LSW, LMG and 60mm to go

#21
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".
No you misunderstand me.

It's the same weapon system for all drills, therefore you won't need to spend any time in ITC training them. Therefore it's not a burden, therefore I don't see why they would bin them.

Things like the LMG take up a fair amount of training time, not to mention the cost of sending recruits to altcar for a week.
 
#22
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".
No you misunderstand me.

It's the same weapon system for all drills, therefore you won't need to spend any time in ITC training them. Therefore it's not a burden, therefore I don't see why they would bin them.

Things like the LMG take up a fair amount of training time, not to mention the cost of sending recruits to altcar for a week.
 
#23
No you misunderstand me.

It's the same weapon system for all drills, therefore you won't need to spend any time in ITC training them. Therefore it's not a burden, therefore I don't see why they would bin them.
...and you illustrate the problem again.

Because unfortunately, we've drifted into a situation where Skill-at-Arms training is mostly about weapon handling drills, and range safety. Because that's what Skillies are invested in - WHT passes, and lots of them. Threats of doom on the range, such that Main Effort is "don't have an ND" rather than "improve your ability to hit what you aim at". I've ranted enough about requiring skillies to pass at Marksman as part of their course; because if they can't, WTF are they doing as instructors?

Unfortunately, it's not really what Skill-at-Arms is about - namely, being able to kill the Queen's Enemies at the expected ranges. So the LSW really, really, needs those extra range practices, and coaches who have sufficient skill on the weapon to be able to teach its best use. It really, really needs that completely separate set of Live Firing practices in the Operational Shooting Pamphlet. It really, really needs that totally separate APWT. After all, if you don't teach it and train it, you're never going to see the benefit.

Yes, you have a slightly smaller burden in that you don't need to learn how to strip, clean, assemble, do drills on the LMG (what, four or five lessons and a WHT?) - but you still need to train the firer in how to use the weapon, and that means just as much range time should be devoted to "LSW gunnery" as you would have devoted to "LMG gunnery".

The second you start allowing "well, the drills are the same" to slowly drift into being happy to accept a reduction in coaching and firing "because it's only an LSW", you've defeated the whole point of giving it a decent bipod and a longer barrel.
 
Last edited:
#24
Are the capabilities going or just the current equipments?
AFAIK both. Sharpshooter is rumoured to replace LMG, whether because its the only option or the better option I don't know. No specific replacement for 60mm has been mentioned, although it seems the crackheads in charge of field trials seem to think 40mm UGL can replace mortars.
 
#26
Sharpshooter was a UOR for Afghanistan, it was never meant to come into full time service. I take it things have changed, which is a surprise especially as the MoD feed seems to churn out all manner of shite, but no mention of this.
 
#27
AFAIK both. Sharpshooter is rumoured to replace LMG, whether because its the only option or the better option I don't know. No specific replacement for 60mm has been mentioned, although it seems the crackheads in charge of field trials seem to think 40mm UGL can replace mortars.
UGL can’t replace mortars, it has limited capability and it is there to fill the gap between the maximum a hand grenade can be thrown and the minimum a mortar can be fired (safely).
 
#28
Look mate, you still haven't grasped what I'm getting at here. I'm not disagreeing with what you say..

The LMG costs us money in upkeep, parts and training. The LSW, as it stands, doesn't.

Therefore my argument in this case isn't based on how we currently utilise it, but how it seems mental to simply get rid when it's actually a capable and rather useful weapon to have in the armoury, ready for the next conflict. It wouldn't take long for a switched on bloke to get the most out of an LSW, but if we had to buy another weapons system with a longer Range, we are talking serious time and money for that to become operationally viable.

It's the military equivalent of throwing away the long handled screwdriver because you seem to only use your normal one. Then buying another long handled one when you realise you need it for some DIY.

If you want to discuss correct application of marksmanship, I'll agree with you all day long. We only train for excellence when we do PDT. As an infantry instructor I train recruits to what I'd hope is a good standard, but when they pass out it's apparent they need much more development to become excellent. However, I know from experience that battalions are often so busy that the only time these men will live fire in an environment that demands skill and concentration is their annual ACMT - if they even do one.
 
#29
The LMG costs us money in upkeep, parts and training. The LSW, as it stands, doesn't.
Yes, the LMG requires its own parts / support / training chain (and will continue to do so - as it was originally purchased for SF, and presumably will continue in service with them). Ask yourself, again, the amount of "learning the weapon system" takes place in the classroom doing basic drills; and how much takes place on the ranges, using the weapon system as intended. I'd suggest that by far the majority involves the latter.

That "learning to use it" LSW training is not zero cost. It isn't "just the same as the rifle". You have to learn to use it properly, as a light support weapon, not just as rifleman No.4 in the fireteam.
 
#30
As it stands, the LMG costs the army money during basic training because recruits go on a bespoke 1 week range package to Warcop, involving additional transport, feeding, accomodation and LSA costs. Not to mention man hours in camp itself. Plus the additional ammo expenditure and the rest.

The LSW costs nothing during training because they don't use it. They are made aware of it, that's it. Each Div holds 2 LSW compared to 50 LMG.

therefore, I point you at my original point:

it makes no sense to get rid of it from our armouries because it costs us nothing (comparatively, I realise even breathing costs the army something). Whilst I disagree on a tactical basis for getting rid of the LMG, I at least understand there may be some benefit (cost saving).

You're deviating from my points in a poor attempt at looking clever. Go sound off somewhere else.
 
#33
@WhiskeyTango I wonder how much it actually would save though. I don't think that the pennies it would save is sufficient justification for its removal. Let's be honest, it's not massive sums in the grand scheme of things. It's a decision based on the logic that precision fires can suppress an enemy just as well as belt-fed weapon at a fraction of the ammunition - and therefore weight for the boys to carry. And the mortar gets f'king heavy once you start tabbing with all your kit plus what only six bombs on top? This is a measure to cut weight. It's part of Project PAYNE and fight light. Because people don't want to say cut protection so we must all do the Herrick shuffle in 25kg of PPE and chin off firepower. But hey, if there's money to be saved it's definitely a fair trade for reduced combat effectiveness. Because I guarantee blokes will still be carrying >50kg on the next warfighting tour.

What we should be doing is increasing manpower to maintain effect but better distribute the weight.
I advocate the introduction of a fire support section in each rifle platoon equipped with a GPMG, the 60 and some sort of ATk capability (just NLAW or maybe a return of the new model of Carl Gustaf?) but we all know a manpower uplift is just crazy - my own battalion is diffy a whole company's worth of blokes!

The matter was mentioned here a couple of years ago:
UK Armed Forces Commentary: British Army "reviewing" whether to lose some more firepower
 
Last edited:
#35
I'm not saying things couldn't be done differently but if the army is looking to cut money then LMG currently would flag up as costing money. Add that to the fact the SASC consider it redundant and one can understand, though maybe not agree with, the thought process that it's time to go. It probably won't amount to much saving but we aren't doing well financially..

I certainly disagree with binning it off. Like previously mentioned it reduces flexibility to commanders on the ground in future conflicts.

The gun group with GPMG is a sound plan, but it's not new. Commanders do it routinely at Pl level, indeed it's a tactic that's been used since the Germans invented the MG42.

Project Payne will never be fully embraced by the Army because of the risk averse nature of training. Some units may be better than others but fundamentally nobody is prepared to allow a Pl to go on exercise with 8 mags and a water bottle each. Getting rid of a light machine gun won't change that.

I'd like someone who's been in pukka firefights with LMG to weigh in here. I've spoken to my NCOs about this and they all loved the damn thing on early Herrick tours, but I suspect they liked the noise more than anything!
 
#37
It's a decision based on the logic that precision fires can suppress an enemy just as well as belt-fed weapon at a fraction of the ammunition
Wasn’t that why the SLR ended up only have repeation (dropped on SA80 and FALs picked up in the Falklands)?

Wasn’t that why you ended up with the LSW in the first place (found not to be up to the job so GPMG reintroduced and Minimi introduced)?
I advocate the introduction of a fire support section in each rifle platoon equipped with a GPMG, the 60 and some sort of ATk capability (just NLAW or maybe a return of the new model of Carl Gustaf?) but we all know a manpower uplift is just crazy - my own battalion is diffy a whole company's worth of blokes!
We have a Wpns Pln per Inf Coy with GPMG(SF), 60mm mortar and 84mm Carl G

Possibly could be an answer?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#39
There is a range at itc but it only goes out to 30 metres, not much good for machine guns
The LSW should form part of the IW package, an additional day or three at the end perhaps for using the bipod and greater distances.
 
#40
The LSW should form part of the IW package, an additional day or three at the end perhaps for using the bipod and greater distances.
ITC would require an uplift of about 400 LSW for that.

There is a new course that is going to be trialled soon. I hope they will turn LMG camp into GPMG ranges and incorporate sharpshooter into it too.
 

Similar threads

Top