If the A2 is so great why has nobody ordered any?

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#3
Back in the '80s I talked to a SASC chap on the Sales Team, trying to folg SA80 and LAW90 around the world. not even th eIrish Army would have it (sensibly went for the Ateyr AUG).

I beleieve that the only Countries who bought them (or were given them) were Mozambique, and the Papua New Guinea defence Force.
 
#4
OldSnowy said:
Back in the '80s I talked to a SASC chap on the Sales Team, trying to folg SA80 and LAW90 around the world. not even th eIrish Army would have it (sensibly went for the Ateyr AUG).

I beleieve that the only Countries who bought them (or were given them) were Mozambique, and the Papua New Guinea defence Force.
Maybe it's just that everyone else wants to use all the available cover and not just have to fire round the right hand side of things. It's a bit daft that everyone knows that if you go to ground behind some cover, which side of it you'll pop up at to fire a few rounds. :(
 

Goatman

ADC
Book Reviewer
#8
letters Page Daily Telegraph 02 October 2001

Sir - Lt Col Patrick Chambers is
right to describe the SA80 as an
accurate weapons system(letters
Sept.28th ). Its world-beating accuracy
has never been in question. he is
wrong, however, in deeming the new
A2 version to be unreliable. the
evidence he adduces is that the official
A2 trials were prejudiced in favour of
that weapon. This is a wholly
unwarranted slight on the integrity of
those Service personnel who
conducted the rigorous and objective
tests and trials described in your
defence correspondent's article of the
same date.
The results of various comparative
exercises, particularly that conducted
in rigoprous battlefield conditions in
Oman over the last three weeks,
show that the SA80 A2, correctly
maintained, is without rival both in
accuracy and reliability. Before the
exercise in Oman, 68 per cent of the
personnel involved questioned the
A2's reliability; at the conclusion, as a
result of hands-on experience, only
5 per cent questioned the weapon's reliability.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson
Commander-in Chief Land forces
Salisbury, Wilts
( and yes, he's subsequently moved on )

I wasn't on the trial but I've read the classified report which came out of it. I've also worked in Defence Sales for , er, seven years.

Maybe one of the reasons we can't sell this weapon overseas is that too many people in our own country want to tell the world (wrongly) that it ain't fit for purpose. Also, the A1's recognised failures prejudiced early potential buyers, such as the Omanis and its hard to battle back from that kind of rep.

Personally, I'm inclined to take PoD's word on this one.....him being a rufty-tufty professional Infantry cherry-berry and all....

I'd be interested to hear how many actual shooters on Op Telic 1 experienced problems with the A2.


Lee Shaver
 
#9
Because it's a piece of s"""e.
All you need to know about the SA80/A2 is that SF rejected it. 'Nuff said.
Having said that, if you lined up every MoD civil servant, I'd be happy to find out exactly how many people you can shoot wwith an A2 before it jams.
If it does'nt jam, I'll apologise on this Board - then I'll shoot Tony and Mike "Birdshit" Jackson.
 
#11
Goatman said:
I'd be interested to hear how many actual shooters on Op Telic 1 experienced problems with the A2.


Lee Shaver
Well I never actually shot a round in anger on Telic 1, which is lucky really as due to the safety cach on my A2 sticking at will on either 'safe' or 'fire', leading to a change in my weapon drills....

Safety catch.... oh sh1t, mag off, smack safety catch with mag, mag on......

Far from satisfactory and far from the level of reliability to be expected. And before I get accused of not cleaning or maintaining my 'Bob Marley' as per the instructions, far from it, as would anyone who thought that that their weapon could at some point be their savior. It was spotless and it was only after the safety catch was striped down and DRY cleaned that the problem became less, if not cured. And don't forget, dry cleaning in desert conditions was contrary to the book for the A2. But hey, it was good enough for my uncle in the Second World War so it was good enough for me..... besides, it wasn't going to make it worse was it?
 
#12
PP, perhaps if your weapon wasn't 'spotless' it wouldn't have had the problems you faced.? A significant number of the gang I deployed with fired considerable amounts of ammunition, and their lives were certainly depending on it. Having learnt that keeping the weapon loaded up with oil prevented stoppages, there were no dramas, and no complaints. But then maybe we were just lucky to have had the ITDU visit.

And for those of us who have been around for a few years, do we really have to go around this buoy again?
 
#13
Werewolf said:
All you need to know about the SA80/A2 is that SF rejected it. 'Nuff said.
The SF rejected the weapon as they have a completely different requirement to the standard infantry soldier. The SF have rejected lots of things, doesn't automatically make it shite.
 
#14
Werewolf said:
Because it's a piece of s"""e.
All you need to know about the SA80/A2 is that SF rejected it. 'Nuff said.
Having said that, if you lined up every MoD civil servant, I'd be happy to find out exactly how many people you can shoot wwith an A2 before it jams.
If it does'nt jam, I'll apologise on this Board - then I'll shoot Tony and Mike "Birdshit" Jackson.
Care to explain your vast operational experience of using the weapon? Or did you hear a bloke talking about it in the block in the depot?
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#15
One of the overwhelming factors by which SF choose their kit (incl wpns) is weight. The current M4/C8/Diemarco is 3.4Kg against the IW's 4.98 Kg, against which is balanced the reduction in range, accuracy and consistency. In Afghanistan the SAS found that their C-8s and Minimis were being outranged by the heavier former Soviet weapons (RPK, etc.) and asked for....The LSW.
 
#17
brighton hippy said:
yes SF need there Gat to go bang when they pull the trigger.
They also needed a CQB weapon (hence short barrel M4). So when they found themselves outranged, they turned to the LSW as mentioned in Napier's post.
 
#18
Never had a problem with the A2 and it worked everytime without drama.......that said, my issued Minimi couldnt really be used when alot of civis were close by........and the box magazine was sh1te....falling off whenever we hit a kerb or crossed a central reservation.

Regarding effective range, I thought that we were only outgunned by the Draganovs and RPKs (as rare as they were in maysan)
 
#19
So the infantry dont do CQB or carry heavy wieghts ? SF get to choose their weapons as their elite forces and can justify their choice through extra training and or experince .PBI get ignored A2 may be better Than A1 but name a unit that choses to use SA80
when it has a choice of any other weapon system ?
Napier where did you here about the sas wanting lsw ? I ve never heard anyone say anything good about it in real life as far as I can recall . I think no one brought A2 as no one could possibly try and sell it with about being laughed at .If they were available which their not . Hopefully in 20 years we flog them off to some gullible natives we plan to fight .





Wait a month they'd all be u/s
 
#20
woody said:
So the infantry dont do CQB or carry heavy wieghts ? SF get to choose their weapons as their elite forces and can justify their choice through extra training and or experince .PBI get ignored A2 may be better Than A1 but name a unit that choses to use SA80
when it has a choice of any other weapon system ?
Napier where did you here about the sas wanting lsw ? I ve never heard anyone say anything good about it in real life as far as I can recall . I think no one brought A2 as no one could possibly try and sell it with about being laughed at .If they were available which their not . Hopefully in 20 years we flog them off to some gullible natives we plan to fight .





sadly i've heard the same story (from credible people) too
 

Latest Threads

New Posts