Thread: LSW...the Armys view...

Originally Posted by "Fallschirmjager

I hope I didn't come across as a big timing walt for those of you that baulk at the word 'operational experience'.

Operational experience should always get the casting vote and I believe that it usually does (*) ... the question should be are we using the right operational experience ?

Arguably the whole SMLE/Bren - SLR/LMG - SA80A1/LSW approach to infantry section weapons shows the determination of the Army (**) to win Spion Kop Part 2. The lack of acknowledgement (almost a reluctance to admit they exist) of such things as machine guns, grenades, RPGs and so on - its like the 20th century never happened.

And I'm afraid that whole SLR - man's gun - one shot kill - jumpers for goalposts crap proves nothing more than the speaker needs to be reminded that it is not longer 1985. In the Falklands soldiers ran out of ammo as they could not carry enough, and had the Argies not handily used the same ammo in compatible mags things could have gone very badly.


(*) I have none - well, none that involves being shot at although I have plenty of experience looking at overhead imagery of sandstorms and seeing what I find (***). When I tell people my war stories are boring they never believe me - until I tell them, and then they try and dig their way out through the wall behind them with their shoulder blades.

(*) Or at least that part responsible for writing the turgid, mostly incomprehensible and logically inconsistent dross that passes for doctrine most of the time. Fucks sake, sticking the buzzword du jour in five times a paragraph isn't a substitute for rigorous analysis - "effects", "fires", "kinetic" .... and random CAPITALISATION - or should I say CAPITALIZATION since we copy the US without understanding far too often. I saw the COIN guide from Gen Lamb recently - clear, concise, understandable - how did that slip through the net ?

(***) Usually sod all.

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

Arguably the whole SMLE/Bren - SLR/LMG - SA80A1/LSW approach to infantry section weapons shows the determination of the Army (**) to win Spion Kop Part 2. The lack of acknowledgement (almost a reluctance to admit they exist) of such things as machine guns, grenades, RPGs and so on - its like the 20th century never happened.

Good point, very well made.

On A.N. other thread a little while back, some of us catalogued weapons systems that surfaced in previous wars, only to be forgotten and then re-invented: not once, but multiple times, in light of - O Feck My Old Boots - operational experience. I kicked off that line of thought with muzzle-launched grenades - there are many other examples.

I'm not sure whether it is financial economy or plain ignorance that drives it. Either way, it is foolish.

Originally Posted by Stonker

No good having an accurate weapon if - after 20 minutes on a 2-way range, working at the rapid rate (not something built into any Bisley shoot I ever heard of) it's too fecking hot for the firer to use the sights.

Well, given that the trials teams were firing Battlefield Missions of 960 rds in less than nine minutes, in the desert, and were still able to fire the weapon at the end of it, I'd guess that things aren't quite as bad as you made out.

Meanwhile, remind me what the first-line scaling of 5.56 is for an LSW gunner? Or for a Minimi user, for that matter? Less than 960 rounds, maybe?

Oh - and the 400-to-300 phase of the gun match is to run a hundred meters, adopt a fire position, and fire 16 rounds, inside thirty seconds. That's pretty much rapid rate (it's about 100rds/min once you start firing). It's a very limited test of being able to hit the target with lots of rounds, fast, although I'd be the first to admit that 50rds is hardly a "test".

Perhaps the ARA should consider creating a gun match and its rifle match which comply with the Battlefield Missions? It would demonstrate reliability and be a better test of efficiency on the battlefield. The bill for ammunition and replacement barrels might be fun, mind you...

Originally Posted by Stonker

Again, I'd make the point that Bisley-type shooting is wrongly regarded as the Gold standard. If you can practice the shoot to perfection, if the targets appear at known ranges, if the targets are all static silhouettes, if you don't have to locate the target, estimate range and give a target indication before your team can start engaging effectively - standard aspects of competition shooting as advocated 100 years ago - then you're not really training for combat, you are simply having fun..

I'm well aware of that; but then 5.56 is a faster round, with a flatter trajectory than 7.62; 5.56 is more tolerant of the user getting excited and forgetting that the bullet doesn't fly in a straight line along aiming pointer, even for a zeroed weapon - although it's less tolerant of wind.

Range errors were being addressed by ballistics rather than extra training, rather like ABS on cars; you need less training to stop quickly and safely. Doesn't make ABS a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Stonker

As for the whippy barrel: I cannot understand why anyone would get excited about a (supposedly) automatic-fire weapon whose barrel needs a built-in splint to make it behave.

I don't care whether it uses unicorn hair and superglue to make it behave - is it accurate? Can it be maintained to be accurate? Is it accurate and still affordable? If so, who cares?

(Gravelbelly note - Malcolm Cooper, who designed the L96, won his second Olympic Gold after a BBC assistant knocked his rifle onto the ground during a pre-match interview, and broke its wooden stock. The Russian team armourer glued and pinned it back together. The rest is history... although you wouldn't want to repeat the experiment)

Originally Posted by Stonker

if you were a weapon designer with any grasp of combat, you wouldn't even try to build a weapon within the constraints set for the designers of LSW.

Except that people keep trying - see the USMC and their current IAR trials. Perhaps the HBAR M16 of the 1970s. Maybe the heavy-barrel-and-bipod Steyr AUG of the 1980s, or the Singaporean Ultimax of the 1990s. Maybe it's yet another effort to address the infantryman's load? Who knows, maybe some day, someone will succeed to your satisfaction?

Originally Posted by Stonker

The advocates of the weapon on here, seem to me to be those who like to fire it in competition, and those those who've never been shot at.

Rule 1 of internet debate. If you're worried about losing the argument on facts, start attacking any opponents. Which might have worked, except for that pesky Fallschirmjager - who I suspect has rather more operational experience than you do...

I'm trying to keep an open mind. You appear to have closed yours, and are making some <polite>rather wild</polite> claims to support your opinion.

so all things being equal in the light role if you can see the target the LSW is more likey to get a kill.

but if you can't see the exact target the gpmg will do a much better job of spoiling the targets day till you can get someone to see and kill him.

Originally Posted by DPM_Sheep

To go back to the LSW for a moment. FN have just developed a 100rd NATO mag for the USMC's IAR competition, (which HK look to have won.)

It might weight a bit, but could make the LSW a bit more useful too....

You sure about this ?
It might well be the C-Mag from The Beta Company, and if so I've a couple of questions:
1. How would you bring the LSW to the aim ?
2. How would you remove the mag once the rds were expended ?

Originally Posted by Fallschirmjager

Originally Posted by shimna01

A GPMG in the Lt role to suppress point targets (mansized) out to 600m
A GPMG in SF mounted on a buffered cradle to suppress area targets out to 1800 (direct fire) 2500 (MPF)

So what happens if we encounter point targets at 500m on an SF gunline? Do we take the guns off the tripods to use the guns in the light role? No we don't. What happens if a light role gun team spot enemy at 1000m? Do they ask for tripods to be brought forward to engage the enemy? No they don't. What i'm getting at is the GPMG can be used for all types of targets whether in the light role on SF mode. Obviously each has its own merits but the GPMG can be used to good effect in any role within reason.

Agreed- thats why i mentioned battle shooting. Its to do with effect/type of target. Opportunity target a 500m in SF Role- fire away, Point target at 1000m- you can fire Lt role

Two completly different roles which cannot be interchanged really i.e. firing a 20rd burst in Lt role, best left to seat of the pants counter ambush drills, and a 3-5 round burst in SF, sort of wasting your time.

Why is a 5 round burst a waste in SF mode? If the position only warrants a 5 round burst every now and again to suppress it are we to assume we have to fire a 20 round burst just because that's what it says in the pamphlet? Written by some SASC bloke who probably has or had no experience using GPMG (SF) on operational tours or indeed anywhere else! We apply the rate of fire and length of burst to get the job done. If that means a 50rnd burst or 3rnd burst then so be it. The pamphlet is a guide only!

Surely firing 5 rd bursts into a beaten zone that is 142m long/4.2m wide- an experienced ene will very quickly write that off as ineffective fire and start getting up to all sorts?

As you say its all about flexibility and the pamphlets were written with the primary aim of making sure that all the weapons cover certain ranges and nicely overlap with each other (hence the proscribed shoots to qualify being very rigid)- The GPMG(SF) little book of lies was/is all about defensive shoots covering nice rolling european farmland with excellent arcs and fields of fire, not from some sanger overlooking a marketplace/urban cluster

Originally Posted by Stonker

As for the whippy barrel: I cannot understand why anyone would get excited about a (supposedly) automatic-fire weapon whose barrel needs a built-in splint to make it behave.

But it doesn't.

The 'designers' rightfully realised that a bipod's place is not on a barrel, but on a support.
That however is as intelligent as they managed to get.
The girder on which the bipod is mounted is supported by the bbl itself, not the other way around.

It is pinned at the receiver and near the muzzle, thereby putting the barrel in tension before it even begins to be heated by rds, hence the split groups.
If the attachment at the business end is removed one ends up with a wobbly piece of 1mm junk swinging beneath the wpn.

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

Arguably the whole SMLE/Bren - SLR/LMG - SA80A1/LSW approach to infantry section weapons shows the determination of the Army (**) to win Spion Kop Part 2. The lack of acknowledgement (almost a reluctance to admit they exist) of such things as machine guns, grenades, RPGs and so on - its like the 20th century never happened.

That may be your perspective from an Other Arms point of view; but go back through copies of "The Infantryman" (one per year, well worth a read) and you'll see a constant debate on the subject of things other than the rifle bullet, and how to make fast metal of any type intercept soft flesh.

There was always the 2" mortar, and the glee which came with the HE round for its 51mm replacement in the 1980s. Now, there's the 60mm replacement.

There was CLAW (UOR for GRANBY, and post Derryard) in 1991; then there was the RLG which didn't require special cartridges to fire, and had sights scaled for one per rifle in the rifle section.

Then the infantry load trials which observed that bare issue kit and a realistic first-line scaling put the rifleman at a >30kg load on the start line, even before you considered the LAW (this was CLANSMAN era, not BOWMAN); and some trials supported an analysis that six UGLs per platoon was lighter and at least as effective as the existing "one 51mm and eighteen RLG launchers".

In support, there's been work on a heavier bullet for GPMG(SF), the various attempts at having a fourth Manoeuver Support section in the platoon with 2xGPMG, the rolling out of Heavy MG to deployed units (both 0.50 and 40mm), increased lethality 81mm HE rounds, I could go on...

...night vision scales went up, PRR arrived - all worthy, but they and their batteries are eating into the total weight budget of the platoon.

Originally Posted by One_of_the_strange

I saw the COIN guide from Gen Lamb recently - clear, concise, understandable - how did that slip through the net ?

And he's a bit dyslexic, too...

Originally Posted by Gravelbelly

There was CLAW (UOR for GRANBY, and post Derryard) in 1991; then there was the RLG which didn't require special cartridges to fire, and had sights scaled for one per rifle in the rifle section.

forgive me - CLAW as issued in '91, was an off-the-shelf purchase of an israeli bullet trap muzlle launched grenade.

CLAW had been 'in development' for years prior to that. Again, the spec against which it was being developed was unrealistic, in that it expected engineers to design a weapon that defied the laws of physics. RLGs/UGLs have been in service with many other armies for a long time for the simple reason that they are cheap, cheerful, and they work.

We had 'em in WW1, we had 'em in WW2 - and between times we forgot 'em.

I have solved the problem!
Gentlemen, I give you...
The Lewis Gun!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Gun

Originally Posted by Cutaway

Originally Posted by DPM_Sheep

To go back to the LSW for a moment. FN have just developed a 100rd NATO mag for the USMC's IAR competition, (which HK look to have won.)

It might weight a bit, but could make the LSW a bit more useful too....

You sure about this ?
It might well be the C-Mag from The Beta Company, and if so I've a couple of questions:
1. How would you bring the LSW to the aim ?
2. How would you remove the mag once the rds were expended ?

Sorry Cutaway, I can only offer lame half answers as this is pretty fresh gen. I haven't seen it for myself. I'm told by someone pretty trustworthy(If you can trust a Rock Ape...) - who has, that it might well be the dog's danglies if it lives up to expectations.

AFAIK, it's a different design to the C-Mag. How different? I dunno. Though I did get the impression its some form of center box mag rather than a dual drum mag design.

Originally Posted by shimna01

Surely firing 5 rd bursts into a beaten zone that is 142m long/4.2m wide- an experienced ene will very quickly write that off as ineffective fire and start getting up to all sorts?

The beaten zone will not be that large with a 5rnd burst and beaten zones were worked out from a firing point on flat ground firing onto flat ground of the same height (such as a beach). A good MG firebase should be on elevated ground to achieve good fields of fire and (in my personal opinion for theatre) to create plunging fire which negates much of the beaten zone as I prefer a shorter cone of fire for my guns. It is a rarity in Afghanistan to have massed enemy ranks. Fire will not be ineffective with 2 to 3 guns engaging a 5rnd burst every 6 seconds. That's 5 rounds every 2 to 3 seconds going into that position (guns should always work in at least paired groupings). Would you prefer to waste 60 rounds? I'd like to see anyone stick their head up and take a shot back!

Originally Posted by Cutaway

Originally Posted by Stonker

As for the whippy barrel: I cannot understand why anyone would get excited about a (supposedly) automatic-fire weapon whose barrel needs a built-in splint to make it behave.

But it doesn't.

The 'designers' rightfully realised that a bipod's place is not on a barrel, but on a support.
That however is as intelligent as they managed to get.
The girder on which the bipod is mounted is supported by the bbl itself, not the other way around.

It is pinned at the receiver and near the muzzle, thereby putting the barrel in tension before it even begins to be heated by rds, hence the split groups.
If the attachment at the business end is removed one ends up with a wobbly piece of 1mm junk swinging beneath the wpn.

I think that is heated agreement, isn't it?

all this talk about a marksmans LSW is all well and good but is there really a requirement for it?

sure the LSW could be made into a 5.56 marksmans piece, i cant really see it being much cop!

the IW can still engage accurately to 400+ so whats the point having some thing have might be able to get to 600 but isn't going to have any stopping power. if you want accurate fire at ranges l96 or l115 can do this. if you want rapid fire use the GPMG

Originally Posted by misterp

the IW can still engage accurately to 400+ so whats the point

I'd be very surprised if 40% of soldiers could accurately engage individuals at 400m+ with the IW.