum rifles there is hopefully no prospect of their being issued 8.59mm rifles. Believe a marksman as member of an infantry squad should be almost invariably armed with a weapon that fires the same ammunition - either 7.62mm NATO or possibly 5.56mm NATO - already used within the squad or platoon, and issued with match-grade rounds when available. It is also unlikely that any army would routinely weigh down a marksman or sharpshooter with an extended-range weapon weighing more than 10kg.

Contrastingly a strong argument that can be made for common but distinctive and non-‘bundled’ use of an extended-range MG by infantry companies when fitted with a ‘heavy barrel’, and by sniper teams with a ‘light barrel’.

My small army viewpoint is that 8.59mm is an awkward calibre for general use and inferior to a modern 7.62mm magnum cartridge such as the Winchester Short Magnum. However, thinking long and hard about the above post indicates that another viewpoint could see awkwardness as a goal and as justification. And if GD’s basic LWMMG proves to be both reliable and robust then it could in 8.59mm become a real goer for a large army.

Possibly some corporate or other has been reading Machiavelli and caused GD to seek multi-mode overmatch with its 8.59mm MG. The justification being that an opposing force with less capable logistics would be unable to field and support a large number of an extended-range MG intermediate between the usual 7.62mm and 12.7mm varieties. A possible response or reaction to that would be to succeed/replace a 12.7mm cartridge and MG by something a bit smaller and more portable that would nonetheless over-match an 8.59mm MG. However such a cartridge and MG would be in some ways inferior to the 12.7mm M2/M3 Browning and especially one with SLAP-type ammunition.

Ultimately the question of 8.59mm is just another iteration of the problem that affects infantry: how to rationalise and employ to advantage some family of modern rifle/MG calibres and cartridges. And it is finally apparent that small army and large army viewpoints could be very different.

[carl]

The January 28, 2013 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page DT5 has this to say about one of the reasons the British Army recently decided to replace the Browning High Power with the Glock 17 pistol, "...the sliding fire mechanism means less recoil, allowing greater accuracy when shooting at a higher cadence...".

So that is why those things are designed like that.

(I wonder how Ian Hogg would have responded to that statement.)

[Compost]

All4shooters website has recently added a well-assembled summary on GDs LWMMG.
See http://www.all4shooters.com/en/news/...rosatory-2014/

An accompanying video shows muzzle jump off the lightweight tripod and also vehicle mounts, but seemingly less off the bipod. The apparent lack of success on the sales front might be partly explained by a lack of linear attachment buffers or by a need for some heavier form of softmounting.

[Biggus]

The January 28, 2013 edition of Aviation Week and Space Technology on page DT5 has this to say about one of the reasons the British Army recently decided to replace the Browning High Power with the Glock 17 pistol, "...the sliding fire mechanism means less recoil, allowing greater accuracy when shooting at a higher cadence...".

So that is why those things are designed like that.

(I wonder how Ian Hogg would have responded to that statement.)

I sense the spirit of John Moses Browning spinning in his grave every time I read that sentence.

I see merit in having light machine guns and precision rifles in a common calibre, but only in the sense that in an emergency, the precision rifleman might have a source of ammunition in lieu of what would always be high-cost, high precision equivalents. I can't imagine an infantry platoon would enjoy humping a belt-fed .338 instead of a 7.62x51mm.

The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.

[Compost]

The one glaring ammunition issue that I can see that would benefit very quickly from minimal changes is in relation to 40mm UGL ammunition. I'd like to see a longer range 40x46mm round adopted, such as the MEI Mercury. It is probably the best stand-in for the old 51mm mortars as used by the British Army of yesteryear, and it imposes a very modest weight penalty for nearly twice the range.

Brit Army revealed intention to test 40x46 Extended Range and compatible ammunition back in Oct 2013. See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOT...3:TEXT:EN:HTML

Meanwhile US Army has seemed with little publicity to be perservering with XM-25. Junior members of ABCA may have been simply waiting a decision or decisions by the seniors.

However it is worth noting that on 12 Sep 2013 Australian Munitions – a subsidiary of Thales - released a media statement regarding an agreement with STK of Singapore “ to cooperate in Australia and New Zealand for the development, manufacturing and marketing of ST Kinetics’ world-leading 40mm low velocity, extended range, and air bursting ammunition. " http://www.australian-munitions.com....0Australia.pdf

Six weeks later on 22 October 2013 STK announced sale of 40mm HV ammunition to Canada, and also that STK 40mm LV airburst (possibly LV/ER airburst) ammunition had been selected for the US Army Foreign Comparative Testing program. http://www.stengg.com/press-centre/p...40mm-solutions

Have not found any recent internet mention of ABCA interest in 40x46mm LV/ER or 40x51mm MV ammunition.

[max velocity]

New to the forum, love this kind of discussion. I will admit that I have not read every post in the threat, but I am primarily interested in commenting on the original article and discussion of platoon weapons and weight.

I am a former Parachute Regiment officer and one time platoon commander. I find the article very interesting and well informed and I think this discussion is worthwhile. I remember internally within the Regiment there were several discussions about reorganizing the fire team, section and platoon concept. I have a slightly different approach in regards to what the author proposes:

I am loathe to move to an IW system that gives up the ability to reach out at ranges beyond 200. I think that the enemy should be engaged at the greatest range possible to touch them before they can touch you, and we need the capability to do so, even if statistics say that most SAF engagements take place within 200 meters. Let's not give up the ability to shoot!

Weight is definitely an issue for an infantryman, but I don't think we should reduce capability by saving weight on weapons systems. Currently there is a tendency for an infantryman to be a "turtle" with so much armor and equipment that he loses mobility. I would propose that within budget contraints we save weight in other areas of equipment such as body armor, radios, batteries, ECM equipment, utilizing better technology to reduce weight. Body armor is a prime example. I would happily save weight in that area so I could carry bigger weapons and more ammo!

I like the 8 man section/squad concept. In order to be able to maneuver effectively the two fireteams need to be balanced and mobile. I am a fan of the use of the SAW/minimi one per fireteam, the other weapon systems being an accurate IW such as the SA80 A2 or the M4. One of those per team should have an UGL mounted. I think this is the ideal situation. The SAW can be used at both long and short ranges and can generate effective and accurate morale boosting firepower that will help facilitate suppression and movement.

The "Gun"! GPMG/MAG/240B. Excellent. Nothing better than the beat of the gun in fire support. We are talking about platoon weapons so the discussion does not just rest at section level. I used to utilize amended platoon battle drills involving having one or two GPMG gun teams held at platoon level to allow me to influence the battle. With current technology this could take the form of a fourth fire support section at platoon level (this was discussed, not sure what happened to it, writing from the US). This could consist of suitable weapons such as the GPMG and grenade launchers or similar, which would also negate the need for the 51mm mortar, or you could include that in the new fire support section or leave it with the platoon sergeant. Don't forget the utility of ATVs for dismounted operations and the carriage of heavy crew served weapons and ammunition, in appropriate circumstances.

The Parachute Regiment routinely carried the GPMG at section level. If there are a couple of two man gun groups at platoon level, or a fire support section, then this allows the platoon commander to either deploy them to support by fire at a platoon level, or attach a gun group to a section for specific operations, perhaps detached from the platoon, making a ten man section.