LSW, LMG and 60mm to go

#1
After years of debate and trials-including the Platoon Combat Experiment-it is confirmed that as of this month all LSW, LMG and 60mm mortar are out of service less those necessary for current taskings. No specific reason has yet been given as to why, but Project Payne, PCE trials and budget cuts are likely reasons. I suspect a good deal of swearing will be happening across the arms as units attempt to figure out how to fight with a substantial firepower deficit, with no clear replacements in sight.
 
#2
Not sure about the mortar, but the LSW was worthless, and the LMG is being replaced by the sharpshooter rifle as I understand it.
 
#3
Do you have a link to this information?
 
#5
Are the capabilities going or just the current equipments?
 
#6
I find it hard to get my head round this.

We are losing flexibility here. The LMG may be innapropriate in some circumstances but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that getting rid of them altogether makes no sense. Giving commanders the flexibility to chose what weaponry to take on missions could win wars in the future.

As for the LSW- again, just keep it. If we find ourselves battling at long engagement distances we can break out the LSWs and throw some at the troops to gain an advantage. They won't even need to train on it.

The 60mm- used one once in Brecon and hit a sheep. The sheep walked off.


I've spoken in great depth and over many beers with commanders from the Falklands and Korea. For their wars, machine guns were absolutely vital. Go back to WW1 the studies at the time suggested it was the amount of rounds you could fire that mattered, less so accuracy.

The SASC conducted tests to prove the LMG was inaccurate to the point where it didn't adequately suppress anything. Recently on a range I had two JNCOs test this theory at 400m and I'd strongly contest this verdict. Even if they are useless beyond 500m, that doesn't mean they lose their value elsewhere. A certain ambush on the imjin river springs to mind where LMG would trump sharpshooter.

I don't wear a tin hat but I genuinely think this has been pushed by someone who is either trying to get an MBE for ammunition conservation or someone else trying to justify UOR expenditure.

Or, Russians work in MOD procurement.
 
#7
I find it hard to get my head round this.

We are losing flexibility here. The LMG may be innapropriate in some circumstances but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that getting rid of them altogether makes no sense. Giving commanders the flexibility to chose what weaponry to take on missions could win wars in the future.

As for the LSW- again, just keep it. If we find ourselves battling at long engagement distances we can break out the LSWs and throw some at the troops to gain an advantage. They won't even need to train on it.

The 60mm- used one once in Brecon and hit a sheep. The sheep walked off.


I've spoken in great depth and over many beers with commanders from the Falklands and Korea. For their wars, machine guns were absolutely vital. Go back to WW1 the studies at the time suggested it was the amount of rounds you could fire that mattered, less so accuracy.

The SASC conducted tests to prove the LMG was inaccurate to the point where it didn't adequately suppress anything. Recently on a range I had two JNCOs test this theory at 400m and I'd strongly contest this verdict. Even if they are useless beyond 500m, that doesn't mean they lose their value elsewhere. A certain ambush on the imjin river springs to mind where LMG would trump sharpshooter.

I don't wear a tin hat but I genuinely think this has been pushed by someone who is either trying to get an MBE for ammunition conservation or someone else trying to justify UOR expenditure.

Or, Russians work in MOD procurement.
What he said.
 
#9
The LSW is a bit of a non-issue as it has been gone for a long time in practice if perhaps not in official doctrine and has been replaced by the L129 sharpshooter which has proved itself as a good bit of kit.

I disagree with getting rid of the 60 and LMG. The 60 is a brilliant platoon asset. Albeit understandable why, it is to our detriment that it isn't regularly practiced with on exercise (save for maybe one day of the year on LFTT or BATUK/BATUS). Not only does it have impressive reach and devastating impact (for a man-portable weapon) but the Boss doesn't have to arrse about queuing fire missions, instead the mortar team is at his immediate disposal. The psychological impact of fighting against a platoon with immediate indirect fire capability should not be disregarded.

Likewise, there's something to said about the psychological effect of fighting against belt-fed weapons used in a competent and disciplined manner, an effective manner. In the Second World War, the Germans built their squads around the machine gun team to great effect. I do agree with reducing the LMG to just one per section but removing it completely in favour of a second sharpshooter? No.
 
#10
Do you have a link to this information?
There's lots of stuff about this on Army Knowledge Exchange. The USMC and US Army are doing studies on this as well. Interestingly, one concluded that their LMG (the M249) should be kept and the other concluded that more sharpshooters should be introduced (I can't remember now which said what).
 
#11
How accurate was the LMG at 400m? Can you hit fig 11 at that range?
Yeah, you can.
I just tried looking up what range the ACMT (or APWT as some remember it) goes up to and found LMG has already been removed, not featuring in the current copies of Personal or Section Weapons OSPs (despite it still being in widespread use and will no doubt remain so for a while).
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#12
There's lots of stuff about this on Army Knowledge Exchange. The USMC and US Army are doing studies on this as well. Interestingly, one concluded that their LMG (the M249) should be kept and the other concluded that more sharpshooters should be introduced (I can't remember now which said what).
USMC are introducing the M27 SAW, an H&K 416, with a 16.5" barrel and improved optics
 
#14
The LMG ACMT goes to 400m.
To pass, I believe 50 percent of shots had to be on target (double fig 11)

The two NCOs I sent downrange managed around 95 percent on target, of which the vast majority would have kit a "running hun" somewhere vital.

Plus it sounds cool.
 
#18
Seems to be mixed views on the accuracy of the LMG. Why is that? I haven't fired it that's why I'm asking.
There were many poor shots with the GPMG, but it was an accurate weapon if used correctly.

I could double tap single figure 11 down at 600m and double figure 11 at 700m using an IWS in daylight. To me that showed the GPMG is good for precision fire with an optic fitted. Obviously better than an old IWS would be preferable. I was getting grief from a WO11 for double tapping, he kept insisting on 3-5 round bursts. I ignored him and kept knocking them down.

So I'm interested in the mixed opinions regarding the LMG. Poor shooting, bad drills or just not a precision weapon?

Re above replies; 50% of rounds on a exposed double figure 11 at 400m isn't great.
95% on a double is better, on a single would be nice.
Struggling to hit a 2mx2m screen is pretty dire.
 
#19
As for the LSW- again, just keep it. If we find ourselves battling at long engagement distances we can break out the LSWs and throw some at the troops to gain an advantage. They won't even need to train on it.
And in one stroke you illustrate why the employment and training of the LSW was so f***ed up.
  • "It's awkward, give it to the crow"
  • "Just do the rifle APWT with it, stop whining"
  • "What do you mean, separate training for the LSW. Just get them to use the bipod"
Because of course the LSW gunner will be able to make best use of a weapon if they've never (or rarely) trained to fire live rounds beyond 400m, and only ever told "it's shit".
 
#20
And in one stroke you illustrate why the employment and training of the LSW was so f***ed up.
  • "It's awkward, give it to the crow"
  • "Just do the rifle APWT with it, stop whining"
  • "What do you mean, separate training for the LSW. Just get them to use the bipod"
Because of course the LSW gunner will be able to make best use of a weapon if they've never (or rarely) trained to fire live rounds beyond 400m, and only ever told "it's shit".
You took your time :)
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top