British Army goes back to 7.62NATO

reply to post by Retseh


Hi retseh,

Your source? As i am sure you understand that by that virtue alone nothing is made credible? Either way having one's sources questioned can not and should be seen as 'derailment' attempts even if that's how it sometimes feels to you and me both. Either way ( without being a expert on guns or shotguns) both run out of ammunition and both can jam and need to be maintained to function reliably; a rusted bayonet just becomes more dangerous even if it's not the best close in defense weapon to start with

. If you ask my very lay opinion it still makes better sense to have a secondary hand gun type self defense weapon ( which will always be securely holstered) for those instances where you somehow end up not being able to wield your rifle in close quarters or by blast or other effect separated from from or unable to fire ( with perhaps one working hand/arm ) your individual weapon.

But yes, regular arm chair warrior speaking so i for one do my best to occasionally listen to the actual experts such as paddy&ilk.

Regards and sorry for the intrusion....

Stellar

Edit : OH yes strategy page is fantastic 'fun' but given how i as lay person have often enough discovered gross distortions or factual errors ( which i most certainly can't recall on call) i must point out that things are not true&accurate by virtue of being there. As for large sample size i will defer to Paddy as i have not read more than several dozen articles.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by StellarX]

reply to post by Zosynspiracy


Armchair warriors. Please, spare me.

They carry that stuff for a reason. A-stan and Iraq are the big leagues, not Airsoft.

Sure, guys in Dub-Dub-Two didn't have all that fancy-schmancy gear. Guess what? A lot of those guys are dead from hits that nowdays guys walk away from, thanks to new and improved body armor.

Camalback are freakin' great. Try running around with a canteen bouncing off your hip instead of having a streamlined water carrier on your back.

According to you, the guys shouldn't carry all that "unnecessary" stuff, since there's air support. OK, what about bad weather? Guys in the boondocks run out of supplies, helicopters can't get to them because of the weather. Or high in the mountains. Or how about freakin' AAA fire that's making the LZ hot and they are unable to land? Betcha didn't think of that, did you?

Sure, the Taliban don't have the same stuff the USMC has. I wonder how many of their guys are dead because of it, too?

Originally posted by LightBright

This is a Fracking travesty the US has know since Vietnam that the M16 had inadequate stopping power and was generally unreliable.

It was considered unreliable because of crappy ammo, not the weapon itself.

They fixed the problem by fitting a buffer system and a chrome plated chamber.

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by PaddyInf

A large proportion of the overall sample size.

Define "large proportion" in terms of the articles on Strategy Page.

A large proportion is a subjective term and may mean different things to different people. However for me if something is being cited as a source then it shouldn't have any more than 10-20% of articles with basic errors.

You see, this happens to be a respected source of weaponry related developments,

By who exactly? I only ask because it seems a bit 'basic' for want of a better word, and doesn't contain information that isn't available from newspapers etc. Indeed, some of the content seems to be written in journalistic tones, as though this is where it sources its' information. I'm not saying this is the case, but just how it strikes me.

and apart from the 2 reports you reference, of which more later, I'd like to know exactly what your justification is for writing off this entire website as having a "huge number" of errors,

I sampled a number articles from the ground combat section of the website (admittedly the only section I have any significant knowledge of). From these articles I was able to pick out obvious mistakes or misinterperatations from at least half of them. The most obvious mistakes that I noticed were from those regarding British military issues, but that's probably just me. Now if 50% of randomly chosen articles from any source contain such omissions or mistakes then that suggests to me that the source may be less than reliable.

These are only article that I may have quite in depth knowledge of the subject in hand. I cannot pass comment on those I have no real background in.

Concepts that would be regarded as basic or elementary to someone with a basic concept of the subject. An example may be this one which completely disregards the usefulness of the bayonet (despite numerous recent reports of its' use), and spends half the article singing about underbarrel shotguns! It also forgets to mention that the bayonet is only being removed form basic training, not infantry training.

Don't confuse opinion with fact, it is a fact that the US Army has now removed bayonet drill from basic training, it is the author's opinion that an underslung shotgun would do a better job.

His report however is factual.

He states that the main use for the bayonet is now crowd control, which is quite simply wrong. He implies that the bayonet is no longer used for engaging the enemy, which is wrong. The bayonet has been used to kill the enemy in numerous contacts in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with several medals being given out to some involved. The bayonet is used to give extra length to the weapon and an immediate solution to stoppages in OIBUA, to control PWs by reducing weapon grabs etc. Not to mention the teaching of controlled aggression and to bring home the fact that we may have to kill the enemy face to face, not just from X hundred metres. These are all factors relating to the debate, but are not mentioned by the author.

There are others, but lets not derail the thread

When it's my thread, and you question one of my sources, what do you expect.

I'm sure that it's my right to question a source that I believe contains numerous errors. My intention was to bring the thread back in line with the question posed, not debate the merits of Strategypage.com. However, as you say it is your thread and you can do what you like to it.

Now can we get back to talking about the subject at hand?

[edit on 7-4-2010 by PaddyInf]

The Forums on Strategypage attract a range of participants many of whom are employed in the defence industry, (I can think of only one U.S. infantryman who is a regular poster) . Their posts and discussions are amongst the most informed on the net. However, the SYOPS articles are invariably inaccurate, poorly sourced and regularly exasperate (along with the crummy forum software) the Forum regulars.

reply to post by PaddyInf


I see you're determined to derail this thread, a hint apparently wasn't sufficient.

This thread was intended to be a discussion about the increasing move towards 7.62NATO in Afghanistan, either stay on topic or stay out.

Simple enough?

Originally posted by Retseh
reply to post by PaddyInf

 

...either stay on topic or stay out.

Simple enough?

I absolutely agree, but I could have sworn I'd heard that before...

Oh yea. It was me

Originally posted by PaddyInf

There are others, but lets not derail the thread

But was shot down by a resounding...

Originally posted by Retesh

When it's my thread, and you question one of my sources, what do you expect

But I did try again with my last post which finished with...

Originally posted by PaddyInf

My intention was to bring the thread back in line with the question posed, not debate the merits of Strategypage.com. However, as you say it is your thread and you can do what you like to it.

Now can we get back to talking about the subject at hand?

Now (for the third time) lets stop all this sillyness and carry on with the thread?




[edit on 10-4-2010 by PaddyInf]

I for one welcome the move back to 7.62mm... The NATO standardization of 5.56mm is clearly not working in Afghanistan... 5.56mm is good for CQB but not for contacts that are outside those weapons maximum effective range.. Usually 300 meters... The longer rifled version called the LSW was clearly crap... I have carried that garbage a few times.. The bipod was the biggest pain in the ass ever and the shins when the stupid things kept coming undone crossing obstacles ... The Minimi was an improvement as a light support weapon but lacks the punch needed over distance to suppress the enemy due to its caliber.... So the new 7.62 LSW will do the job..

I also remember the LSR 7.62 before the SA80 came out.... It was just the best rifle ever! You could bang the crap out of it, and with the help of some tin foil could convert it to fully automatic.. The butt was just as good as a weapon too as well as the bayonet... However the SUSAT sight for the SA80 made a big difference....
I myself prefer iron sights though.... If you can shoot straight with those then you are a true infantryman...

The arguments on this thread about the amount of kit carried compared to yesteryear I find mute... Truth is... The average soldier of yesteryear did not have the equipment available we have today... I, in my capacity as a MFC have had to to carry at least 150 lb's of equipment into a covert OP... Thats rations, water, ammunition, batteries, O.P. equipt like chicken wire for cam, infra red viewing equipt, radios etc... The troops of yester year had it easy compared to the British army..... The troops now have to carry ECM equit too just on a routine patrol... Heavy stuff...

Shootings in Helmand tend to be at either sub 75m or over 400m. This presents problems.

There are definitely issues at longer ranges with 5.56mm. 7.62 will out perform it at ranges over 300m, no doubt. Don't get into the mindset that the 5.56mm won't kill you at 500m - it will. 7.62mm just does it better.

Under 300m and particularly sub 200m the 5.56mm is in my experience a much more useful round. At these ranges the shooter needs to be able to aim and fire quickly and follow up with quick subsequent shots. No matter who you are you cannot guarantee a first round hit in combat, simple as. Therefore rapid follow up shots are a must. 7.62mm is not an easy round to control or hit with on rapid.

Going back to 7.62mm in assault rifles strikes me as a bad idea. This would create disadvantages at close range where nearly half of the firefights are happening. 7.62 weapons also tend to be longer than the 5.56mm options. This is a consideration when moving in vehicles and through the Green Zone. Indeed this is why the US have moved almost exclusively towards the M4 despite the disadvantages presented by the short barrel. There is also the ammunition weight issue. As I think we've already discussed to hell, weight is an issue to the dismounted soldier.

We have always had a 7.62mm option at section level - the GPMG. However it was not really the most accurate beast as it was designed for fire support (which it performs better than pretty much any other weapon in its class).

Giving every rifleman a 7.62mm weapon will not really address the majority of long range problems. Most riflemen will still struggle to effectively engage targets past 400m in combat. This is purely a combat marksmanship issue, not a weapon one. Issuing a sharpshooter rifle to the best shot in the platoon and giving him the training to utilize it effectively will make a disproportionatly greater difference.

I think that the introduction of the L129A1 should finally fill the gap at longer ranges. For short to medium (sub 300m) ranges we now have the SA80A2 and the minimi for fire support. For extra reach there is the L129A1 for precision fire and the GPMG for fire support.

I have stayed silent during this debate but have followed it with interest.
But when people with no recent combat experience start making outlandish claims, then I am afraid I must step in.

Apart from friend Paddy, I am in contact with several veterens of both Iraq and Afghanistan and not once, have any of them been involved in any action that has necessitated the abanbdonment of their mortars and neither have they heard of any such action.

I would like to respectfully point out that if anybody would know of such an action taking place, these are the people who would know.

The other post within this thread I must take issue with, is the claim that senior ncos and officers are scouring armouries for L1A1s.

Rubbish! Utter rubbish.

Most old timers like myself who were issued with the L85A1 and the L86A1 from 1985 will know that the L1A1 FN SLRs, the L2A3 Sterling SMGs and the L4A1 LMGs were sold as a job lot, to various African states and also India and Pakistan.

So these rumours about people scouring armouries and armscotes for
non-existent weapons, are just that. Rumours.

If you really want to know what the British Armed Forces are doing and who they are doing it to and what equipment they are doing it with, then I suggest you purchase a copy of Soldier Magazine and not rely on comics like the Sun, or defunct websites who, quite frankly, dream up these stories to bulk their circulations.

I finally got to see an independent test report on the new rifle, and it's a nice looking piece of kit.

The rilfe will come shipped in a hard Pelican case with 8 magazines and an optic pre-installed. Interestingly the British opted for a high powered version of the ACOG with a reticle that includes a BDC for 7.62NATO ball. They went with this optic instead of a dedicated sniper scope such as a Leupold or a Unertl, a good choice I think. That configuration gives it more of a combat rifle spec as opposed to a true sniper rifle, and it certainly looks more like a combat rifle than dedicated sniper rifle, unlike some of its main competitors such as the new M110.

The furniture will be sand colored for the 'stan, which makes for a very attractive weapon, and the test gun started printing sub MOA groups with sniper grade ammo.

The only downside I can see is that LEI will not be selling this exact specification to us civilian buyers. We will be able to purchase the identical LM7 rifle and retrofit it with the same furniture and optics to arrive at a perfect copy, but I think LEI would need to make a lot more than 440 of these guns if they open it up to retail sale. I for one would be sorely tempted.

My homelands military uses the 7.62 round, though in x39mm rather than the NATO x51mm. It has proven to be quite effective, as the 5.56 does not seem to have the stopping power to break through even basic ballistic armor. Of course, in a fighting scenario it can be argued that the improved accuracy of the 5.56 counters its lack of stopping power. One of the other posters has made a good point towards using the more recent 6.8, which I must agree with to at least the point of further testing.

Originally posted by Darcia

One of the other posters has made a good point towards using the more recent 6.8, which I must agree with to at least the point of further testing.

I agree, but unfortunately I think the 6.8SPC will still fade away.

The British essentially designed the 6.8SPC as far back as 1945 when they introduced the revolutionary .280 round. It was short lived primarily thanks to the US who dismissed it as under-powered, and of course we then went on to introduce the truly underpowered 5.56mm some years later, making everyone else follow suit in the process.

The .280 British was a great round, dismissing it was a bad call on our part.

7.62NATO makes for a great long range round, but ammo cost aside, I think the 6.8SPC is the best all rounder there is, plus it fits in AR magwells.

I haven't shot it yet, and with ammo still running around a buck a pop, I doubt I will any time soon. Personally I went with the 7.62x39 some years ago, if only for reasons of cost, and I believe the military will stick with the 5.56mm for the same reasons.

Edit to add that 5.56mm is still a great urban round especially with expanding ammunition, or ball that has a thin jacket and cannelure to promote fragmentation.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Retseh]