It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

British Army Weapon's- In Detail...

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:11 AM
link   
The Minimi or SAW is exactly as you describe - a squad automatic weapon and as such, the job it does differs ever so slightly with the General.

The Minimi is the squad machinegun, whereas the General doubles as an SF area suppression weapon. It may be used in the light, medium or heavy role and is surpassed by none.

Like all 'light' machineguns, the Minimi must be 'balanced' - i.e the gas must be set to the correct apperture for the weapon to function smoothly and operate correctly.

The General on the other hand, is a GPMG. If the gas parts are fitted correctly, and providing it is maintained correctly - as with any automatic weapon system, it will fire belt after belt of heavy, far reaching, 7.62mm rounds, far beyond the range of the Minimi, which is it's only limitation.

The main advantage the General has over the Minimi is it's raw stopping power and long reach. In the SF role, it is surpased only by the .50 Browning but, as I already stated, this is a crew served HMG and cannot be readily used in the 'light' role.

To those of you who expressed a wish to fire the .303 Bren or our old [but favourite] Gun, Light Machine or LMG, I can tell you from personal experience that both can be buggers.

The main difference I suppose is the shape of the mags, the Bren has a banana shaped mag whilst the LMG has an almost 'stright' mag and of course the LMG fires 7.62 rounds.

Both weapons are fed from the top, with the Bren sights being offset from the mag housing with a large rotating drum and arm aperture sight. The LMG has the old Lee Enfield folding Post sights with internal range drum.
Cocking handle is on the right side of the receiver, change lever is on the left.

The only problem with either weapons, is their accuracy. In my opinion, they are far too accurate and do not lend themselves to a modern battlefield where a 'beaten' zone is often required.

The other problem with the 'Bren' or the 'Lunge' Gun, was the carriage of ammunition. Each gun came with 4 boxes of 12 mags. You try lugging that lot around. It aint easy!




posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
exactly fritz.
they both have different roles.
and i disagree, you would be wrong to call the Minimi a Whimp in comparison to the GPMG.
actually it was only after we changed our standard rifle from the SLR to the Steyr AUG, well after in fact, that we stopped carrying 2 GPMG's around in our sections as the section LMG, or what you guys call SAW.
these days though its confined to mainly SF role on a tripod.
alongside the Browning .50cal which we also use.
where you from and where you get your experience from anyway Fritz?


[edit on 30-8-2005 by Wardr08e]


[edit on 30-8-2005 by Wardr08e]



posted on Aug, 30 2005 @ 07:27 PM
link   
i was just going over the NZ army site and i noticed something that iv not heard of yet.
anybody know anything about the "M2HB QCB"



posted on Aug, 31 2005 @ 03:18 AM
link   
QUOTE :"i was just going over the NZ army site and i noticed something that iv not heard of yet.
anybody know anything about the "M2HB QCB"
"

QCB = Quick Change Barrel


YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 03:58 PM
link   
yeah i kinda figured that my question is though what does anybody know about the weapon.
that is just a characteristic of the weapon.
im looking for anybody who has fired or at least knows a lot about the M2HB QCB.
you see the new zealand army has it on the web site that they have just purchased a bunch of these things.
if i was still serving the NZ Army then i would know but im not so i dont.
anybody help me?

[edit on 4-9-2005 by Wardr08e]



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 05:22 PM
link   
here goes :

the " standard " M2HB , shuch as the L1A1 used by the british army was not " soldier servicable " in the feild

barrel swap out was armoures only job - as the chamber had to be guaged and an apropriate shim fitted behind the new barrel

such technical tasks could not be trusted to toms


now here comes the " make stuff up " part - as i have never seen the QCB version - but i assume that the qcb version you are talking about can be feild serviced by almost anyone - with no or basic tools

hope this helps

YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   
Hmmm..........
so you think its a good purchase for NZ?
we seem to be spending so much $ on new equipment these days its hard to keep track of all the new bits and pieces.
let alone actually knowing what is what.



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 08:33 PM
link   
not sure i fully understand the last Q

if the NZ military wants a new .50cal MG then the one they are buying is the best one to have

for conteporary integrated operations it hepls to have weapons compatible with your allies [ shared logistics ] - so if everyone else is using QCB the kiwis are reccomended to as well



IIRC the NZ armed forces have not had major new equipoment procurments for some time are they habing a major overhaul and re stock ?

have they decided on the new fast jet yet ????????? NOW THERE IS A PROCURMENT THATS TAKING ITS TIME ,

esp as last i heard they couldnt sell the old jets [ specs are on the us " do not export " list ]


a snide comment would be " why bother with ANY military " they have no natural enemies and no one wants to invade them , plus major defence treaties

beat all kiwi swords into plough shares


YRS - APE



posted on Sep, 4 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   
yeah not so much a restock though.
more like getting the stuff we just plain dont have.
for example a new AGL.
the MILAN.
the LAV.
the LOV. (Pinzgauer)
new NVG.
new Thermal imagery.
apparently now a new .50 cal.
dont know what was wrong with the Browning though.
i also heard a rumor about getting rid of AW sniper rifle as well.
not sure though.
no we havent made a decision on the fighter jets.
cant see it happening anytime soon either.
they are costing us just as much sitting in a hanger gathering dust as they ever were when we were using them.



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
To those of you who expressed a wish to fire the .303 Bren or our old [but favourite] Gun, Light Machine or LMG, I can tell you from personal experience that both can be buggers.


No. I was specifically referring to Brens converted/manufactured after WW2 in 7.62 (.30cal) NATO. I just couldn't remember its designation (L1A1, L4A1 etc)

What would be the point in equipping the British Army with .303 Brens? Unless you intend to go for accuracy over all other considerations and bring back James Paris Lee's bolt on a barrel from the Royal Small Arms factory at Enfield Lock. (Still the single best bolt-action military rifle ever, in my humble, never-served-in-the-military, opinion)

I do know enough about rifles and their ammunition to know the reason the Brno ZB26 was given a "banana" mag in the UK was because .303 ammunition is rimmed.

When the Commonwealth re-equipped with US Federal calibre weapons the magazines went straight because 7.62 NATO is a "rimless" round, instead it has an indented ring for extraction. Just as the original Czech round did.

As for top-mounting magazines...The Australian soldiers in New Guinea and Borneo loved their Owen guns and when they were finally withdrawn from service in the sixties the Diggers (who had carried them through Malaya) demanded that the replacement SMG (F1) also be given a top-mounted magazine, in this case it came from the Sterling. That's all the reccomendation I need for top-mounting your ammo!

Plus, it would seem simple physics, if your mag doesn't protrude from the bottom of your gun you can get your face flat on the ground and still shoulder your weapon...



posted on Sep, 6 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Sorry guys, I misunderstood. I thought you wanted to fire the .303 Bren.

My L4A4 was indeed an ex-.303 Bren, No I MkIII, Serial Number 109324.

The weapon had three parallel lines machined in the upper body, through the words Bren, No I Mk III. Gun, Light Machine L4A4, was stamped to the rear of the Bren markings.

In my Troop, we had 4 stripped down Land Rovers. Each crew of a 'Lannie' was armed with personal SLRs and 1 x 7.62mm LMG or 'Lunge Gun'. Our total Orbat was 12 SLRs and 4 LMGs.

When we broke down in to sections, each section obviously had 6 SLRs and 2 LMGs: If we broke down in to Fire teams 'Charlie' and 'Delta', we had a rifle Gp and a Gun Gp.

When I first joined my Squadron in 1981, the troop I was assigned to, already had a Gun group - 'Deff Ned' and the 'Great Gonzuki', both of whom
were phenominal gunners. I was told to act as either's No 2 on the gun, but I quickly became 'just' another gunner.

At the time, the Falkland Invasion had just happened and I was lucky to be in Hong Kong when the 2nd Battalion Scots Guards came to HK for border duties. I got talking to one of their SNCOs about the tactics they used for Fire and Manoeuver, and he said his Troop used the American 'Overwatch' system. When he explained the ins and outs, this seemed like a brill idea and when I got back to blighty, I told our Tp Leader who was thrilled

Thus when we deployed, our Troop had an Orbat of 1 x Manoeuvre Section (Riflemen + Gunner) and 3 Indepenent Gun Groups - Nedd, Gonzuki and myself. Our tasking was simple: Dominate the high ground [wherever possible] and cover the advancing Manoeuvre Gp.

In fact the way we used to work it, was as the Manoeuvre Gp advanced, at least 1 LMG was firing 3-5 round bursts into likely enemy positions, out to 600 metres. (This allowed a second Gun Gp to keep up with the Manoeuvre Gp, but on the opposite flank, again on the high ground) In this way, we were able to totally dominate a frontage of about 2-300ms out to a range of 600 ms, the LMGs being that accurate.

Firing the L4A4 is a great experience but few can master the LMG!. Although the weapon has a 'Repetition' and 'Automatic' change lever, a
'good' gunner can, whilst the change lever is set to 'R', fire a 3 round
'burst' - by holding the trigger to the rear then slighly releasing it.

The 'Lunge Gun' had 2 faults. In peace time training, the barrel 'had' to be changed after firing about 250 rounds. This often resulted in burns because the gas regulator had to be turned until the lug was flush with the barrel and was a bugger to do.

The other problem, was if you had a 'runaway' gun. That is, the gun continues to fire, with the safety catch being set on safe, even after the trigger is released.

On a 'General', this is easy to rectify - you simply snap the belt. But with a
'Lunge Gun', you had to knock out the magazine and, more often than not, you had to either stand or crouch to do it quickly. Very dangerous on a live fire exercise.



posted on Sep, 19 2005 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Gotta disagree with Ignorant-ape ref. the barrel change on the .50 HMG. This was routinely carried out on the ground with the old style barrel. Troops were issued with a head-space gauge that measured the correct distance between the barrel and the chamber. It was a pain in the backside to do, particularly when on the recieving end of some 14.5mm. The QCB removes the need for the headspace gauge, allowing the barrel to be changed much quicker (hence the name), much in the same way as the GPMG. Useful, considering that the barrel should be changed every 100 rounds or so.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 02:14 AM
link   
I havent read the rest of this thread, but i assure you that the SA80 is a top weapon, and you CANNOT miss. Maybe thats why some spec ops now use it as their weapon of choice.



posted on Sep, 20 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Darth Griff
I havent read the rest of this thread, but i assure you that the SA80 is a top weapon, and you CANNOT miss. Maybe thats why some spec ops now use it as their weapon of choice.

Really?
I agree its a good weapon but I didnt know that spec ops used it.
I knew 14th intel (SRS) used it but that was it..
there are others?



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   
I've never seen or heard of any British Spec Op unit using the SA80A1 or the newer A2. I don't include Paras or Marines because as far as I am concerned, they are not special forces - they are simply superior Infantry (Marines Naval Land Forces) or (Paras - Airborne Land Forces).

The SAS/SBS certainly do not use the SA80, apart from the Territorial side of things and even then, they mostly use M16s etc.

Please be kind enough to post details of British SF units that use SA80. I am intrigued!



posted on Sep, 26 2005 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by fritz
I've never seen or heard of any British Spec Op unit using the SA80A1 or the newer A2. I don't include Paras or Marines because as far as I am concerned, they are not special forces - they are simply superior Infantry (Marines Naval Land Forces) or (Paras - Airborne Land Forces).

The SAS/SBS certainly do not use the SA80, apart from the Territorial side of things and even then, they mostly use M16s etc.

Please be kind enough to post details of British SF units that use SA80. I am intrigued!

Well acording to duncan falconer (good writer and ex SBS operative) some 14th intel (SRR's predessesor) used to carry it with them on ops in NI for extra firepower.



posted on Oct, 5 2005 @ 04:09 PM
link   
14 Ints main rifles were (and still are to my knowledge) the HK53 and the H&K G3KA4. The M16 series were used to a degree as well. The SA80 is only used when they are trying to pass themselves off as members of the resident battalions. As for increasing the firepower of these teams, the SA80 will not offer anything to this combination of H&K bang-sticks.

Also 14 Int is not the forerunner of the SRR. Their roles are completely different, as 14 are only covered to work in an intelligence gathering capacity in N. Ireland. It is believed that the SRR are to be used in a more conventional ("green") role in other areas of operations.

Brit SF are well known to be a bit slow on the uptake of new kit, generally relying on what is issued to the other troops. This is often due to the ethos that it is the quality of the soldier that does the job rather than the price of his kit. They do however, tend to use what experience has shown to work. This includes using the M16, as the SA80 was shown to be sub-standard when first issued. While the A2 is a fantastic improvement, SF will be loathe to change to it, if only for the fact that it hasn't been around for long enough. The scar left by the shortfalls of the A1 will take a long time to heal in the eyes of many.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by PaddyInf
14 Ints main rifles were (and still are to my knowledge) the HK53 and the H&K G3KA4. The M16 series were used to a degree as well. The SA80 is only used when they are trying to pass themselves off as members of the resident battalions. As for increasing the firepower of these teams, the SA80 will not offer anything to this combination of H&K bang-sticks.

From what I heard only "some" members used them.
Its all about personel perferance.
[quoe]
Also 14 Int is not the forerunner of the SRR. Their roles are completely different, as 14 are only covered to work in an intelligence gathering capacity in N. Ireland. It is believed that the SRR are to be used in a more conventional ("green") role in other areas of operations.

It is in some degrees.
SRR is world wide intel concerning terrorists where as 14th intel is just about NI.
Most of the experience and lessons learned by 14th intel are being used in SRR, THATS what I meant, not that it was literally its predessor.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Wasn't 14 Int amalgamated with some other bits of other regiments to form the SRR?



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by minimi
Wasn't 14 Int amalgamated with some other bits of other regiments to form the SRR?

I thought that too....



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join