Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[Kirkhill]

If they start playing with those beasties I hope somebody held onto a few cluster munitions for counter-battery work.

 

[OldSolduer]

If they start playing with those beasties I hope somebody held onto a few cluster munitions for counter-battery work.

Cluster munitions ......the next thing the soft headed sheep will want banned, but only for us.

 

[Scoobie Newbie]

I Believe we are banned from using them and they have a high failure rate.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm pretty sure your right on the ban Sheep Dog.  Hamish's wooly heads got there first. 

High failure rate or not plastering an open field like those in the Ukraine would have to be more than marginally effective at reducing the incidence of repeat actions.

But, as Thucydides noted, we're no longer talking light support.

 

[GnyHwy]

I Believe we are banned from using them and they have a high failure rate.

I think they've got it down to <1% now, but anything more than 0 is a high rate in some people's minds.

Using the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vF-WvIL82Q as a reference, they fired 40 missiles each for a total of 160.  If they were cluster munitions with about 200 bomblets in them, using a 0.5% failure, you would end up with 160 UXOs in the target area, therefore making it contaminated, which is fine I guess, if you don't need to go there.

There can also be self destruct functions to make the number lower, but still not guaranteed to be 0.

While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...

If we're gonna hijack the thread, it might as well be with rockets. 

 

[AmmoTech90]

Here's a video about the separatist Luhansk EOD unit showing what they've recovered.  See 4:49, 5:48, 6:25, and 6:46 for examples of submunitions and rocket bodies/carriers.  There has been indiscriminate use on both sides of Grad, Uragan, and Smerch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=utDFZqtLqJ4

Canada has passed legislation making us a party to the Convention on Cluster Munition as of last June.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

While rocket artillery is impressive as hell, it is a bit difficult to see how it fits in as a "light" support weapon...

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_63_multiple_rocket_launcher

and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mumt5M0gusE

 

[a_majoor]

this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_63_multiple_rocket_launcher

and this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mumt5M0gusE

It's still 602kg, so it is in the same class as a C-16 

 

[a_majoor]

I didn't find the thread for the proposed new Infantry weapon that DRDC is working on, but here is a bit of an update with some embedded videos. The one about the weapon itself isn't very informative (although a single device with a 40mm grenade launcher, a shotgun and a 5.56 rifle seems a bit unwieldy. I would have split the difference by having the "shotgun" barrel and multi purpose ammunition that the user could select. There is a 12 gauge "grenade" round already, and having a sabot around one or more flechettes fired from a shotgun was actually the inspiration for the ill fated SPIWS system back in the 1960's (while the shotgun with flechettes worked reasonably well, the rifle firing flechettes ran into multiple difficulties).

Some other embedded videos of various bull pup weapons designs as well, for those who are interested.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/canadas-possible-future-rifle-that.html

Canada's possible future rifle that shoots standard NATO round, shotgun shell and grenade ammo

Canadian Forces through the Soldier Integrated Precision Effects Systems (SIPES) project have developed next generation prototype gun. A bullpup design that features the ability to install either a three round 40 mm grenade launcher, or a 12-gauge shotgun. The next phase will feature a TrackingPoint style system to automatically detect targets and assist in engaging them. When optimized, the integrated weapon prototype could weigh less than a C7 equipped with a M203 grenade launcher, reducing the burden on soldiers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uKDqFsmeIU

A “bullpup gun means the magazine is fed into the gun behind the trigger rather than in front. The main effect of the bullpup design is that rifles can be shorter without losing any effectiveness. The gun can install either a three-round grenade launcher or a shotgun. Shotguns are useful in close quarters, while grenade launchers give more range than just hand-tossing a small explosive. The main gun fires 5.56 ammo, a standard NATO round.

A video with three other bullpup guns

Steyr AUG vs. FN 2000 vs. IWI TAVOR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYzwUsnryTo

IWI Tavor was favored by the reviewer. He explains how the bullpup design allows for a more compact rifle while still leaving a longer barrel.

The Steyr AUG (selected in 1977) is often cited as the first successful bullpup, finding service with the armed forces of over twenty countries, and becoming the primary rifle of Austria and Australia. It was highly advanced for the 1970s, combining in the same weapon the bullpup configuration, a polymer housing, dual vertical grips, an optical sight as standard, and a modular design. Highly reliable, light, and accurate, the Steyr AUG showed clearly the potential of the bullpup layout.

The IWI Tavor is the Israeli Battle Rifle.

The Singaporean SAR 21 addressed one flaw of bullpup rifles by using a stiff sliding plate to improve the quality of trigger pull, and by using a shell deflector to achieve a slightly ambidextrous weapon.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I didn't find the thread for the proposed new Infantry weapon that DRDC is working on, but here is a bit of an update with some embedded videos. The one about the weapon itself isn't very informative (although a single device with a 40mm grenade launcher, a shotgun and a 5.56 rifle seems a bit unwieldy. I would have split the difference by having the "shotgun" barrel and multi purpose ammunition that the user could select. There is a 12 gauge "grenade" round already, and having a sabot around one or more flechettes fired from a shotgun was actually the inspiration for the ill fated SPIWS system back in the 1960's (while the shotgun with flechettes worked reasonably well, the rifle firing flechettes ran into multiple difficulties).

Some other embedded videos of various bull pup weapons designs as well, for those who are interested.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/05/canadas-possible-future-rifle-that.html

Canada's possible future rifle that shoots standard NATO round, shotgun shell and grenade ammo

Canadian Forces through the Soldier Integrated Precision Effects Systems (SIPES) project have developed next generation prototype gun. A bullpup design that features the ability to install either a three round 40 mm grenade launcher, or a 12-gauge shotgun. The next phase will feature a TrackingPoint style system to automatically detect targets and assist in engaging them. When optimized, the integrated weapon prototype could weigh less than a C7 equipped with a M203 grenade launcher, reducing the burden on soldiers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uKDqFsmeIU

A “bullpup gun means the magazine is fed into the gun behind the trigger rather than in front. The main effect of the bullpup design is that rifles can be shorter without losing any effectiveness. The gun can install either a three-round grenade launcher or a shotgun. Shotguns are useful in close quarters, while grenade launchers give more range than just hand-tossing a small explosive. The main gun fires 5.56 ammo, a standard NATO round.

A video with three other bullpup guns

Steyr AUG vs. FN 2000 vs. IWI TAVOR

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYzwUsnryTo

IWI Tavor was favored by the reviewer. He explains how the bullpup design allows for a more compact rifle while still leaving a longer barrel.

The Steyr AUG (selected in 1977) is often cited as the first successful bullpup, finding service with the armed forces of over twenty countries, and becoming the primary rifle of Austria and Australia. It was highly advanced for the 1970s, combining in the same weapon the bullpup configuration, a polymer housing, dual vertical grips, an optical sight as standard, and a modular design. Highly reliable, light, and accurate, the Steyr AUG showed clearly the potential of the bullpup layout.

The IWI Tavor is the Israeli Battle Rifle.

The Singaporean SAR 21 addressed one flaw of bullpup rifles by using a stiff sliding plate to improve the quality of trigger pull, and by using a shell deflector to achieve a slightly ambidextrous weapon.

I used the SA 80 a lot in the UK. I officially hate the bull pup thing.

Spending hundreds of hours on patrol with it killed my right arm. It was like carrying an 11 lb pistol.

I assume that this 'Swiss Army Rifle' will be a case of a horse designed by committee i.e., a camel.

If we have enough of the right artillery and mortars available, we can forget about all the add ons ...  :nod:

 

[a_majoor]

Not every weapon is as awful as the SA-80. I have had the opportunity to use the Styer AUG and found it to be light and well balanced. Changing magazines was a bit off at first, but I think with enough repetitions of the drill it would have become quite fluid. The built in carrying handle sight was a harder thing to get used to, but most AUG's have done away with that today.

The video comparing the AUG, Tavor and FN-2000 was interesting, but I would have to have the item in my hand to actually render judgement (besides it having a high LCF). The approach the FN 2000 took seems to have been to answer every objection to bullpups, from its very smooth design (no snagging inside vehicles, helicopters or confined spaces) to the ejection tube throwing casings out the front. My understanding of the Tavor is it has most of the controls in the same spots you would find on an M-16 family weapon, meaning conversion would be rather quick.

Getting back to the new "rifle", I would rather see something along the lines of the XM-25 as a section support weapon, using a much larger magazine and hopefully being much more affordable that the current iteration of the XM-25 idea.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Not every weapon is as awful as the SA-80. I have had the opportunity to use the Styer AUG and found it to be light and well balanced. Changing magazines was a bit off at first, but I think with enough repetitions of the drill it would have become quite fluid. the built in carrying handle sight was a harder thing to get used to, but most AUG's have done away with that today.

The video comparing the AUG, Tavor and FN-2000 was interesting, but I would have to have the item in my hand to actually render judgement (besides it having a high LCF). The approach the FN 2000 took seems to have been to answer every objection to bullpups, from its very smooth design (no snagging inside vehicles, helicopters or confined spaces) to the ejection tube throwing casings out the front. My understanding of the Tavor is it has most of the controls in the same spots you would find on an M-16 family weapon, meaning conversion would be rather quick.

Getting back to the new "rifle", I would rather see something along the lines of the XM-25 as a section support weapon, using a much larger magazine and hopefully being much more affordable that the current iteration of the XM-25 idea.

No.

The C7/M203 is a good infantry weapon. I would take it over the SA 80 in a heartbeat. The SAS & SBS did.

When armies try to jazz up the basic killing arm of the 'close with a destroy' gang, it usually has something to do with saving $ by getting rid of the things that really win the big wars like artillery, heavy machine guns, auto-cannon, mortars, engineer/ pioneers, and the right kind of armored and air support.

If you want to make our rifle better, give us a bayonet that doesn't break (which it does with alarming frequency) because, in the end, the rifle is merely a club and a spear. Especially for the infantry.

And now that they gave us a coat hanger for a rifle stock, the 'stabbing thing' will likely have to take up the slack.

 

[Kirkhill]

I sense conflicting requirements:

Clubs work best with lots of mass.
Rifles are being designed with less mass to handle more ammunition.

On the other hand - a rifle with more mass will absorb more recoil (and shot more accurately?).

As for sharp pointy things - they should be sharp and pointy (and mounted flat to slip between the ribs).

 

[a_majoor]

I suspect any radical new weapon is going to be built around a radical new ammunition technology. Caseless or telescoping cased ammunition (like the LSAT) is one way to go, giving soldiers the ability to carry more ammunition ("when I was a private, I carried 100lbs of really heavy stuff. Now thanks to modern technology, I can carry 100lbs of really light stuff instead...).

The more I think of it, the more I am inclined towards the idea of explosive ammunition rather than causeless ammunition. LSAT type weapons don't deliver fundamentally different end effects from any automatic rifle developed since the StG 44, and like any rifle, depend on very rigorous training to to be used well. Given the realities of training these days, I don't see the sort of intensive training needed to make good riflemen coming back. (How many people have been to the range more than once a year, for example?)

Explosive ammunition also allows the section to deal with some sorts of targets right away without calling on platoon, company or higher level weapons. (As an aside, other weapons like the mini Spike Anti Personnel Guided Missile are man portable at the section level, and allow the section to suppress or destroy things like enemy machine guns at ranges of up to 1200m in the current form). As we evolve towards distributed operations (wether we like it or not), being able to deal with a wide range of targets immediately and by yourself is going to be more and more important. Waiting for a super long range FOG-M launched 60 km away might not be a viable option for a section or platoon taking fire right now.

 

[NavyShooter]

I will interject with a half-memory of something I read a while ago.

The ability to win a battle is significantly increased not by application of bullets, but by application of High Explosives.

Moving HE capability down the tree to a lower level makes sub-units that much more capable.

NS

 

[daftandbarmy]

I will interject with a half-memory of something I read a while ago.

The ability to win a battle is significantly increased not by application of bullets, but by application of High Explosives.

Moving HE capability down the tree to a lower level makes sub-units that much more capable.

NS

At the risk of re-opening cans of worms, that HE capability used to be available in the form of the 60mm MOR.  ;D

And I believe that explosive bullets are banned under the Hague Convention.

Ultimately, the infantry can not fight alone and win. No one can.

IMHO the effort to further 'trick out' our basic rifle is evidence of a failure at the highest level to integrate the combat arms team successfully, with the result that empire building has taken over and shows up by having them foist something on us that looks like it was drawn from the Mobile Infantry's weapons lock up.

 

[a_majoor]

While I fully agree that a 60mm mortar is an ideal infantry weapon from most perspectives, for the moment we don't have any....

The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 bans the use of exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams which can explode inside a human body. This does not apply to automatic cannon or artillery, and given current technology, a 400 gram projectile with an explosive charge would be quite lethal to unarmoured or otherwise unprotected soldiers.

The final point about integration is not quite correct. Looking at history, a great many supporting weapons have been introduced over the centuries. Initially they were separate arms or housed in separate subunits, but have gradually become subsumed into the Infantry. The oldest example would be the Pike; separate units of pikes were incorporated into units during the introduction of gunpowder to protect the Arquebusiers from Cavalry and enemy Infantry while they reloaded. Eventually, the pikes were replaced as firearms became more reliable and the weight of fire counted more for combat. Since Infantry still needed close protection, the bayonet was developed to turn the gun itself into a pike. Similar progression has been made in the form of machine-guns (formerly in separate battalions, now each section has two light machine guns and a dismounted platoon has 6 plus one GPMG), artillery (Infantry regiments used to have "regimental artillery" directly attached, now most of the world's Infantry has mortars at the platoon, com pay and battalion level, and anti tank guided missiles and all manner of anti armour weapons down to section level for direct fire power).

This is not to dispute the fact that combined arms are needed, rather to suggest that combined arms are there to provide "more" to the Infantry. The 1980's era Mech Infantry Battalion was a reasonably balanced formation, and hooked up with Artillery to provide "more" indirect fire, Armour to provide "more" direct fire. Engineers to give more mobility/countermobility help and so on. (This is an internet post, so I'm dealing in generalities here). The modern US SBCT blends a lot of that functionality down to the company level, which goes to the point that a lot of what used to be separate is now packaged together.

 

[Ostrozac]

The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868 bans the use of exploding projectiles of less than 400 grams which can explode inside a human body. This does not apply to automatic cannon or artillery, and given current technology, a 400 gram projectile with an explosive charge would be quite lethal to unarmoured or otherwise unprotected soldiers.

A 40mm grenade weighs about half of that limit, and have been in regular use for 50 years. I suspect that if we wanted to use explosive ammo as a standard, we could go ahead and issue semi-auto shotguns firing Frag-12 explosive 12 gauge rounds, call it the C100 Individual Grenade Rifle, and no one would go to jail. The reason we don't is because of the limitations of technology, not because of the limits of international law.

 

[daftandbarmy]

This is not to dispute the fact that combined arms are needed, rather to suggest that combined arms are there to provide "more" to the Infantry. The 1980's era Mech Infantry Battalion was a reasonably balanced formation, and hooked up with Artillery to provide "more" indirect fire, Armour to provide "more" direct fire. Engineers to give more mobility/countermobility help and so on. (This is an internet post, so I'm dealing in generalities here). The modern US SBCT blends a lot of that functionality down to the company level, which goes to the point that a lot of what used to be separate is now packaged together.

I agree. More 'stuff that goes boom' lower down the food chain is always better. The rifle is merely a bit player in the wider scheme of things of course. Unfortunately I believe that - unlike the USMC - we are dangerously under resourced at most levels and, as always, it will be the 17 year old grunts who pay the price.

I'd take a Lee Enfield over the C7 if you could get me all the indirect fire support and tanks I needed (well, OK, maybe make that an SLR ).

 

[crowbag]

The C7/M203 is a good infantry weapon. I would take it over the SA 80 in a heartbeat. The SAS & SBS did.

Really? What is your reasoning? The SA80 A1 I used in depot was terrible, but I found the SA80 A2 to be excellent – and easier to hold in a decently alert position (when patrolling etc.) than a C7. The kicker for me has to be the HK UGL versus the 203 – I found the C7 w/203 to be cumbersome as hell, but the A2 w/UGL to be comparatively easy to handle.

Curious to hear your thoughts. I suppose beyond the stats it comes down to personal preference…