Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[a_majoor]

The answer is still "it depends" because there are so many other factors that affect the performance of the round. If you want something that is 100% capable of having devastating terminal effects regardless of the situation of the target (wearing/not wearing armour and plates, under cover/not under cover, strong and muscular/skinny and weak, target at 10m away/target at 2700m away) then your best bet is probably a .50 HMG round. Even then, you will have much more difficulty ensuring you hit the target due to the bulk and unwieldiness of the weapon and training the soldier to use it properly.

For the most part I would agree that something along the lines of a 6.5 to 7mm LSAT round would be the best compromise between terminal ballistics, size and weight, having a practical and controllable weapon and being able to reach out and effectively touch someone out to @ 1000m. A machine gun chambered in the same round would be a pretty devastating support weapon down to the squad/section level, as well as being a fairly effective vehicle mounted weapon as well (co axial MG, loaders/crew commander's turret mounted weapon and RWS all come to mind), especially if paired up with a grenade launcher that has similar size/weight and range performance. The Chinese have a 35mm grenade launcher that is comparable to a C-6 GPMG in size and weight, and the new Russian 30mm grenade launchers can be picked up and carried (with their tripods) by a single man, showing that it is possible.

While LSAT type weapons don't have the same issues with spent casings like conventional rifles, I still think the idea of a compact weapon with the same ballistic performance as a full sized weapon makes a lot of sense. Even if the first generations of bullpup weapons cannot be fired from the "off side" (or at least not without changing the extractor and ejector port), more modern weapons like the FN 2000 can using an ejector tube that allows casings to drop out of the front of the weapon. This isn't even a new concern, I recall reading that during the development phase of the EM-2, some consideration was given to a "sliding breechblock" mechanism similar to that of an artillery piece, that would allow the casing to be ejected in a vertical direction over the shooter's shoulder. While more a case of the British obsession with baroque engineering, it shows there are many ways to skin that particular cat. If we have to assume that the LSAT  or something similar is another generation away, then a forward ejecting bullpup weapon would be worth looking at (and chambering it for a 6.5 or 6.8mm round would probably serve to cover the vast majority of wants and needs for shooters everywhere).

 

[daftandbarmy]

The answer is still "it depends" because there are so many other factors that affect the performance of the round. If you want something that is 100% capable of having devastating terminal effects regardless of the situation of the target (wearing/not wearing armour and plates, under cover/not under cover, strong and muscular/skinny and weak, target at 10m away/target at 2700m away) then your best bet is probably a .50 HMG round. Even then, you will have much more difficulty ensuring you hit the target due to the bulk and unwieldiness of the weapon and training the soldier to use it properly.

We once did a pen demo firing through a couple of pieces of plywood, or 'light cover' at 300m. This proved to me that 7.62 still rules.

But this is just a tangent, Can we resume discussion about why we should all have a Bren Gun now? ;D

 

[KevinB]

Yes 7.62mm has more penetration - in certain media...
  As well M80 style ball is a rather old design, not optimized for terminal affect or penetration.

However 7.62mm ammo is heavy.  Even LW 7.62mm Carbines still laden the shooter with the ammo weight.

 

[a_majoor]

Re reading an old piece about the MG-42 the other day, and it occured to me that it is almost the ideal support weapon as is. It is light and handy enough to be used by a single soldier, can be carried and fired in the assault using the bipod, can rapidly convert to a support weapon by placing it on a tripod, and the WWII era tripod is amazingly versatile and allows for high angle fire and limited AA usage.

The only downside is the high cyclic rate, and the weight of the ammunition (the G-3 was simply an MG-42 chambered for NATO 7.62mm ammunition). Perhaps a bit of re engineering to bring the cyclic rate down to @ 600 rpm and using modern lightweight materials wherever possible to shave off even more weight would make this the basic automatic weapon (issued 1 per section and an additional 2 per platoon with SF kits). The rifle sections would provide cover while the weapon is on the move and also manpack the extra linked ammunition for the gun teams, and have the additional task of providing high trajectory fire with the M-203 grenade launchers (dropping rounds on those annoying people who insist on hiding behind cover).

This is almost a reversion to the WWI era platoon (built around a rifle grenade launcher team, a "bombing team" and a Lewis gun team, with the riflemen providing cover on the move and acting as ammo bearers).

 

[AmmoTech90]

Re reading an old piece about the MG-42 the other day, and it occured to me that it is almost the ideal support weapon as is. It is light and handy enough to be used by a single soldier, can be carried and fired in the assault using the bipod, can rapidly convert to a support weapon by placing it on a tripod, and the WWII era tripod is amazingly versatile and allows for high angle fire and limited AA usage.

The only downside is the high cyclic rate, and the weight of the ammunition (the G-3 was simply an MG-42 chambered for NATO 7.62mm ammunition). Perhaps a bit of re engineering to bring the cyclic rate down to @ 600 rpm and using modern lightweight materials wherever possible to shave off even more weight would make this the basic automatic weapon (issued 1 per section and an additional 2 per platoon with SF kits). The rifle sections would provide cover while the weapon is on the move and also manpack the extra linked ammunition for the gun teams, and have the additional task of providing high trajectory fire with the M-203 grenade launchers (dropping rounds on those annoying people who insist on hiding behind cover).

This is almost a reversion to the WWI era platoon (built around a rifle grenade launcher team, a "bombing team" and a Lewis gun team, with the riflemen providing cover on the move and acting as ammo bearers).

From how you describe it how is it different from a C6 once you lower the cyclic rate?  Similar weights, bipod or tripod mounted allowing for indirect fire?  Why change weapons when all you need is a new tripod?

 

[Inquisitor]

I was told that the basic action of the MG-42 was so good it served  that it is still used in the actions of the C6 and C9 and others well. Makes sense since we licensed the FN design.

I was also under the impression that the cyclic rate on the MG-42 was user selectable.

 

[daftandbarmy]

From how you describe it how is it different from a C6 once you lower the cyclic rate?  Similar weights, bipod or tripod mounted allowing for indirect fire?  Why change weapons when all you need is a new tripod?

This M240 variant is a nice modification of the ol' C6 which, of course, is based on the MG42:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xdj0lBklvM

 

[a_majoor]

The huge difference between the MG 42 and the C-6 is the mechanism. The C-6 (and C-9) use gas action, where the expanding gasses from the propellant are tapped and push a piston back to cycle the action.

The MG-42 uses a delayed recoil action, when the recoil of the weapon is captured and used to cycle the action. This makes the MG 42 somewhat lighter and simpler than the C-6.

The MG-42's belt feed mechanism was copied for the C-6, using a two stage system rather than a one stage system (anyone who remembers the Browning C-5 GPMG will remember this), allowing for smoother feed of the belt.

The ergonomics of the MG-42 are also somewhat better than the C-6, making it more suitable for use in the advance and the assault, where the ability to lay down fire is critical. Using a rate limiter to bring the cyclic rate to 600 RPM isn't a "must have", but simply a reflection of the fact that troops are not pack mules, and the 1,200 to 1500 RPM rate of the MG-42 will burn through a lot of ammunition very fast. There are advantages to a high cyclic rate, and this should be taken into consideration; do the plusses of a high cyclic rate outweigh the minus of high amunition consumption?

 

[KevinB]

I think some here are/where confusing the MG-3/MG-42 with the MAG-58.

The Germans are replacing the MG-3's now with the Hk121 (cannot recall German MG designation at this time, MG-5?)
Ironically this and the 5.56mm MG-4 look like the Minimi with a few changes...

A GPMG generally is heavier than one wants in an Assault Machine Gun/ LSW/IAR -- but in the same token few of the AMG/LSW/IAR's can delivery the sustained fire capability.

Law of diminishing returns...

However the 7.62mm CTA LSAT LMG should be interesting...

A heatsink barrel could be used for SF roles - and the light barrel for walk abouts.

 

[Eaglelord17]

If what your looking for is a MG 42 with a reduced fire rate look at the M53 Yugoslavian copy. It shoots 850-1040 rds/min. Probably wouldn't be too hard to convert to 7.62 Nato.

 

[KevinB]

MG-3 already does that...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Has so much change in the Machinegun field that there is much choice? Seems to be more a case of matching existing designs to your users, with some odd tweaks here and there. I suppose this means actually knowing what your users need and clearly defining that....

If you don't intend to change calibres for the next 20 years, buy a whack of the smalls arms you want/need, hire some Russians to teach you about proper long term weapon storage and just pack the excess away. Wear one batch out, send them back for rebuild/disposal, yank the next batch out, repeat as required. Small Arms are cheap in comparison to other military equipment and age well in proper storage. 

 

[KevinB]

Roles and Requirements change with the mission.

Walking/Climbing at 10k ASL is much nicer with a 10lbs MG than a 25lbs one.

But the same double edge sword bites you when you try to stop the Red Chinese waves with a gun not designed to run continuous bursts.

 

[a_majoor]

I think machine gun design, much like rifle design, has reached an apex of development. Sure, we can tweak designs (like the FN-2000, with it's forward facing ejector tube and modular design), but inside the action isn't remarkably different from a WWII era German StG-44. Likewise, all modern machineguns can trace their ancestry to WWII era designs and principles.

Like Kevin, I would think something new in ammunition like the LSAT cased or caseless rounds would bring about some real changes, and new materials like ceramic/metal composites that can handle prolonged heat without losing strength or toughness will bring about a real revolution in firearms. A secondary path might be the coupling of miniature explosive rounds with advanced sights (AA-12 shotgun firing FRAG-12 rounds, the XM-25 and aborted 25mm XM-307 are examples of this type of weapon).

Given the current financial crunch and the general lack of urgency about this (the G-11 caseless rifle was a product of the 1980's, and the LSAT program has been moving slowly through much of the last decade, and even miniature grenade launchers haven't really been pushed all that hard), we are talking about the weapons another generation of soldiers might use.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Roles and Requirements change with the mission.

Walking/Climbing at 10k ASL is much nicer with a 10lbs MG than a 25lbs one.

But the same double edge sword bites you when you try to stop the Red Chinese waves with a gun not designed to run continuous bursts.

And, as always, fitness is the deciding factor. As described by Rommel in 'Infantry Attacks':

The capture of Mount Matajur occurred fifty-two hours after the start of the offensive … My mountain troopers were in the thick of battle almost uninterruptedly during these hours … Here, carrying heavy machine guns on their shoulders–they surmounted elevation differences of eight thousand feet uphill and three thousand downhill, and traversed a distance of twelve [straight line] miles through hostile mountain
formations.

 

[KevinB]

Okay but Rommel's forces did not wear a shit ton of armor, carry NOD's etc.
 

In the same way we align our forces for certain environments, the weapons themselves can be designed for niche roles.

 

[Kirkhill]

Gossip picked up on a blogspot....

The L129A1 (7.62mm AR-10?) Sharpshooter rifle is being taken into the core budget, but the latest report suggests that the weapon is still searching its actual place in the Army of the future. The Small Arms School Corps, tasked with developing the training and methods for best employment of the weaponry of the Army, say that, despite the welcome the rifle received by the troops on the ground, the L129A1 isn't showing the dramatic performace improvements it was supposed to deliver.
Its effectiveness out to 800 meters, the distance for which its 7.62x51 mm calibre was believed to be indispensable, is being questioned. The rifle is reportedly not showing particular improvements over the L86A2 Light Support Weapon, the long-barreled brother of the L85A2 assault rifle.
The L86A2 during recent firing trials ended up being the best performing weapon out to 500 meters, and more than held the comparison with the L129A1 out to 800.

One thing that is given as certain is that the ACOG 6x sight is part of the problem of the L129A1. It is not ballistically matched to the rifle, so that it represents a less than optimal solution. Funding has been provided to modify the graticule in the sight to ballistically match it to the weapon and to the 16 inches barrel. The modified sight should be in testing already, and it should eventually enable a repeat of the tests and competition with the L86A2 to write down a final assessment and decide the way ahead for the two weapons. 
The selection of the ACOG 6x for the sharpshooter requirement was done under Urgent Operational Requirement, of course, but one has nonetheless to wonder if a better experimentation before making the purchase wouldn't have been possible.
 
In the meanwhile, the L86A2 is indeed making a comeback already, being reassigned to the infantry sections in the sharpshooter / support role. It is being re-rolled into service in numbers, and there is potential for upgrades to better perform in the role. the Small Arms Corps has been testing an upgraded variant, with the old bipod replaced by the same used on the L129A1 and a completely reworked forestock coming with picatinny rails, like already done with the L85A2.

From top to bottom, the L86A2 in its traditional configuration with SUSAT sight; the modified L86A2 with new forestock, bipod and muzzle (possibly even the barrel has been changed?) and ACOG 6x sight; and finally, the L129A1 with ACOG 6x.

And this titbit - Suppressors for all.

battlefield noise; new laser targeting and mortar fire control computer and an experiment is ongoing to verify the tactical merit of having suppressors available for the whole range of weapons employed by the infantry, including the GPMG. A whole platoon equipped with the suppressors will test them during a two-weeks firing programme planned for Novembe

 

[Kirkhill]

New from DRDC for you guys -

Available in both 5.56 CT / 12 Ga and 5.56 CT / 40mm

More firepower, improved accuracy and smart integrated accessories that connect to command and control networks are the headline features of the new integrated assault rifle concept that Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) and Colt Canada have developed for the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

The prototype, in development since 2009 through the Soldier Integrated Precision Effects Systems (SIPES) project, includes a firing mechanism to shoot lightweight cased telescoped ammunition, a secondary effects module for increased firepower and a NATO standard power and data rail to integrate accessories like electro-optical sights and position sensors.

In order to support the multi-role nature of the weapon, the prototype’s secondary effects module features the ability to install either a three round 40 mm grenade launcher, or a 12-gauge shotgun. When optimized, the integrated weapon prototype could weigh less than a C7 equipped with a M203 grenade launcher, reducing the burden on soldiers.

“In the medium term, this weapon concept represents a lethal, flexible general-purpose platform,” said Lieutenant-Colonel Serge Lapointe, from the Soldier Systems group in Director Land Requirements – Soldier Systems (DLR 5) of the Canadian Army. “It will be able to operate in all theatres of operations in the most complex terrain including urban areas, mountains, jungles, deserts and the Arctic.”

The development of the weapon prototype posed a considerable challenge. DRDC scientists analyzed advanced material technologies that could replace the metal used in heavy components. The lightweight case telescoped ammunition was tested extensively with the support of the Munitions Experimental Test Centre in Valcartier, Quebec to assess its long-term aging behaviour.

Scientists also studied how to increase the rifle’s accuracy using technology that can automatically detect targets and assist with engaging them. Questions related to the sensors needed to accurately geo-locate targets for target data sharing were also investigated.

How the soldier interacts with the weapon was also the subject of numerous human factor trials. Ergonomic and weapon prototype handling tests were performed by Human Systems Inc., under the supervision of DRDC scientists, with CAF soldiers from military bases in Petawawa and Edmonton. The testing was crucial to developing optimal design criteria to meet the CAF’s needs for the Small Arms Modernization project.

In addition, lessons learned by both DRDC personnel and the CAF during their deployment in Afghanistan revealed critical elements that informed the prototype weapon development process with respect to its design and functionality.

“The results of the first phase of the project have shown that DRDC expertise can be used to provide the Canadian Armed Forces with solid scientific data so they can make more informed decisions for their major acquisition projects,” said Dr. Guy Vézina, the Director General for S&T Army, DRDC.

The new weapon prototype is a promising development for the soldier of the future. The integration of electronic components will allow soldiers to generate or receive data from the command and control network. In the next phase of development, automated target detection and assisted target engagement will be the subject of an in-depth study in the Future Small Arms Research (FSAR) project.

Finally, the development of the integrated weapon prototype and the continuing analysis of promising technologies should facilitate the acquisition of the next generation of small arms by the CAF. The data collected and the analyses documented so far by DRDC scientists will be used in conjunction with the data and analyses that will be generated in the FSAR project to develop the technical criteria that will form part of the statement of operational requirement documentation for the CAF Small Arms Modernization project.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/160943/canada-develops-new-integrated-assault-rifle-concept.html

And speaking of 12 ga rounds:  Whatever happened to the Frag-12?

Marine Corps Warfighting Laboratory Frag-12 Fact Sheet 2005

It was apparently offered in HE, HE-AP (armour piercing) and HE-FA (anti-personnel)

 

[KerryBlue]

New from DRDC for you guys -

Available in both 5.56 CT / 12 Ga and 5.56 CT / 40mm

Reminds me of this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jVsQToSfag

 

[Eland2]

Interesting design. Although the article says that steps have been taken to use composites and other advanced materials to reduce weight, the prototype still looks like it's heavy and bulky. Could you imagine having to parade with one of these things? How would you shoulder arms, or do the present arms manoeuvre? It doesn't look like it would lend itself very well to SMG C1 or even C8-style drills.

I know, I know, these are minor quibbles as the weapon has yet to be fielded.  Oh, one other thing. How would you fire this thing comfortably from the prone position without a bipod?

The cheekpiece that sits on top of the buttstock and just behind the grenade launcher/shotgun barrel is kinda funky too. Unless the weapon has some sort of recoil management system, I can imagine firing the shotgun portion could result in a pretty brutal kick to the shooter's cheek. The design of the rifle suggests that the mechanical underpinnings look like they could be quite complex, and the 5.56 ammunition it uses looks like it would have a long way to travel before it reaches the chamber.

Concerns aside, it's good to see that we are finally developing a weapon system of truly indigenous design instead of just importing another country's design and making our own additions/improvements to it. Here's hoping we don't see a repeat of the Ross Rifle fiasco.