Even as an avid sci-fi geek, I have avoided David Drake so far - no real reason; it just seemed too pulpy, and one book by John Ringo was too many. How about Jerry Pournelle (dodgy politics aside)?

I'll see your Hammer and raise you Charles Stross' "Halting State" as a much better look at how technology might impact processes and systems.

Anyway, my aim would be simple - to reduce the time on target of a fire mission to close on that of a target within a silent fire plan; by reducing where possible those individual tasks which can be eased by the use of simple technology, and by data transmission instead of voice.

I thought Gravelbelly's point was that you don't always have a number 2.

Possibly the main failure of the LSW is that it is too similar to the other weapons in the section. When firing, it doesn't sound or look different to other weapons fire. SLA Marshall (regardless of his methodology, or lack of it) noted that soldiers with a support weapon felt more responsible and more likely to fire it. With the LSW, the additional effect is not obvious compared to the rifle, so the user is less likely to feel that he had to get involved as much to make a difference, unlike a Bren to a Lee Enfield, or a GPMG or a Minimi to an SA80 or SLR

Well, that's crap then. You ALWAYS have a number 2 of some kind in the infantry, whether it's the mucker on your right in the assualt or the last big chod you left in the ditch over there.

Rucksack SAS, 600 rds, belt emerges from the bergen over the right hand shoulder of the #2. Give it whompo, mate...[/quote]

Saw a regiment guy with a GPMG with the belt snaking into his bergan, on Corporate!
My view is the LSW is not a good fire support weapon because of it being magazine fed. Certainly in 2 para in '82 we had 2 GPMG's per section, a knock-on of this was patrol company had to give theirs up and were issued LMG's. We were as a disadvantage in terms of fire support compared to the rifle coys.
Saying all this, the LSW would be a suitable designated marksman weapon, taking into account the Army has 1000's of them that are cluttering up armouries, and it would be a cost effective solution.

Saw a regiment guy with a GPMG with the belt snaking into his bergan, on Corporate!
My view is the LSW is not a good fire support weapon because of it being magazine fed. Certainly in 2 para in '82 we had 2 GPMG's per section, a knock-on of this was patrol company had to give theirs up and were issued LMG's. We were as a disadvantage in terms of fire support compared to the rifle coys.
Saying all this, the LSW would be a suitable designated marksman weapon, taking into account the Army has 1000's of them that are cluttering up armouries, and it would be a cost effective solution.[/quote]

Exactly. I've done the same with patrol packs of various types. You just need to be careful and check the belt feed every once in awhile.

The best thing to do with the LSWs would be to sell them to civvy shooters and give them Section 5 Authority to hold them for target shooting.

The next generation upgrade for the Infantry weapon would be available for zero development cost!


Otherwise, remove the fore-end. Remove the bipod from the fore-end.

Fit the Picatinny fore_end. Rework the bipod to fit the picatinny fore-end.

Fit a x6 optical sight (The X6 ACOG with miniature Red Dot would be ideal)

Fit the Vortex flash eliminator arranged to take a bayonet.

Optional - fit a laser Range finder to the fore-end.

Why not simply go with the minimi along with the paraminimi, the minimi having a longer barrel than the L110A3, you then have the capability to reach out and touch a few people a bit further than the rifle can do and nobody has to haul that god awful trash around with them. Or am I thinking too sensibly here?

I pretty much had the same idea myself about turning it back into 'a rifle', especially re the optical sight.

LSW is an accurate weapon on s/s and pinging fig 11's out to 800m+ with a better sight than x4 shouldn't be a problem.
The Toms will soon get used to carrying it as a rifle although the point of balance is shite

Accurate by SA80 standards or truly accurate?

LSW CRACKING PIECE OF KIT.....THATS WHY PARA REG HAVNT USED IT FOR YEARS. GET THE GPMGS N MINIMIS ON THE GO.

No need to shout.

Although our LSW's are just cluttering up the armoury and have done for the last 10 years apparently!

Agree with all of that, it would lighter and less muzzle heavy that the current LSW and would be better for long range shooting than either the current LSW or the rifle.

For sure, the LSW will never be a sniper rifle, but it's accurate enough for most of the 'good shots' in a rifle platoon. Most of our Bods are expected to hit a fig 11 at 600m with it.

As for the SA80 accuracy?...i know fellas who were 'average to poor' with the SLR but were wearing crossed rifles after firing the same APWT once we converted to SA80. Even hitting tgts at 500m and beyond with a rifle aint exactly hard.

I think that both weapons are caple of very good accuracy but the sights do need to be x6 on the LSW in order to reach out and 'share the love'.

More magnification on a sight allows you to discern your target and observe fall of shot better (given a suitable clarity of optic) but it doesn't make for more accurate shooting.

I do wonder if some of the problem with the LSW is that the noise to weight ratio isn't high enough.

For Para reg, that's not shouting mate.

BRING UP THE GENERAL 'N GIVE IT BIG LICKS, SELL THE WATCHES AND WOMEN FOR PINTS AT THE TRAF, THEN HAVE A GOOD SCRAP WITH MORTARS AND MAKE A CURRY IN THE MOP BUCKET!!!!!

See, much better... ahh.. Oi loves the Reg oi do.... snif

I can hit a fig 11 reliably with my No.4 @600yds so that's no great shakes. I'll come back to this with some data.

I see where you're going with Drake, but I like him anyway, especially the Slammers stuff. His description of comms, helmet mounted sights, automatic cueing, look at the terrain and get a grid that the arty gets automatically and so is what he would have liked to have in Vietnam. You could try the volumes online at the Baen Free Library for a cost-free assessment.

Oh, and I have to admit that John Ringo is a guilty pleasure. Well, more the literary equivalent of a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but you can't help it. Just read Ghost and the sequels. (If you dare.) Hell, at one point in the Aldenata series I became convinced he was using satire to criticise the American way of war he ostensibly glamorises - that is, you have to invent an alien race of unstoppable killing machines to find an enemy it works against.

And good call on Stross, I read Halting State only last weekend.

....and everyone missed my original point....95% reliable...wtf is that supposed to mean..and should the military really be making statements like that when they are attacked daily on the shortcommings of the equipment issued?

I was also under the impression the L96 was getting dragged back to the units to take over the marksman role.

Theres a need for a 7.62 bolt action, but with snipers, not markman.( the .338 weighs as much as a GPMG, bit difficult to stalk with!) Too slow, un-wieldy,. Besides, AI are not building any more L96's, theres no spare parts beyond whats on inventory at the moment, and just not enough L96's to go around at section level.
The beauty of the LSW conversion is we have shed loads of them, the longer barrel will allow precision shots out to say 600 ( with appropriate sight), it looks like an A2 when its got its rail system on. The balance is changed when this is in place, the rail and bipod are lighter than the old systen and so much better, and no re-training to a different weapon system . Its a no-brainer, as our U.S cousins say, when it comes to a cost-effective solution. Yes, there are probably better off-the-shelf solutions out there, but the LSW conversions make a lot of sense, if we buy into the idea that infantry sections need a weapon system with a bit of a longer reach ( the mid ground between the A2 armes section and snipers) for the best shot in that section.