New rifles for Irish DF-fantasy and/or reality?

Avgas · 24-03-2010 07:30PM #1

I know we’re broke as a nation BUT this is not a Walter Mitty post-trust me!

I also know there was some discussion about three years ago, a bit like what I’m proposing here, on: http://forum.irishmilitaryonline.com/showthread.php?t=11151

The conclusion of that discussion seems to be a consensus that there was no great urgency to change from the existing Steyr AUG.

In other words: ‘arraggh sure tisn’t it grand begorrah, so why fix it if tis not broke’ sort of sentiment. We’re great at that in Ireland.

It is one reason why we have NAMA.

So I think its relevant to ask.......

QUESTION A: Anyone know if/when/how/what we are going to get to replace our Austrian made Steyr AUG’s circa 1987-88?

For those who don’t know, details of what we have now can be found at: http://www.military.ie/army/equipment/weapons/inf/steyr/steyr.htm

The AUG was and still is highy regarded. Events have moved on. Today its not necessarily the most obvious contender in the field-although doubtless that point could be argued back and forth.

I seem to remember reading this year or last, somewhere, that they would need replacing but can’t find it now…did I imagine I heard/read this?

Obviously the Dept. of Finance/Misery (DoF) will protest and resist (they always do), but even more so given our current fiscal climate.

Doubtless, their suggestion will be that day-glo pink water pistols from Symths Toys (Euro 2.99 each-value!) would be just as suitable for overseas peacekeeping and bank escorts as the auld AUG. The same people after all wanted to completely abolish the naval service in the late 1960s!

Now, I can see perhaps a valid Aid to Civil Power (ACP) role for water pistols…..

BUT it would be nice to believe if a cash escort gets challenged that we could ‘deter and respond’ to said threat with a suitable piece of kit that won’t jam, fall apart, or have the magazine clip fall out. Or go bang in somebody’s face when aiming because its too old. BTW I’m not alleging here that the existing stock of Steyr have actually become unsafe-I have no knowledge of that…BUT if they are not replaced in time that should surely become an issue?

If any state cannot ensure relevant small arms for its armed forces it cannot guarantee the most basic monopoly of coercive force needed to function as a state.

That is one basic difference between Finland and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Even the Pope/Vactican city makes sure their own private army has modern rifles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Guard#Equipment

He might need them these days.

Also remember that the Garda do not go into parts of Limerick now unless they have some buddies armed with IZUI’s, or the new 4.6x30mm MP7 weapons used by the regional response units.

Unfortunately, we have plenty of disagreeable extremist types on our lovely island who like collecting, and occasionally using, lethal small arms. And I don’t mean the RDF.

That salutary fact was in the past, and remains today, a core threat to our state and security. In the future, such threats could well increase. It is not unthinkable that we could see situations where Irish DF face-off against Islamic fundamentalists or other such irregular forces who have v. effective small arms firepower together with good body armour and seek to do serious harm through suicide IED tactics or something like this. Would 22 year old AUGs be adequate in such situations?

Obviously, I'm thinking that would be more in an overseas context. But you never know....Limerick can be pretty rough at times as well.

So we’re broke…but we’re not that broke right?

My point is we clearly need to procure a new generation of small arms for our DF sooner rather than later.

HOWEVER……what is far from clear is WHAT we can afford, HOW we pay for them, WHAT we buy and WHY (To do WHAT?)

QUESTION B: What sort of spend could we afford and what would it realistically allow us to buy?

Replacement of the entire stock of weapons- say 8,000-10,000 would seem dubious given our lack of the readies.

QUESTION C: Would a supplier (say Steyr or FN or Heckler&Koch) sell them to us on a leasing model where we pay for them a bit up front and spread the cost over say a decade-has that ever been done on a procurement?

I guess what I’m suggesting would be just like buying a laptop from PC WORLD, and maybe there would even be a ‘balloon payment’ at the end? If that sort of ‘sale and lease’ model were a runner then our budget could be something like 10-20 million Euro and an entire generational weapons stock could be replaced say over a three year cycle.

If, as is likely, that sort of financial deal is not available to us, then realistically the most any government over the next few years will tolerate is a much more miserly spend of say 1-3 million euros. If even.

One implication of that kind of financial constraint would be that we would probably have to get much smaller numbers of stuff and phase in replacements over a much longer time frame. Forget getting 8,000 weapons-think more 900 a go.

That would have to mean units going overseas or on bank jobs would probably get any new rifles/weapons going….but perhaps many entire Coys and other units would be still going around with 22+ year old weapons that must be getting harder to keep going or safe. In fact, if we go that way then many units could end up with 30 year old Steyrs. As for the poor old RDF…they may well end up using Steyrs until the cows come home (or till the 2030s to be precise). After all we’ve been there before with the .303s.

Not good. BUT maybe such a scenario would not be the end of the world?

Oh, and from a financial bean-counting perspective if we come at this procurement with very small change it must load the odds heavily in favour of a simple replacement of the existing Steyr AUG with……….the Steyr AUG model 2010! See: http://www.steyr-mannlicher.com/military-and-law-enforcement/steyr-aug-a3/

Logistically and training wise that would make sense if perhaps V. BORING.

Can I make 2 suggestions at this stage to get a discussion/mild row going?

1. If we do opt to simply augment our stocks of Steyr AUGs with more ‘newbie’ Steyr AUGs could we not maybe add some capability by buying a few of the AUG light support weapon variants as well? I know that there were some reliability issues raised about the larger capacity mags but I’m assuming these have been/could be sorted? These would not be used as light machine guns but rather as precision light support weapon with night sights for the 300-600m range zone. There is some evidence that the UK’s, finally improved, LSWs perform and suppress better than basic rifles or even their LMGs.

2. Maybe we should be really radical. Time to think outside the box and accept who and what we are as regards our DF and national capabilities and needs. Why not admit that the the entire 5.56mm ‘assault rifle’ concept is today a much less relevant solution (especially for us) and instead we might procure a suite of personal small arms, comprising a related family of pistols, personal defence weapons (PDWs), grenades with projectors and sniper systems, together with optics?

After all in many tactical situations it may well not be rifle type fires which are decisive, but rather grenade and/or GPMG type fires, some of which could be even laid indirectly from behind cover. You could even pitch the tender document so that a supplier must offer a tactically balanced suite of small arms (not just rifles) so that they would have to offer us ready made and costed ‘packages’ of afore mentioned items which should have some ‘commonality’ in the jargon.

What might this look like?

Maybe taking 3 million euro as our (fantasy) budget, we could see a balanced spend of....
40% on new H&K MP7 PDWs (see http://www.futurefirepower.com/the-heckler-and-koch-mp7-the-sub-machine-gun-video-of-hks-future);
20% on new and crucially lighter 7.62mm GPMGs as well as a few more 7.62mm sniper rifles;
Remaining 30% of funding split evenly between a grenade system (most likely 40x19mm) and some nice new optics….

I freely admit the quantities of kit we could procure under this model might be very small –a few hundred systems at a time. However, if it were repeated every year OR more realistically, if there was a regular tender put out every three years for small arms packages….then slowly we could modernize and improve over time….and it would arguably make more sense in matching the need for improved capabilities in small arms with changing operational needs/likely scenarios under pretty savage financial constraints which will be with us for at least the next half-decade..if not much longer.

Penny for your thoughts. And please…. no posts about Walter Mitty neutron phasers or somesuch.

Donny5 · 24-03-2010 08:39PM

Avgas wrote: »

My point is we clearly need to procure a new generation of small arms for our DF sooner rather than later.

You spent the first half of your post talking about how you don't know if the Steyr is suitable for it's current applications, then you come out with the above. It's not clear that we need to procure a new generation of SA.

The Steyr may be a forty year old design, but the M4 is a done-up XM177, a fifty year old design that relies on direct impingement for a gas mech. It's a bullpup, has a long barrel, clear polymer mags and a vertical foregrip. These are all features only recently being introduced to M4A1s, SA80A2s, and current generation assault rifles. It could do with taking STANAGs, which we could ask Steyr to implement, and having some Picantinny rails, which the newer generation AUGs have.

As for the MP7, they are different weapons for different purposes. Rest assured that any job that requires a 4.6mm calibre would be amply handled by the larger 5.56mm round, not to mention the longer barrel. The muzzle energy of a 5.56x45mm round eclipses the H&K's PDW round. The MP7 is compact, and powerful, but it's no assault rifle.

If we field the MP7 as our assault rifle, we cut our infantryman's range by 400m. In times when other nations are attempting to expand the individual soldier's range, we would be cutting back. There is a counter argument that most contacts in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been inside the 200m range, and that the MP7 allows the soldier to engage at these ranges while also allowing greater amounts of ammunition to be carried.

Either way, it would be a lot of money for very little gain.

Manic Moran · 24-03-2010 08:42PM

Manic Moran · 24-03-2010 08:44PM

Want to be careful, your post starts off a bit like you're whining "I didn't get the answer I wanted off the other board, so I came here"

To put something in perspective, a nation which has rather a lot of money to spend on military toys is using a rifle adopted in the late 1960s, a pistol adopted in the mid 1980s, and even a tank adopted in the early 1980s. I speak of the US. A mid/late 80s rifle isn't that far out of date.

A little tweaking wouldn't go amiss for the Steyr. Add weapons mounts. I saw some British L85s recently which had mount rails on them. Should do nicely.

NTM

Avgas · 24-03-2010 09:20PM

Hi Manic, many thanks for reply.

I agree with some of your points BUT my questions remain unanswered

A-are we procuring replacements for 20+ year old rifles...a simple factual query about new procurement. Whether they are/will/should be AUGs is another but obviously related query raised by my questions B&C.

BTW I've never posted on the other boards. First time I raise this. My interest is how small broke nation states like our can improve our DF within tight fiscal limits.

I think what I'm trying to get at is if we simply just buy a batch of new rifles we will not improve capabilities that much for many scenarios-emerging or emerged. Other armies have future soldier projects-some of which are gimmicky exercises...BUT there is change in what basic infantry sections and platoons are being issued with....I think we are not keeping pace in developments in body armour, optics, esp. grenades, and other kit. Sure, the ARW have this gear...and maybe some extra stuff gets issued for Chad scenarios.. I don't know that .....but in general we've not changed our tactical doctrines, basic equipment and thinking that much.

You say other armies are arming up for distance and you imply I want us to dumb down to circa 200m. if you read carefully what I suggested was a mix of 4.6mm PDWs together with MORE GPMGs and 7.62mm snipes..and new 40mm which can quite easily do 300m and some newbie version promise 450-800m (almost getting into the tactical space that used to be on offer for 51mm or v. light 60mm mortars). GPMGs and snipes within sections and platoons would continue to give sections the capacity to suppress at range. As they do today -although we don't integrate snipes systematically into platoon/section structures (as far as I'm aware).

UpArming squads with modern day clones of the FN FAL in 6.8 or 7.62mm will not IMHO do much to add capability.

Yes the USA army still use the M16 BUT the versions used today are just a little bit different from M16A2..no? Not always for the best-the short barrels on the M4 reduce muzzle velocity and stopping power...we all know that now. The point is the US have evolved their M16 stock..mainly with optics and 40mm grenades...we should consider doing the same with our AUGS or whatever.... Also note USMC has a formal procurement ongoing to replace M16s....not sure if it will lead to much new though....

I actually don't like the 4.6mm weapon-just the look of it. However, if it allows us to configure our squads with other stuff, give real weight saving, and be much more relevant for the bulk of COIN/PK scenarios we're faced with then maybe we need to explore that. Also a MP7 will allow a future Irish soldier to bring down a BAD PERSON who is wearing body armour within a 200m zone...will penetrate the CRISAT target...as far as I know our existing AUGs do not have the capacity...yes they will reach out to 300- maybe 450. But seriously....600m ....is this credible based on what we know about the typical capability in fire fights..

Just some thoughts. Avgas

Donny5 · 24-03-2010 09:46PM

You can't just add GPMGs to a section. It already ready takes the whole section to carry the ammo for one, adding more would just increase the burden.

The AUG can everything the MP7 can do, except be small and light. It's got far greater penetration, the round has greater kinetic energy at 600m than the MP7 has at 1m and it would destroy it in any of the CRISAT test, soft or ceramic.

As for UGLs, you can stick one on the AUG, and we do.

The idea that 4.6x30 could compete with 5.56x45 on any scale of energy or penetration is laughable, man.

Zambia · 24-03-2010 10:12PM

This is mental the Steyr is a perfectly good weapon and is in no need of replacement.

Avgas · 24-03-2010 10:20PM

Hi Donny5, many thanks for input.

[QUOTE=Donny5;65069975]You can't just add GPMGs to a section. It already ready takes the whole section to carry the ammo for one, adding more would just increase the burden.

I'm not suggesting we add a second GPMG to the section BUT a lighter and newer one-less worn out, and a few KG less. BTW some sections of BA did employ double GPMGs in Falklands (1982) and combo of Bren 7.62x51 with GPMG were used a few times as well. Not sure if its a runner in general for obvious weight reasons. My point was to get some lighter GPMGs in issue.

The AUG can everything the MP7 can do, except be small and light. It's got far greater penetration, the round has greater kinetic energy at 600m than the MP7 has at 1m and it would destroy it in any of the CRISAT test, soft or ceramic.

Absolutely right about greater kinetic energy at 600m-but what exactly will you be hitting at 600m other than wasting ammo-we all know majority of fire fights (even in Afghanistan) are close -100-200m). Yes the Americans discovered in Anaconda in 2001 that their squads and plts. could not really 'reply' to BAD PEOPLE who were hitting them with mortars and Soviet PK series GPMGs, etc., other than by relying on their GPMGs..and calling in fire support...which even for them took time.....the point was when the fires become longer range (beyond 3-400m) then the 5.56mm weapons are not that much use..I mean really...okay maybe in certain situations very well trained guys wll be able to suppress with AUGs, M4s or G36s out to 450-500m....but I think that would be tenuous. It would also waste ammo for little certain tactical effect. The object that would suppress BAD PEOPLE at those distances will be the tried and tested GPMG. Better to save weight, carry more belts of 7.62mm and ditch the 5.56mm...that is one, admittedly radical, reading of where we could go with stuff like the 4.6mm or 5.7mm.
Note I am in fact suggesting we should systematically integrate a 7.62mm snipe into our sections, or more likely plt structure (which I think the French used to do, no?). If that is too much for people to believe/buy into, then fine let's stick with BORING but good AUG3 but let's issue at least one LSW type to our sections to complement the GPMG? Now that weapon can credibly reach out to 500-600m and with a good sight and a training and tactics programme...capability is improved.

BTW do you have some evidence that the 5.56mm will penetrate the CRISAT target at ranges comparable or above those of the 4.6m? I'm not saying your wrong, I'd just be interested to see the sources.

As for UGLs, you can stick one on the AUG, and we do.

No we don't. At least not at scale. Is the standard Irish infantry section, say as TOE for Chad, packing 2x40mm UGLs as per BA scale of issue in AStan? I know it has been issued from beyond ARW world...but the question is whether its become a regular section weapon? Also what type of 40mm ammo...there is new enhanced stuff...have we got it issued in some type of regular pattern, at least for an overseas Batt beyond ARW? Please tell me I'm wrong.

The idea that 4.6x30 could compete with 5.56x45 on any scale of energy or penetration is laughable, man.[/QUOTE]

Funny, that is exactly what adherents of the 7.62x51mm said in the 70s. Its still going on that debate. In fact my point is much more 'far out': the rifle is not that important at all. Its become a fetish. The issue is the overall mix of section and platoon weapons and whether they are balanced for COIN, Asymmetric 4th gen, FIBUA, and old fashioned regular heavy warfightin' with maybe even tanks and certainly lots of old fashioned infantry support stuff coming at you (mortars, HMGs, rockets, RCLs...).... have we got the right mix of optics, weapons, tactics, body armour, other gear for that range of scenarios...that is what I'm getting at. We should procure that way NOT simply assume the AUG3 is grand so lets stick with that. To borrow something from Dunphy...it may well be a good piece of kit, but is it a great piece of kit (among many bits of kit we need)?

Its a mistake to focus on one weapon system. Whether its a 4.6mm or 5.56mm AUG3 is no big deal for me..but if you stay conservative and have our people lugging AUG3s around the "next big thing after chad" then your packing maybe extra weight by keeping faith with the 5.56mm assault rifle system...for a largely theoretical capability to suppress beyond 300m. Better to travel light with what are really just SMGs, precisely so as to hit heavy with the gear that really counts-40mm UGLs and lite GPMGs.

Just a view.

Donny5 · 24-03-2010 11:32PM

You don't get it, Avgas. I'm not saying that at 600m, 5.56 has more energy than 4.6. I'm saying that at 600m, the 5.56 round has more energy than 4.6 when it leaves the muzzle.

Anyway, the Steyr, as far as I know, hasn't undertaken CRISAT testing, but SS109 has. The facts are available in a paper from the RMCS, titled Influence of SA Bullet Construction on Terminal Ballistics. Whereas 4.6x30 can penetrate CRISAT at 200m, the AUG has a very long barrel and a muzzle velocity of 940-970m/s. The most comparable weapon to this is the L86 LSW, which can penetrate CRISAT at 580m. Similar results would be expected for a 20" AUG. The AUG would rape the MP7 on CRISAT penetration.

So you want lighter GPMGs now, to replace the expensive FN MAGs we have now, and snipers in each section. What does the sniper do during the assault, or during fish. There's a reason why snipers and heavy weapons are coy and bn assets.

Anaconda was a cluster****, but not because they had M4s. MP7s and GPMGs can't clear up chains of command.

As for whether we issue UGLs in Chad or not doesn't matter, what's matters is you can put one on an AUG. If they're needed, we can issue them. The normal Steyr UGLs don't take the extended 40mm grenades, but amazingly, you can buy UGLs that do, and since Picatinny is a NATO STD, you can mount them.

Of course SS109 has less energy than the big 7.62 rounds, by design. Just as 4.6x30 has less energy than 5.56, by design, and that design is for PDWs and pistols, not assault rifles.

The fact is that to justify changing weapons, you would have to show that not only is the replacement weapon better to task than the incumbent (which the MP7 is not), but that the improvement would be great enough to overcome the costs.

Also, look up UK Platoon Weapons and the Weight Capability Myth. It's a paper supporting you're argument for the Brits.

Manic Moran · 24-03-2010 11:59PM

Avgas wrote: »

You say other armies are arming up for distance and you imply I want us to dumb down to circa 200m. if you read carefully what I suggested was a mix of 4.6mm PDWs together with MORE GPMGs and 7.62mm snipes..

A PDW by definition is not a rifle designed for offensive purposes. (See "D").

Your first question is the age-old one of 'Does the MG in the squad support the rifleman, or does the rifleman support the MG?' In WWII, the Germans took the point of view that the MG was a killing weapon, and the riflemen basically supported it. The Americans, on the other hand, used the MG to suppress whilst the riflemen did the killing. If you're giving the riflemen a 4.6mm rifle, it seems that they'd have to get a fair bit closer in order to be effective.

and new 40mm which can quite easily do 300m and some newbie version promise 450-800m (almost getting into the tactical space that used to be on offer for 51mm or v. light 60mm mortars). GPMGs and snipes within sections and platoons would continue to give sections the capacity to suppress at range. As they do today -although we don't integrate snipes systematically into platoon/section structures (as far as I'm aware).

Well, that paragraph answers the 'suppress or kill' question for the MG. However, I don't know of any military which uses the Squad Designated Marksmen (or equivalent) for suppressive purposes. The point of them is to put directed lethal fires on the target. Rifles like the M14EBR provide the soldiers using it with greater capability than their comrades at ranges over 300m or so, but less capability at ranges under that distance. But the purpose is the same.

UpArming squads with modern day clones of the FN FAL in 6.8 or 7.62mm will not IMHO do much to add capability.

Entire squads, or just certain persons?

Yes the USA army still use the M16 BUT the versions used today are just a little bit different from M16A2..no? Not always for the best-the short barrels on the M4 reduce muzzle velocity and stopping power...we all know that now. The point is the US have evolved their M16 stock..mainly with optics and 40mm grenades...we should consider doing the same with our AUGS or whatever.... Also note USMC has a formal procurement ongoing to replace M16s....not sure if it will lead to much new though....

The AR15 series rifles the US is using have remained pretty much the same since the 1980s. The M16A2 is still a common service rifle outside of combat arms units, with the M68 optic being fixed to the front of the carry handle by way of a gooseneck mount. The USMC standard rifle is the M16A4 which is, in effect, an M16A2 with the carry handle replaced by a picatinny rail. And, of course, there's the M4 which is effectively an M16A4 with a shorter barrel and different buffer spring due to the recoil difference. In terms of mechanism, if there are any refinements to the M4 over the M16A2 other than those required by the different barrel length, I can't think of any. It certainly isn't as if there was a major refurbishment of the design in the same manner as the British L85A2.

However, if it allows us to configure our squads with other stuff, give real weight saving, and be much more relevant for the bulk of COIN/PK scenarios we're faced with then maybe we need to explore that.

I would submit that there is little difference between the requirements of a peacekeeping firefight and a conventional warfare firefight. The difference in the mission is before the bullets start flying, and the rifles best suited for peacekeeping are going to be just as suited for WWIII.

I'm not suggesting we add a second GPMG to the section BUT a lighter and newer one-less worn out, and a few KG less

Closest to that you'll find will be the M240L, which comes in at about 5lbs less than the standard M240 (FN-MAG). Howver, it's so new it hasn't entered US service yet. It's also very expensive compared to the standard M240.

we all know majority of fire fights (even in Afghanistan) are close -100-200m).

The US experience in Afghanistan has proven to be about 50-50 on the 300m divider. In our AO, closer to 80-20 in favour of 'more than 300m'

okay maybe in certain situations very well trained guys wll be able to suppress with AUGs, M4s or G36s out to 450-500m....but I think that would be tenuous

Tell you what. Hop over to a hill, and let me shoot at you with my M4 from 500m. Let me see how willing you are to stick your head up. I carry some 300 rounds, which will keep me going a while. I will probably not hit you, but I guarantee you you'll be suffering a significant emotional event.

It would also waste ammo for little certain tactical effect.

Preventing you from being able to calmly aim for two minutes or so is a very acceptable tactical effect. At worst, it just keeps us alive. At best, it gives time for our own SDMs, MGs or firest to get their own word in edgewise.

The object that would suppress BAD PEOPLE at those distances will be the tried and tested GPMG. Better to save weight, carry more belts of 7.62mm and ditch the 5.56mm...

So if most of my squad is carrying sub-calibre ammo, what happens to the balance of power in the firefight when the opposition is within AK-47 range? Take your logic to the extreme, and just give everybody a sidearm and turn them into ammo bearers for the MGs. (Again, is the MG trying to suppress, or kill?)

BTW do you have some evidence that the 5.56mm will penetrate the CRISAT target at ranges comparable or above those of the 4.6m? I'm not saying your wrong, I'd just be interested to see the sources.

Depends on the ammo being used. NAMMO makes an AP round (I think the M995 in US service) which will turn an APC into Swiss cheese. (I'm not joking, the video footage I saw from PEO Small Arms had a squad of soldiers shooting at the side of an XA-180. Astounding effects). Of course, the lethal effects on a human are reduced compared to M855. It is also to be noted that the Ft Hood shooter used the small 5.7mm FN round, and had a quite low lethal/injury ratio considering how many people he shot.

NTM

Avgas · 25-03-2010 02:19AM

Interesting posts Donny5 and Manic.

You have me both clearly on some points…for starters I concede that…...like in Astan clearly there are many engagements beyond 300m. Thinking about it that would likely be relevant for Chad as well. Supporting your line of argument on the need for longer range, I came across a an interesting paper (below). BUT it is more or less critical of the 5.56mm and sees a need for longer range weapons. This leads towards a bias for a new 6.8mm rd or back to heavy 7.62mm Ars-surely a retrograde step on balance?

However, perhaps as logically consistent IMHO would be a mix of light SMGs in 4.6mm format and then crucially lighter GPMGs with more ammo carried plus a section 7.62mm Snipes..plus more 40mm UGLs and more of their ammo…..But do scan this (v.longish) read by a US military general staff type:
http://defensetech.org/2010/03/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer/

HOWEVER, my point was to either suppress or kill effectively a GPMG + Snipe +40mm combo would be the best bet and I just see 5.56mm ammo carrying as compromising that…

MANIC'S INVITATION

I’m not arguing a BAD PERSON won’t feel your pain Manic if your treating him to the delights of any half decent 5.56mm rifle……they will of course…. its just I see a trade off. They would be more discouraged if they were on the receiving end of more 7.62mm GPMG stuff and more 40mm rds….no? I freely concede at 500m the 4.6mm would be deadweight. BUT at 50m when a BAD PERSON appears in a stairwell and they’ve body armour, the 4.6 and 5.56mm would be about evenly matched no..save for the 4.6 would be handier..maybe… and a heavy 7.62mm AT would be overkill and the GPMG would be useless..but nobody says...lets dump GPMGs...different tools for different jobs....

Germans and MGs

It should be obvious that by now I’m more or less with the Germans in the view that the MG is crucial (save for the fact that ATGW and LAW type stuff have reduced their effectveness a lot-BA made much use of MILAN to ‘deal with Argie HMG/GPMG bunkers systems in 1982….so I’m no GPMG fetishist…… )

Also it is tactically inflexible to draw very hard and fast distinctions between supression and kill modes, between finding, fixing and finishing…..both in terms of weapon employment and section organization for fire/movement…the same weapons can do some of these things… in different ways in different scenarios..no? You could go for balanced fire teams…or the once considered old fashioned MG team to supress team and more movement/kill SMG/rifle/grenade/bayonet team…that was tactically sketched out as far back as 1918 and refined and messed with ever since. You need to be flexible tactically maybe is the BIG lesson?

Lets not forget HE/grenades

You miss perhaps my emphasis on the 40mm….and in previous worlds what would have been something alike in effect…maybe better somehow…the UK 51mm mortar…..for me the core of any heavy/serious infantry battle will be such weapons… However, there is another reason why I think a more integrated 40mm system is vital …in as many infantry squads we could afford … rather than AUGS vs PDWs …..

“I would submit that there is little difference between the requirements of a peacekeeping firefight and a conventional warfare firefight”. CANNOT AGREE.

In a PK situation, a squad with systematic 40mm UGLs designed in (not an occasional add on) would have good fast switch capacity to deal with riots/public order. Obviously depends if they get issued with the right CN ammo on time. And of course that is not a firefight as such.

Obviously in most cases the whole point in maybe 90% of PK is to totally avoid it ‘going there’, but there have been cases where the spectrum moves towards heavy riot…with the threat of firearms lurking….but it’s a grey area. I’m thinking Kosovo 2004. I’m thinking the PAK contingent in Somalia in 1991 who ended up using an MG on a crowd…who had gone nasty with some shooters mixed in…..(correct me if I’m wrong)…

That’s PK-at least some of the time. You don’t want to use anything heavy in the firearms sense…but you may need (regrettably) to get heavy in a public order sense…. Right now our basic sections would have shields, visors and batons probably and not much else…90% of the time that would be probably enough…..BUT….if the situation got worse the next step is…probably firearms….40mm would provide an intermediate step….

Now lets consider a PK scenario where there are serious shooters. The big difference is …civilians and your mandate to shoot in self-defence in general…..you cannot simply respond with the full range of firepower and you usually will not want to initiate fires…..as you would say as per Fallujah 2004……that is war fighting……Now compare that with say use of force to respond to the relatively few direct firefights that was considered normal in NI……there is a difference.

There clearly is a spectrum of intensity in firefights between an ACP light intensity context and a proper firefight in a heavy PK situation…and then there is full spectrum warfare again (Hue, etc.).

Arm them with Pistols? I am crazy….BUT…?

You say if you follow my logic to its endpoint we arm everyone with pistols and their just carrying GPMG belts or 40mm………hey what an idea!…No seriously that is obviously going too far. Even I can see that. Which is why you given then a newbie SMG …which is all the 5.7 and 4.6mm gear is……or if it really winds you up give them a newbie AUG or whatever…who cares….its the overall suite of gear that matters BUT you’ve just blown a chance to bring down weight and carry more GPMG and UGL stuff. Fine….have it your way……

Yeah…..I’m v. familiar with the paper on UK Platoon weights and capabilities. Its v. much where I’m coming from with much of what I’m saying here…But its not my only inspiration….

What does the sniper do during the assault, or during fish. There's a reason why snipers and heavy weapons are coy and bn assets.

Good pt. Maybe you got me. Why are snipes so central to my vision? In a word Pk and COIN…..you want to be v.careful where your putting down fires…..a provocative answer would be…for much of the time on PK and COIN the snipe would do…..nothing…he/she would be a carrier for other gear and extra 40mm……best to come clean and just state it out like that.

Yes. I know. Its quite mad. But remember German tactical think re MG use was not far from that starkness-the other people were essentially ammo carriers for the MG42s...and maybe if it was tactically right they close to finish......okay so I'm not rendering it exactly BUT not that far off either. However, on a few occasions where it mattered Mr./Ms. Snipe would offer a section a precise but discrete firepower at range to deal with …insurgent snipes…maybe even IEDS…riot/public order overwatch you name it. All classic stuff our DF should be able to do v.well. Not fightin Hue or Fallujah-we hope. BTW I did mention it might well be only feasible to build in a snipe role at the Platoon support section level and not the section level itself. Seen that way its no SO extreme to bring the world of snipe down to the Platoon to 'share the love'.

Anaconda was cluster**** by Command.

Your 100% correct on that Donny5. However, if the average US squad pinned down had lighter GPMGs, more belts, more and better 40mm UGLs and an integral 7.62mm snipe (my model), wouldn't they have been better fixed-at least a bit? Yes of course the PDW would be useless-although not when they got into the caves...which they did have to do eventually in some sectors. I suspect for much of time given the distances the 5.56mm rifles they were carrying were pretty useless too. That's my point.

Rethinking the Irish infantry section-a comparison

As regards section structures and equipments –actually my main theme not PDWs, check out how the modern Singapore army set-up is (they are serious people):
From:
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-10057.html

“A section in the SAF today comprises of 7 men, equipment as follows;

Section commander - SAR21
2x M203 riflemen - SAR21+M203
2x SAW Gunners - Ultimax MK II
2x Matador Gunners - SAR21 + 1x MATADOR each

1 of the Matador Gunners also doubles off as the section sharpshooter, equipped with SAR21 3x scope. 1 M203 rifleman will hold the position of section 2ic.”

BTW in case anyone is wondering what a MATADOR is …its an Israeli bazooka type thingee…which is actually a knock off job of the German ARMBURST weapon..…sort of like our AT4…..see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MATADOR_(weapon)

NOTE how the warhead is dual use and good at removing walls…seeing as FIBUA is apparently where it is at -at least for some of these days if we discount Astan just a bit for a moment…(....sorry Manic…)

Now how does that squad/section firepower compare with our Chad TOE batt or what we sent to Liberia…never mind what the ordinary line Batts have as residual TOE…..do you see now what I’m getting at?

I submit we’re out of date and out of firepower and capabilities (not the same thing) for future infantry fights and other scenarios (ACP, PK, etc). No bleating on about how good the AUG is or was...can ignore we’re more or less slow-coaches in terms of modern infantry gear…..yes our DF people know about it-not their fault; yes the ARW have this gear to play with… BUT as a routine issue to ordinary BATTs…in depth or scale we’re exposed and clunky…instead of being light in weight but hard hitting or even just tactically flexible……we’re back in the 80s…..just like our economy.

Sorry to be continually provocative, but we learn through debate.

Avgas.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2010 09:25AM

But do scan this (v.longish) read by a US military general staff type:

I've read it (wonderful history lesson, particularly about the .276 Garand which I hadn't heard about previously, not much new practical information for today) and agree with the critics who say that it's based on a faulty premise. Basically he states that infantry in Afghanistan today are incapable of closing with and destroying the enemy, so need weapons which can do the destroying without bothering with the closing with bit.

I think it's the wrong perspective entirely. I think they need to go back to having infantry which is capable of closing with and destroying the enemy, and which isn't so God-awful overloaded that mere act of doing 100m of 3-second-rushing under fire uphill nearly kills them without enemy fire having to do the job.

He's obviously not a gun nut either. The way he goes on about the Larue mount, you'd think that Aimpoint or Eotech haven't had their own factory FTS magnifier mounts available for some time. I've had the EoTech version on my carbine for the whole tour.

By the way, why do you repeatedly say "BAD PERSON"? Why not say 'enemy' or 'opposition'?

HOWEVER, my point was to either suppress or kill effectively a GPMG + Snipe +40mm combo would be the best bet and I just see 5.56mm ammo carrying as compromising that…

I'm still not convinced that dropping to an even smaller calibre than 5.56mm (which there are plenty of advocates for going to 6.8 or 6.5) is not going to result in a serious gap in capability at ranges between about 200m and 500m with an opponent who decides to retain conventional intermediate calibres in their rifles.

They would be more discouraged if they were on the receiving end of more 7.62mm GPMG stuff and more 40mm rds….no?

I think they get plenty enough discouraged as it is. Our problem isn't in suppressing the enemy so they stop shooting effectively at us or in convincing them to withdraw and go somewhere else, it's in actually catching them and killing them so they can't do it again the following day. The average firefight seems to be a couple of bursts of fire from a distance, responded to with overwhelming fires, and by the time either the mortars land or the infantry have made it to the top of the hill, the opposition have scarpered. Casualties caused by the enemy usually happen in the first burst or two, on the rare enough occasions that they actually hit what they're aiming at. If they aim. After that, they're given a hard time with the current 5.56mm/7.62mm combination.

You miss perhaps my emphasis on the 40mm….

There's nothing wrong with the 40mm UGL, it's a perfectly good support weapon. But you'll note that grenadiers tend to still carry pretty full loads of 5.56mm so that they can (a) continue to participate in the fight for longer, and (b) participate in fights where the 40mm is inappropriate.

In a PK situation, a squad with systematic 40mm UGLs designed in (not an occasional add on) would have good fast switch capacity to deal with riots/public order. Obviously depends if they get issued with the right CN ammo on time. And of course that is not a firefight as such.

OK, civil disorder is a slightly different issue. You are correct that the UGLs or shotguns are more suitable for such a situation, but you don't need every soldier equipped with one. A few here and there, with the odd baton held by most others. However, that's a pretty irrelevant discussion when talking about the utility of the 4.6mm vs 5.56mm as a calibre for the rifle. Peacekeepers must be equipped to handle everything from the KFOR riots through a battle like Jadotville and they can't re-equip half-way through a patrol. When Irish soldiers went to Chad, the primary expected threat was not protestors, it was a combat force equipped with conventional weapons.

Now lets consider a PK scenario where there are serious shooters. The big difference is …civilians and your mandate to shoot in self-defence in general…..you cannot simply respond with the full range of firepower and you usually will not want to initiate fires…..as you would say as per Fallujah 2004……that is war fighting……Now compare that with say use of force to respond to the relatively few direct firefights that was considered normal in NI……there is a difference.

Srebenicze is generally considered an embarrassment to peacekeeping. There are more than a few people who think that the Dutch should have made a stand. You cannot say that they were not there with a peacekeeping (or at least peace-enforcing, Ireland partakes in both) mandate, nor that a force must be capable of dealing with that level of problem which would have been effectively indistinguishable from conventional warfighting. Again, ask an Irish Jadotville veteran. Such situations are proportionally very rare, but it would be criminal not to have a unit equipped to deal with it. You can always scale back your use of force, but when you need it and don't have it, it becomes a terminal mistake. The Irish Defence Forces are not a peacekeeping organisation, they are a warfighting organisation capable of undertaking the peacekeeping role. The ability to warfight must never be sacrificed.

Why are snipes so central to my vision?

I really think you're making a terminology error here. Snipers are highly trained personnel with a special emphasis on independent operations and concealment, and have no place in an infantry squad. On the other hand, Squad Designated Marksmen (or whatever term you wish to use) are riflemen who are particularly good shots, and are given longer-ranged rifles such as the M14EBR. I think the SDM concept is a good one and it allows the precision killing fires which a 5.56mm fired by Private Snuffy is incapable of without too much cost in mid/short range capability at the squad level.

NTM

iceage · 25-03-2010 10:44AM

http://www.angelfire.com/art/enchanter/PDWdebunk.html

An interesting article on the differance in the calibres 5.56mm and 4.6mm. Fascinating discussion guys I have to say.

Horses for courses OP. The MP7 wasn't designed as a replacement for frontline assault rifles.

Avgas · 25-03-2010 10:51AM

Why Manic, how so 2nd or 3rd Gen Warfare of you?

Have you not been reading your Sun Tzu before bedtime?

OPPFOR implies that your up against a regular force. Or maybe even a regular irregular force if you get what I’m at (Apologies to Donald Rumsfeldt).

For example PIRA in NI had a command structure and was organized and coherent. So were the Hizbollah ‘BAD PEOPLE’ Israeli messed with in 2006. There are however irregular OPPFOR. The Russian army in Georgia summer 2008 was regular OPFOR. But mixed in there were armed elements…irregular ethnic gangs armed and boozed up and cut loose to do ‘stuff at the margins’ the Russians did not want to do (maybe). They were not a coherent OPPFOR force.

There will be many cases where Irish DF would be on PK and meet all three types: Regular OPPFOR, irregular but well organized OPPFOR and then non-coherent Armed elements (drug fueled crazies on occasion but could be just harmless tribal types defending their poppy fields/farmland (whatever) and they don’t want to make war as such.

It would be a dumb move to take them out with Javelins and GPMGs.

These latter, armed elements (AE), are perhaps the least clear-cut OPPFOR ....and therefore labelling them OPPFOR or ‘enemy’ is dangerous. You need mentally to flag they are (or could be) ‘different’ in training, tactics and doctrine.

So why not just enemy then? Because in COIN and certainly PK they may not really be enemy. A basic strategic error in Astan is that the ‘WEST’ is fighting the Pashtun tribal naton(s) when in fact we were supposed to be fighting Al Queda in a quick raid. Stayed too long.

There is obviously overlap between home grown Taliban/Pashtun and the exotic imports, BUT the point would have been (and still is) to drive a wedge between them. Make peace with Pashtun tribes that can be bribed/threatened to do so, and TERMINATE exotic BAD PEOPLES in smaller numbers.

BTW a key turning point in Iraq was the Zen like transformation of the SUNNI BAD PEOPLE into ‘ethnic militia’s we are engaged in a process of dialogue with’ in standard US Army PR speak.

TRANSLATION; Divide, Conquer, we armed and bribed them out of the game (for now).

Calling the enemy is just so….Rambo man.

Also BAD PEOPLE reminds OUR PEOPLE that it is maybe a women suicide bomber you need to worry about at a VCP OR it is a 14 year old with an AK at 350m.

If you think the enemy is going to always wear a high-viz vest and pack an AK and a beard and make it easy for us by saying ‘I’m the enemy guys come take me out’….welll

In fairness you didn’t say did you Manic? I'm ranting now.
You’ll have to excuse this rant a little.

But once you mentally simplfy the world into OPPFOR or ‘enemy’ you made an error akin to misreading a map or terrain……

Sorry if that is all very POMO 4th warfare hogwash…..but there is something about it nonetheless.

Avgas

Avgas · 25-03-2010 11:05AM

Hi Iceage..thanks for that post. I've read it before and YES its worrying for my position here...but you will note I'm agnostic of PDW...vs 5.56mm... more or less.

BTW in my view a better link on PDW can be found by British gun/ammo expert Anthony Williams. See:http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/PDWs.htm

He goes over the PDW issue quite a bit. Suggests the FN 5.7mm rd might be a bit better-but the gun+ammo system is heavier than the really lean 4.6mm, although 5.7 50rd mag capacity would be marginally better for close in 100m COIN firefights than 40rdx4.6.

He also notes that: “NATO has recently (2008) decided to revise the CRISAT armour specification and is working on two standards, for soft and hard (ceramic) armour. The implications of this for ammunition performance requirements is not yet clear.”

He also engages with the issue of body armour as a future threat:

“Some point out that the West's current opponents do not usually wear body armour, but it would be very short-sighted to assume that this will continue to be the case. Some also observe that no cartridge in the PDW class can hope to penetrate the kind of body armour currently being worn by military forces (at least Western ones) so it is best to forget about AP ability and concentrate on soft target effectiveness, relying on headshots to deal with armoured targets. But there are, of course, various classes of body armour, and insurgents may not choose to wear the very bulky and heavy military issue. Furthermore, if well-armoured opponents became the rule this would shift the balance of advantages back to the SCHV route, as the flat trajectory, light recoil and large magazine capacity of 5.7 mm or 4.6 mm weapons would increase the probability of achieving a headshot.”

Also on the point about body armour there is this old (2007) source:

“HUNDREDS OF Iraqi insurgents killed or captured in battle by American-led coalition forces have been found to be wearing state-of-the-art Czech-manufactured body armour. The latest findings have added to mounting concern about the quantity and sophistication of military equipment reaching Islamist fighters, sectarian death squads and al-Qaeda terror gangs inside Iraq.”

http://www.heraldscotland.com/riddle-of-the-czech-body-armour-found-with-iraqi-insurgents-1.829495

Or consider this from the US Army Times 2009

“U.S. troops reported a fierce firefight May 28 (2009) against Farsi-speaking insurgents who wore body armor and “Kevlar helmets” and used smoke grenades. The U.S. soldiers killed an estimated 35 insurgents and suffered no casualties, but say the battle demonstrated the increasing sophistication of some guerrilla groups here.”
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/06/army_afghanistan_060209w/

I would add the whole point of switching to a PDW is to save weight so that more support weapons can be carried for the mid to long range firefight AND SECONDLY so that a better purely close-in weapon is available for the FIBUA and COIN roles, or more specifically for house-clearing and check point duties-roles where your already v. exposed and engagements, if they happen, will be very close and very nasty. You want a volume of fire, low recoil, and with that maybe some accuracy and if the CLOWN is wearing body armour you want to go through that…in other words the tactical benefits of an old 9mm SMG but suitably modernized.

Avgas.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2010 01:42PM

Avgas wrote: »

OPPFOR implies that your up against a regular force. Or maybe even a regular irregular force if you get what I’m at (Apologies to Donald Rumsfeldt).

Not sure where you're going with that one. If I'm engaged in combat with someone, I don't care if they're a uniformed organisation, an irregular organisation, or a drug gang with a couple of pistols. They are the enemy, or I wouldn't be trying to kill them.

There will be many cases where Irish DF would be on PK and meet all three types: Regular OPPFOR, irregular but well organized OPPFOR and then non-coherent Armed elements (drug fueled crazies on occasion but could be just harmless tribal types defending their poppy fields/farmland (whatever) and they don’t want to make war as such.

Something akin to the USMC's Three-Block-War.

It would be a dumb move to take them out with Javelins and GPMGs.

It would be equally dumb not to have Javelins and GMPGs in the squad because you're not expecting to be engaged in a doctrinal platoon in attack as you're driving around Bosnia. Just because I have the ability to use a rocket launcher doesn't mean I have to use it. But I if do need it, but have no such capability, there's a serious and immediate problem.

Calling the enemy is just so….Rambo man.

Doesn't make it inaccurate.

Also BAD PEOPLE reminds OUR PEOPLE that it is maybe a women suicide bomber you need to worry about at a VCP OR it is a 14 year old with an AK at 350m.

I wasn't aware that 'enemy' implied any physical requirements of age or equipment.

But once you mentally simplfy the world into OPPFOR or ‘enemy’ you made an error akin to misreading a map or terrain……

If you're in a situation where you need to shoot someone, then I think failing to consider them the enemy is an error. They either need killing or they don't. If they don't, you shouldn't be shooting at them with anything, be it 4.6mm or a GPMG.

NTM

Morpheus · 25-03-2010 01:56PM

It would be a dumb move to take them out with Javelins and GPMGs.

It would be equally dumb not to have Javelins and GMPGs in the squad because you're not expecting to be engaged in a doctrinal platoon in attack as you're driving around Bosnia. Just because I have the ability to use a rocket launcher doesn't mean I have to use it. But I if do need it, but have no such capability, there's a serious and immediate problem.

Agreed: I dont know how many times when we asked was this or that really necessary, we've been told "When things go FUBAR its better to be looking AT something than looking FOR it".

Avgas · 25-03-2010 03:27PM

My main argument is that if we procure to replace the AUGs as the existing stock inevitably get worn out, we should NOT simply replace them one for one en bloc with AUG3s or some other 5.56mm rifle

(I hope the salespeople for HK416 somehow get to read this!)

Instead we should procure a balanced package of small arms from a supplier who by tender would be forced to put together a costed and integrated suite of weapons.The overall quantity should be enough to arm/equip at least one BATT sized unit and just maybe 2x BATTs.

The deal should feature in order of importance:

40mm type grenades (I’ll just leave it at that…whether Metal Storm or whatever I’d leave to DF people to sort out or others more knowledgable to suggest)
New Optics (ditto)
NATO STAG Rails.

And then if we’re staying safe and ‘keeping the faith’ with 5.56mm (as Manic, Iceman and Donny5, plus it seems just about everyone else, so desperately want) then fine….I mean really its grand…….

But PLEASE PLEASE let’s have a quantity of 5.56 LSW with a good sight integrated? That gives more or less a new capability we don’t have at section level. A standard AUG is NOT comparable to BA current LSW-am I right?

Oh, and PLEASE PLEASE let us not waste money and barrels on an section 5.56mm LMG

(yes I know eveyone loves the look of the ARW ParaMinimi….but as far as I know there is no great evidence it is a fire fight winner. Its kool….but do we need it?)

And seeing as for anything involving open country (Chad, Astan, Moate, etc.) we will surely be wanting to bring along the legacy 7.62mm GPMG…why not get a few light weight 7.62mm GPMG models to reduce weight burdens?

So I’ll drop for now my interest in PDW from the shopping list…is everybody smiling and happy now?

When will we get it here in Ireland?

Its not about the RIFLE. It never was. Not in 1939. Not in 2009. Not in Tibnin 1981. Not at Jadotville either.

At both of those ‘days out’ for OUR PEOPLE they presence of a 90mm packing Panhard or an ancient but effective Vickers .303 gun were decisive (if indeed anything was on the weapons front).

BUT I hear someone shout the USMC creed: ‘Everyman a rifleman’

I say: this is mostly USMC rhetoric/folklore.

What decides most infantry firefights is HE (whether from 40mm, 51mm or 60mm and maybe sometimes even RPG/LAAW type fires) + GPMG is what really wins, and of course when it ends up close and nasty, as it usually does, then its volume fires and low recoil you’d be wanting.

Whether you get that from a 9mm Izui circa 1975, a fancy and pricey 4.6mm PDW or an equally pricy and fancy AUG3 with rails’n’stuff on it…well who really cares?

Weight and cost should be the driving procurement concerns on that front.

Yes its nice that the 5.56 would go that bit further in range….the zone between 200-300m would be covered …okay maybe 200-400m …..but really… once you go towards a ranged engagement beyond 200m then it’s the section support weapons that are there to win that.

On the list above I didn’t add newbie rockets/LAAW types…..

We are really BROKE guys…you do all know that?

AT4’tis for now, sir.

More controversially, maybe if we got the grenade system right we wouldn’t really need them that much for the majority of PK/ACP situations we’re likely to wind up in.

Save something like Tibnin 1981 or Srebrenica 1995. But then AUGs are not the decider in such situations anymore than PDWs.

You’d be looking for ARW or similar spookies that speak good American or Franglais to their FAC/CAS ‘friends’ (if indeed their out/up there).

Just some thoughts.

It wasn't me! · 25-03-2010 03:59PM

So, you're proposing that the individual infantry won't be able to effectively engage a target until they're within range of their PDWs, and until then they're just logistical support for units like th GPMG? Personally, I'd rather have something I can use, myself, when under fire, rather than relying on someone else to lay down fire while I support them. You're just taking away a core competency of an infantry soldier there. I know you're aiming to transform him into something else, and the motivations are reasonably good, but you're taking away his capacity for personal self-defence beyond the range of his PDW. In theory, your reorganisation of weapons structures will provide the defence he requires for this role, but if I were in the situation, I'd want a rifle of my own with which I could effectively engage attackers beyond PDW range. Most may not be able to shoot accurately enough past 300m, but that doesn't really justify removing such an important core competency either. Surely the answer is more likely going to be improved marksmanship across the board, and an emphasis on it in training, rather than an expensive re-equipment programme and the loss of a core competency, with the transformation of an infantry unit to a combined logistics unit/fire support group. Also, you've never asserted what the problems are with the Steyr itself. I don't see what other comparable rifles do that it doesn't; it's not outdated by a long shot. The debate over chambering is ongoing and isn't likely to be solved any time soon, so let's assume 5.56mm remains in use for the foreseeable future. It's also worth noting that 4.6x30mm is stupidly expensive, as is 5.7x28mm. They're produced in small quantities at high cost because they're not popular, and the Irish Defence Forces adopting them would not change this fact, so the cost of supply would increase enormously, especially if you envision high volumes of fire.

Donny5 · 25-03-2010 03:59PM

Of course we know we're broke. That's why the AUG will do fine.

Manic Moran · 25-03-2010 04:30PM

Instead we should procure a balanced package of small arms from a supplier who by tender would be forced to put together a costed and integrated suite of weapons.The overall quantity should be enough to arm/equip at least one BATT sized unit and just maybe 2x BATTs.

The deal should feature in order of importance:

40mm type grenades (I’ll just leave it at that…whether Metal Storm or whatever I’d leave to DF people to sort out or others more knowledgable to suggest)
New Optics (ditto)
NATO STAG Rails.

And then if we’re staying safe and ‘keeping the faith’ with 5.56mm (as Manic, Iceman and Donny5, plus it seems just about everyone else, so desperately want) then fine….I mean really its grand…….

But PLEASE PLEASE let’s have a quantity of 5.56 LSW with a good sight integrated? That gives more or less a new capability we don’t have at section level. A standard AUG is NOT comparable to BA current LSW-am I right?

OK, this is a different issue entirely to the earlier suggestions and is far less controversial. There's absolutely nothing wrong with an incremental upgrade in capability. 15 years ago, most rifles had no optics. Then they had optics, now it's pretty much standard that you're going to have a picatinny rail on it to add whatever optics or other goodies your heart desires. In the US now rifles are issued with M68 as a single line item. (But are still tracked separately for accountability purposes). The perfect case in point is the Australian army which has started an upgrade programme: The Aussies I saw in Afghanistan all had new F88 (AUG) rifles with rail mounts. This would be a perfectly logical upgrade for the the Irish.

Similarly, top covers for MGs in the US have been replaced with ones which have rail mounts integrated onto them. As sights such as the ELCAN become cheaper, it became feasible to have them as a nearly-standard accessory. This makes perfect sense and isn't much of a controversy.

Oh, and PLEASE PLEASE let us not waste money and barrels on an section 5.56mm LMG

(yes I know eveyone loves the look of the ARW ParaMinimi….but as far as I know there is no great evidence it is a fire fight winner. Its kool….but do we need it?)

Two schools of thought on that one. The US Marines have decided that the M249 (Minimi) is too heavy, and that it slows down their infantry squads. As a result, their new Squad Automatic Rifle is basically a heavy-barreled M-16 with a bipod and a happy switch. (Full auto selector). This has divided opinions right down the middle, as it doesn't take much to get to the bottom of a 30-round magazine and you have an immediate built-in-by-design stoppage problem. On the other hand, the Squad Automatic Rifleman can be a far more integrated member of the squad for things like room clearing, and at the bluntest level, he can run faster, which means the whole squad can run faster. Doesn't do much to help you with the long-range-suppression argument, I fear.

On the other hand, the US Army has started to go slightly the other way in Afghanistan, replacing the M249 in some units in Afghanistan with the Mk48 which is basically a 7.62mm Minimi. A little heavier, with less ammo and a lack of ammo commonality with the rest of the squad, but far more of an attention-getter when you're at the other end and you didn't bring an M240 along because it's a bastard to carry in the mountains. It is to be noted that it is not a doctrinal M249 or M240 replacement, it's simply something given to units in Afghanistan and removed from them again when they leave and they go back to the stored 5.56mm. I doubt that the Irish Army has the budget to make such discretionary purchases.

why not get a few light weight 7.62mm GPMG models to reduce weight burdens?

According to the instructors, the titanium bipod on the Mk48 costs about $1,300. The bipod. You'll have a 'few' MGs, all right.

but really… once you go towards a ranged engagement beyond 200m then it’s the section support weapons that are there to win that.

So if I am engaged at 150m, you suggest that I (and my squad with support weapons) should run the opposite direction about 75m so that the balance of firepower goes in my favour? I refer you back to my earlier comment about the job of infantry being to 'close with and destroy'

NTM

Avgas · 25-03-2010 04:52PM

V. Nice post It wasn't me.

A full exchange of views. Your not wrong...maybe I'm not so much either?
I hear you and understand your position.

You do understand I'm pushing the argument more than just a bit to learn?

Here goes.

So, you're proposing that the individual infantry won't be able to effectively engage a target until they're within range of their PDWs,

Nope, the GPMG, 40mm and LSW/or snipe will do that anyhwere from 150-1,000m. Note previous post I've recanted (a tad) and if only on economic grounds said lets get AUG3s and ditch what for me is the PDW 'side issue'.

You're just taking away a core competency of an infantry soldier there.

Nope. The core competency is the section and its ability for movement, firepower, and redundancy/protection. The core capability of the section comes from the GPMGs and the GLs or CG84s or LAAWs. Remove them and you've undermined a lot of the ability of any section. Its still a threat with rifles but not to the same degree. In the Falklands, our friends the Brits found out the secret to winning most battles was taking out their GPMGs/HMGs bunker system. Once these were folded, the game was usually changed. Rifles, whether SLR or FN FALs (when they didn't jam) were more or less beside the point. Brutual tactical reality.

Most may not be able to shoot accurately enough past 300m, but that doesn't really justify removing such an important core competency either.

It does. Yes, as you concede most 5.56mm fires beyond 300 are utterly wasted-both in terms of supression and kill. So it is entirely justified to dump a capability that is mostly theoretical. Warfare is an extreme business. You make compromises on what kit you bring/buy and issue and sometimes those compromises have to be a bit extreme as well to match the situation. Do you bring more 5.56mm ammo and burn it up out there or more GPMG belts and more 40mm? I'm with the latter view and prune the 5.56mm issue to the bone-keep it sweet and just for close-in. That's an extreme view BUT armies do extreme things all the time in terms of how they deploy tactically. Fast route marches anyone?

Surely the answer is more likely going to be improved marksmanship across the board, and an emphasis on it in training, rather than an expensive re-equipment programme and the loss of a core competency

In an ideal world. The optics are getting better. The simulation gear much better. Stuff to measure and train around fall of shot means suppression can become a bit more of a science than an art, etc. But this is the old 'cult of the marksman' I hear, no? Maybe in an ACP and COIN context one could argue marks ability is so much more important to avoid collateral. BUT, that does not detract from knowing intensity and volume of fire is as often the contender. Moreover, its points towards an integral marks/snipe weapon within the squad rather than bog standard AUGs

Just a different view from yours on what to stress in tactical doctrine. Not saying your totally wrong.

Avgas.

Avgas · 25-03-2010 05:21PM

Manic raised a valid point before. he was also v. funny in the last post-and I'll respond later....I like it ...run 75m the other way.

But previously, I confess my use of the word ‘Snipe’ was vulgur and uneducated. Thank you Manic.

I now recant and kowtow.

A bit.

Not really in fact.

Of course your right. Today’s traditional Snipe is not section/plt fire and movement bread and butter-right? That the tactical orthodoxy which USMC, Royal Marines and the nice people at Brecon and Warminister ‘teach’. Snipe is ‘special’. Snipe is Cy or Batt level support.

Phone the Cmmdt. or the Col. someone?

Problem: that doctrine arguably ghettoizes precise fires to Coy level support when in ACP, PK and COIN (our world) you might want that here and now and within the section, or at least Plt for the nice young 2Lt to shout for. Let him (or her?) decide.

Empower the junior tactical level who must do the business.

But we’re Irish so we adopt whatever the western armies are doing….a few years behind maybe. So far…. so average.

BUT yes Manic your correct, I’m really talking up a role for a designated marks/person (ouch!)

I’ll be a bit more real world and say this person should probably carry a 5.56mm LSW and be ranging for between 3-600m The right sight is important. Obviously if we ditch 5.56 entirely it would make sense to have heavier 7.62 stuff issued…

BUT we’re Irish we’ll never take a really bold assertive leap in the dark like dumping 5.56mm. No we’ll just take a really bold assertive leap in the dark propping up inept banks!

I understand that.

(BTW I seem to remember French sections used to routinely have a 7.5mm weapon even when the went with FAMAS…not sure now…..what they lug around).

In my darker moods, one can ponder the delights that might be achieved by a proper heavy floating barrel in 7.62x51 nestled within the section and with the right ammo.

OR (now this really is mad and dangerously towards Walter Mitty) an object of desire from the “world of .338”. Okay that’s never going happen. Too much gun and money for small man (person) in a small squad/section. But say a heavy AR in 7.62mm…the SOCOM SCARs are looking good…. and there is always the old HK series of gear, etc.

BUT, no, there is no necessary tactical reason why a Snipe sorry Marks role could not be built in systematically at the lower tactical level. I think to borrow a phrase from a leading manufactuer of sports goods, why not ‘just do it’?

My concern in the OP was the type of weapon(s) that should be procured. A snipe type thingee should be bought for REGULAR integration into section/plt….whether this should be a 5.56mm LSW or a proper 7.62mm rifle …well that can be debated back and forth…..

Regardless, its precision fires you want out to 600m…discreet and low intensity in volume because of civies…giving the section some sort of counter snipe potential…an excellent standard overwatch on VCPs that avoids GPMG overkill in many scenarios, and for statics and other situations and of course flank covering in the fire/movement phase when it gets heavy. Yes.. its true… as it gets really heavier there would be an issue of being out of fire response volume for the person carrying…BUT a 5.56mm LSW would handle that.

I await inevitable disagreement, horror and outrage.

It wasn't me! · 25-03-2010 05:27PM

But you are removing a core competency. An infantry soldier, or rifleman, should be able to respond, personally, with aimed rifle fire, when attacked. He should not be immediately forced to call for support because he is personally vulnerable by virtue of having no useful personal arm.

Support weapons are just that. Individual fire capability is vital to fulfill the infantry role of closing with and destroying the opposition. You're talking about the competency of an infantry unit, as opposed to the core competency of an infantry soldier, whose role includes the ability to provide aimed rifle fire, as I've said, where needed. The main body of an infantry unit does not, and should not, exist purely to feed the support infrastructure. I mean, the nomenclature tells the story on its own; the support weapons exist in order to enable the main bulk of the unit, infantry soldiers, to close with and destroy the enemy. If the rifle was so irrelevant, why did British troops pick up Argentinian FALs, for the greater firepower? Sure, the support weapons proved the more important and decisive factor on the level of the battle, but on the individual level, the capacity to return fire when shot at is of immense significance.

For instance:

Imagine you're under fire, in an unfortunately exposed position, from about 300m. You're currently attempting to resupply your section's GPMG, which has until now been suppressing the enemy who's now shooting at you, but has run out of ammunition. In the middle of your resupply, you're pinned down in a shallow defilade, with a 4.6x30mm PDW, the same weapon carried by your compatriots, who are now totally incapable of laying down covering fire to enable your retreat. Your snipers can't get a clear shot on target, your GPMG team is out of ammo, and your fellow infantry gophers - since that's what they're reduced to - haven't got the capability to engage the people shooting at you.

Now, imagine that as you're trapped in the middle of this resupply, that your section can bring passably accurate rifle fire to bear on the source of your discomfort; maybe it's not accurate enough to destroy the threat, but it's accurate enough to keep heads down and enable to you retreat and complete your resupply, to enable the GPMG team to continue their suppression, which enables your section to close the distance, putting more and more accurate rifle fire down until you can seize the position used. Now, let's assume the ground between your original position and the enemy position is fairly open, with little cover. You're forced to cross it as quickly as possible, with a maximum of support fire, to avoid being pinned down. In the scenario where you're carrying PDWs, you can't even begin to provide fire of your own until you've already crossed about 200m of open ground; rifle fire would have been possible at every step.

Basically, I think it's wrong to place too much emphasis on the support weapons infrastructure at the expense of the defensive and offensive capability of the individual soldiers. Turning the section into a combined logistics and fire support group doesn't make sense while trying to retain the infantry mandate. There's a certain amount of the belief that every soldier should be a rifleman, but, let's face it, that belief didn't surface out of thin air either. If every soldier is a marksman, then they have the capacity to personally intervene where accurate fire is needed, rather than relying on a support weapons infrastructure, which is itself vulnerable to being cut off from its supply, in events such as the hypothetical situation above outlines.

arybvtcw0eolkf · 25-03-2010 07:06PM

Donny5 wrote: »

Of course we know we're broke. That's why the AUG will do fine.

And if the cost of maintaining the Steyr is prohibitive?.

Avgas · 25-03-2010 07:17PM

Dear It wasn’t me,

You’ve really got to stop sending in what are, unfortunately for me, pretty good posts with serious objections.

I will try and respond and hope you take what I say in the spirit of this exercise, no? Your objections are in black.

But you are removing a core competency. An infantry soldier, or rifleman, should be able to respond, personally, with aimed rifle fire, when attacked.
Religious Dogma not flexible tactical thinking or practice. Gets GOOD PEOPLE killed…at least potentially. Fact; there are many tactical situations where his/her aimed rifle is useless/waste of ammo. Tanks are just one situation-admit a tad extreme. But that’s why the order ‘hold fire’ exists and is trained for not just when the BAD PEOPLE (or enemy if you like Manic) are dead/wounded/legging it. If your attacked with an IED or incoming mortar from 1-3k out, then your fancy AUG3 individual rifle with optics and rails is pretty useless, no?
Yet we’ve known for years the majority of fatalities and wounds in infantry come from these fires (at least averaged across most conflicts/theatres). Certainly the case today in the sunnier and deadlier climes we’re there is so much ‘trouble’. One drill the old BA used to have re getting mortar incoming was to have the 2inch man (51mm to me) quickly drop down and lob back roughly. Depended on terrain but correct the fire as you go…important just to get moving and get cover fire back often roughly in the direction of incoming at speed. Often worked apparently even though it was dog-rough. Classic infantry business without a rifle.
He should not be immediately forced to call for support because he is personally vulnerable by virtue of having no useful personal arm.
But they do often quickly call for support from the MG. Its often decisive. Without the GPMG how many firefights would the infantryman win much less survive?
Support weapons are just that. Individual fire capability is vital to fulfill the infantry role of closing with and destroying the opposition. You're talking about the competency of an infantry unit, as opposed to the core competency of an infantry soldier, whose role includes the ability to provide aimed rifle fire, as I've said, where needed.
The sum is however much greater than the parts. A section is not the capabilities of each rifleman merely aggregated and topped off with an MG…..its the collective use of firepower, movement, as a series of teams that matter, etc. You talk of closing and destroying. But often when it goes that close-in we’re no longer just talking about a rifle. LAW66 …a support weapon…and (hand) grenades were vital in the final stages in the Falklands…oh and bayonets. It’s a mistake to get hung on rifles. And by that stage your using the rifle as a glorified, if overly heavy, SMG.
The main body of an infantry unit does not, and should not, exist purely to feed the support infrastructure. I mean, the nomenclature tells the story on its own; the support weapons exist in order to enable the main bulk of the unit, infantry soldiers, to close with and destroy the enemy.
Names tell a story agreed. That’s why their used to be a distinction between Grenadiers, Light rifles/fusliers, Jager infantry and ‘line’ infantry. Each mixed different types of tools for different types of infantry offering different things tactically. That how it was in 1815. Same in 2015 I bet.
It was never just about one type of weapon or even the individual soldier….volley fire was about the collective weight of the volley right?
If the rifle was so irrelevant, why did British troops pick up Argentinian FALs, for the greater firepower?
Because they were desperate about how ineffectual their rifles were close-up at the final 50m-precisely where a PDW would be good. And because as you well know the BA deliberately issued SLRs without full auto as an option. Anyhow full auto was never that viable on the FAL given recoil, so many armies who had it technically as an option, like the Argies, often limited its use more or less. BA didn’t have the option.
( I know it..some guy will now post about how on full auto in the Leb…he….etc. ).
In fact echoing your sentiments, they were trapped inside the body of a professional army that worshipped the cult of the individual marksman, forcing the BA infantry to adopt in the late 1950s a dumb and heavy SLR because it was believed: “If they get a whiff of full-auto sir, the boys would lose the run of themselves”. Ammo waste and inaccuracy would be bred. Communism and Socialism would spread. So the mandarins of the MOD, plus the toffy officer set and the mostly conservative NCOs conspired to poo-poo volume fires as ‘foreign and German’ and anyhow everyone who was thinking tactically knew it was much more important to keep the Brens going and get the new GPMG right (which they did). And to keep the 2 inch (that saga been as long going as the Sullivans). This from the same outfit that learned the hard way that stuff like the MG42 and mortars were the things to watch.
I never advocated SLR type weapons have I?
Imagine you're under fire, in an unfortunately exposed position, from about 300m. You're currently attempting to resupply your section's GPMG, which has until now been suppressing the enemy who's now shooting at you, but has run out of ammunition. In the middle of your resupply, you're pinned down in a shallow defilade, with a 4.6x30mm PDW, the same weapon carried by your compatriots, who are now totally incapable of laying down covering fire to enable your retreat. Your snipers can't get a clear shot on target, your GPMG team is out of ammo, and your fellow infantry gophers - since that's what they're reduced to - haven't got the capability to engage the people shooting at you.
Their not gophers their grenadiers-at least two anyhow. In my model the section would have at least 2 UGLs. Indeed I see it as central/vital much more so than blowing cash on AUG3s. They could use the 40mm from behind the cover-I assume they are with cover? Having 2x40’s means some redundancy, so if one gets hit there is at least something to hit back. Yes the PDWs would be utterly useless at 300m BUT at 300m the performance of the return fire volleys from the AUG3 or HK416s might well be marginal. I admit It would all sound and look very impressive-which why everyone just luvs it.
I even concede it might well work. Depends who the BAD PEOPLE might be….this type of thing did happen to the IDF versus HIZEBOLLAH chaps in 2006 in at least one case. They declined to be discouraged by rifle fire, even much closer than 300m. And they had much more serious gear to inflict harm.
You see we know the actual chances at 300m of the 5.56m volleys being effective is…well iffy, no? Even for suppression.
You’d doubtless contest that. I’m not sure is my honest answer.
Now, a section or plt 51mm mortar would be lovely (I’m assuming we can use some of other defilade as cover?) but …you know we can all dream the dream?
So the answer is 40mm buddy. Far from perfect I admit. Oh and in my model, because their stuck with the runty little PDW….they’ve over compensated by bringing along MORE 40mm = MORE FUN for the section = MORE indirect fire support to discourage said BAD PEOPLE. Such fires can reach 300m no prob and fire from within cover. The 40mm projectile, even if only half a dozen, would have a very different feel for the BAD PEOPLE than our hundreds of wasted SS109 rds.
Also because they saved some weight by not carrying the FETISH items of the 5.56mm rifles, guess what?…They’ve just discovered they were able to bring an extra 100rd belt of 7.62mm for the GPMG? (okay that is really cheap and rubbishy of me-I scrub that….I apologize!)
Question: would an existing Irish section with BORING (sorry… pretty decent) AUG3’s, fancy optics and not really much else be better able to weasel out of this one? Methinks the stuff to make the difference would be the support weapons NOT the AUGs.
But hey…. ?
Basically, I think it's wrong to place too much emphasis on the support weapons infrastructure at the expense of the defensive and offensive capability of the individual soldiers.

Basically I think it isn’t. It is wrong to fetishise the rifle/rifleman when it is only one tool in the toolbox. The others are as, and probably MORE important. That’s the line of difference between us.

BTW it is a great example. There were several cases just like in Falklands, where BA units were trapped in peaty depressions under heavy GPMG and snipe fire. In many cases it seems they responded not so much by firepower but by movement…its called fire AND maneuver, no? They flanked and took time to check where they could go. Nasty. Mines were a problem. At night it was often a bit easier it seems.
But I digress.

I await your total slaughter/ambush/verbal IEDS, etc.
I feel it coming heavy this time. Incoming.

Avgas

hk · 25-03-2010 07:21PM

Most of this is really off the mark:

New GPMG's - Done replaced in the last two years of so

40mm - not just the remit of ARW, now in wide spread use
Also SHRAAW is commonly available

Personal Defence SMG are exactly that - AN SMG for PERSONAL DEFENCE - they are designed to replace handguns not rifles ie in the context of the PDF there considered as weapons for issue instead of where pistols only are carried - thus the reason so few HK USPs were purchased - it is intended that those types of weapons may be purchased in the future.

Your comments about the Steyr becoming dangerous is frankly silly - its why there is an ordnance corp and all weapons are regularly tested.

Some current thinking on the subject advocates going bigger not smaller and there may be a shift towards 7.62mm or a similar caliber. At minimum 5.56 should and will be retained.

Regarding tender docs - people with a much greater knowledge of the DF requirements formulate what the DF needs and it goes to a tender competition, your suggestions otherwise are confusing, BTW some companies only make specific types of arms but make them very well why tender for everything at once it only excludes a large number of companies, tender separately to fulfill each requirement.

Your knowledge of military operations is quite limited based on the points you are raising, sniper teams are a coy bn asset for a reason, 99% of their job is gathering battle field intelligence, they are a forward recce ISTAR asset, if snipers are needed during a section operation they will be available and it doesn't require a phone call to a Lt Col.

This thread had the potential to be an interesting debate but I feel it has just turned into a crash course on military doctrine for the OP. Its all a bit waltish and smacks of I came up with this great idea right when i was playing battlefield two or whatever!

hk · 25-03-2010 07:25PM

Tessa Damp Elm wrote: »

And if the cost of maintaining the Steyr is prohibitive?.

HK 416 all the way!!!

Donny5 · 25-03-2010 07:42PM

Tessa Damp Elm wrote: »

And if the cost of maintaining the Steyr is prohibitive?.

I can't imagine the cost of maintenance eclipsing the cost of replacement.

Avgas · 25-03-2010 07:46PM

I think HK is very unhappy I dissed the HK416 sometime back.

I am v. sorry for that. I'm sure its lovely really.

I'll respond later to the pts. you legitmately raise

Avgas.

Poccington · 25-03-2010 07:48PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Similarly, top covers for MGs in the US have been replaced with ones which have rail mounts integrated onto them. As sights such as the ELCAN become cheaper, it became feasible to have them as a nearly-standard accessory. This makes perfect sense and isn't much of a controversy.

Our GPMG's already have rails fitted on their top covers.

Why they refuse to just buy new housing groups with rails fitted for our Steyr's will forever remain a mystery to me.

New rifles for Irish DF-fantasy and/or reality?

Comments