British Army goes back to 7.62NATO

Already done guys


New Sharpshooter rifle for UK Troops

reply to post by Retseh


thanks for the correction on HK model
LOL my bad
to many model numbers rattling around in my head..
but what do expect from a big dumb jarhead... just give us something to blow up and were happy

reply to post by DaddyBare


You're all heroes to me, don't ever doubt it

Thanks for your service.

[edit on 11-3-2010 by Retseh]

Click here for more information.

Originally posted by DeltaChaos
I see this as a stupid way of trying to keep the friendly casualty rate down for politicians, rather than a real strategy for destroying the enemy.
Candyasses.

Hi Delta,

As they say no weapon seems 'efficient' when the war you have decided to fight is so unpopular that you can't afford to let any of your brave fighters for 'liberty' die.

As for the rest it's a sad commentary on popular knowledge when what you explained needs to be but thanks for taking the time to do so.

Regards,

Stellar

Another interesting perspective on this, and the need for more weapons chambered in the "old" 7.62NATO loading.

Makes me wonder if the next generation weapon really will go for an intermediate round like the 6.8SPC.

www.strategypage.com...

March 3, 2010: In Afghanistan, the Taliban has learned that the safest way to attack foreign troops, is at long distance (at least 300 meters away). That’s because most foreign troops are armed with 5.56mm assault rifles. These are very accurate, and deadly, at under 200 meters. But beyond that, the 5.56mm bullet rapidly loses accuracy and hitting power. So the Taliban will set up a long range ambush using one or more 7.62mm machine-guns, 7.62mm rifles (preferred by snipers and sharpshooters everywhere, but in Afghanistan this often means a decades old bolt action weapon) and RPGs (rocket propelled grenades.) If available, mortars are used. But if the foreign troops come after you, the mortars often have to be abandoned in order to get away.

reply to post by DeltaChaos


Aught is an anachronistic term for zero.

thirty aught six

30 0 6

That was a smart move. The US Army ought to go back to the M14.

reply to post by Retseh

This is a Fracking travesty the US has know since Vietnam that the M16 had inadequate stopping power and was generally unreliable. It just goes to show that DOD is more concerned with their hi tech toys than the basic equipment are straight leg troops rely on to save their asses.
It makes me furious to think how many U.S. Service men have lost their lives because of a jammed M16 or because the enemies rifle just had more range than theirs.
Our grandparents fought the WWII with 7.62, does DOD think todays troops are too weak to handle a real rifle?



[edit on 2-4-2010 by LightBright]

[edit on 2-4-2010 by LightBright]

Originally posted by Retseh
Another interesting perspective on this, and the need for more weapons chambered in the "old" 7.62NATO loading.

Makes me wonder if the next generation weapon really will go for an intermediate round like the 6.8SPC.

www.strategypage.com...

... If available, mortars are used. But if the foreign troops come after you, the mortars often have to be abandoned in order to get away.

My bold. According to who? I've never heard of any British unit ditching their mortars to extract from Taliban attacks.

Saying that, the source you cite contains huge numbers of very flawed articles, with even basic concepts being misunderstood.

[edit on 2-4-2010 by PaddyInf]

reply to post by LightBright


The average WWII soldier wasn't loaded down with 60lbs of unnecessary fancy gear either. The amount of gear the average troop in Afghanistan is carrying is ridiculous. It slows them down. Did you ever see WWII troops with elbow and knee pads on? LMAO! A camelback didn't exist in WWII. A metal canteen did. With the amount of air support nowadays troops shouldn't have to carry 10lbs of water on them. I never understood the reasoning behind these enormous packs these guys carry. So yeah........adding a heavier weapon when you are saddling these huge packs, elbow pads, knee pads, radio equipment, etc. does make a difference. It's not that soldiers are weak......it's that they've become reliant on fancy gear they really don't need. The Taliban doens't wear knee pads and elbow pads why does the US Marines? Seems kind of silly. If you want to kill your enemy you have to become your enemy.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Originally posted by Retseh

... If available, mortars are used. But if the foreign troops come after you, the mortars often have to be abandoned in order to get away.

My bold. According to who? I've never heard of any British unit ditching their mortars to extract from Taliban attacks.

Saying that, the source you cite contains huge numbers of very flawed articles, with even basic concepts being misunderstood.

In the context of the paragraph, I read that to say that if foreign (NATO) troops come after you (Afghan irregular), mortars often have to be abandoned.

The US army has cleaned out every armory and warehouse for the old M14/M1As they had for rifleman in Iraq and Afghanistan.

They mount scopes on them just to use a long range weapons to takeout dumb insurgents that think they are out of range of the M16/M4.
1000 yards in the hands of a good marksman has killed many insurgents.

reply to post by Zosynspiracy

I don't buy that current troops are more weighed down than our parents and grandparents. Full load outs alway been between 60 and 80lbs and thats for some one thats expected to march where they are going. And I don't think any one is concerned with MOP gear in country any more so you cant count that. I honestly don't know why we have stuck with this broken stoner Mattel toy.

If I had my druthers I would out fit every one with something proven like a .308 Galil.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy

The average WWII soldier wasn't loaded down with 60lbs of unnecessary fancy gear either. The amount of gear the average troop in Afghanistan is carrying is ridiculous.

The average WWII soldier didn't have to face the threats that we do today. The idea of RCIEDs was unheard of which meant that ECM kit wasn't carried (nor did it exist!). The guidance and communications systems in use allow for much more accurate fire and coordination of troop movements than ever before, reducing troop an civillian casualties despite the increasing destructive power of modern weapons. The widespread issue of body armour has increased the survivability of the soldier, reducing casualties. Night vision devices give an unparallelled advantage over enemy insurgents... The list goes on.

Did you ever see WWII troops with elbow and knee pads on? LMAO! A camelback didn't exist in WWII. A metal canteen did. With the amount of air support nowadays troops shouldn't have to carry 10lbs of water on them. I never understood the reasoning behind these enormous packs these guys carry.

Knee pads stop your knees and clothing being destroyed every time you take up a fire position on stony ground, increasing your operational effectiveness. Thank God we're moving away from the old 'I'll not use it because its' not manly enough' attitude in favour of a more useful 'I'll use that because it keeps me in the fight longer' one. Any fool can be uncomfortable. If you're thinking about how much your knees hurt then you're not thinking about your job.

Same goes for the Camelbak. You need a certain amount of water to survive and function. I usually carry at least 5L of water for every foot patrol I do in Afghanistan (a Camelbak plus 2 water bottles on my belt). Without it your efficiency and concentration will drop. If you fail to hydrate properly in the temperatures we patrol in you will become a casualty. The technology exists to make drinking while on the move and hands free an option. Why not utilise it?

This equipment (ECM, NVG etc) all gives an advantage and serves a purpose. Unfortunately these things all have to be carried and they are not light.

You also forget that there were larger numbers of allied troops in WWII to carry the equipment required, so loads were distributed. The warfare was much slower moving and allowed time for logistic trains to catch up, reducing the amount of kit that had to be carried for long periods. Plus casualty numbers were much higher, due in no small part to the lack of proper equipment.

Put it like this. I'm a platoon Sergeant. I need to carry body armour, helmet, rifle plus ammo, pistol plus ammo, ammo for GPMG/LMG, night vision monocular, 5L water, grenades, bayonet, platoon radio plus batteries, personal role radio (PRR) plus batteries, firefly, heli marker panel, GPS, personal med kit, LASM (66mm rocket), arrest kit, mine kit. This is a fairly basic load and adds up to about 100lb.

Loads of the boys have to carry a combination of ECM at about 5-10kg (11-22lb), a Javelin rocket at about 12 kg (26lb), 60mm mortar at 5kg (11lb), base plate at 4.3 kg (about 9lb), bipod at 12 kg (26lb), Lazer target designators at 5kg (11lb), mortar ammo at 2.8kg per bomb (7lb) etc.

Tell me what I can ditch from this list and still provide the same level of job?

The Taliban doens't wear knee pads and elbow pads why does the US Marines? Seems kind of silly. If you want to kill your enemy you have to become your enemy.

The Taliban use locals to carry their equipment for them. Hence you don't see them carting a load of kit around.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Saying that, the source you cite contains huge numbers of very flawed articles, with even basic concepts being misunderstood.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Define "huge numbers".

Define "very flawed articles".

Define "basic concepts".

reply to post by Retseh


I agree with the HK417, no Stoner-type propellant gases and residue blowing back into the chamber and bolt. To be combined with desert dust to make a real mess.

But I think an intermediate cartridge between the 5.56 and 7.62 NATO would be very effective based on the HK417 platform. Like the .243 Win. w/ 100gr BT or 7mm-08 Rem. w/ 120 gr. Good long-range ballistic coeff., great knock down, not as heavy as 7.62 NATO.

IMO in desert and longer range conditions save the 5.56 for camp guards. It was designed for close-in jungle fighting in 'Nam. The guys at checkpoints definitely need 7.62 NATO for penetration purposes.

It's time to rethink this whole McNamara era thing for the sake of the troops.
Dust test results

Originally posted by Retseh

Originally posted by PaddyInf

Saying that, the source you cite contains huge numbers of very flawed articles, with even basic concepts being misunderstood.

You'll have to be more specific than that.

Define "huge numbers".

A large proportion of the overall sample size.

Define "very flawed articles".

Articles that have numerous elementary mistakes or that make comments with no supporting evidence yet cite them as fact. An example here may be this one. This makes comments regarding section deployments and equipment scales that are purely fictional.

Define "basic concepts".

Concepts that would be regarded as basic or elementary to someone with a basic concept of the subject. An example may be this one which completely disregards the usefulness of the bayonet (despite numerous recent reports of its' use), and spends half the article singing about underbarrel shotguns! It also forgets to mention that the bayonet is only being removed form basic training, not infantry training.

There are others, but lets not derail the thread

reply to post by DeltaChaos

You simply don't know what you talking about all Army qualify using M16 at ranges of 300yds and Marines have even more rigorous standards. I am sure those goat herders shoot like they're from Kentucky and the AK is more than tight enough were it counts the upper receiver. I have played Golf with an AK and found it to be accurate and able to shoot through plowheads when using steelcore chinese ammo and have had plenty of range time with various versions of the M16. The lack of range in .223 ammo is just fatal and M16 has a finicky gas system, not a good idea for a battle rifle, why stoner didn't just use the same style bolt the AK and M60 use is beyond me.

Originally posted by PaddyInf

A large proportion of the overall sample size.

Define "large proportion" in terms of the articles on Strategy Page.

You see, this happens to be a respected source of weaponry related developments, and apart from the 2 reports you reference, of which more later, I'd like to know exactly what your justification is for writing off this entire website as having a "huge number" of errors, but you knew that.

Articles that have numerous elementary mistakes or that make comments with no supporting evidence yet cite them as fact. An example here may be this one. This makes comments regarding section deployments and equipment scales that are purely fictional.

He seems to be very specific, and since this entire thread is based on the British changing their weapons fit in Afghanistan with more 7.62s, it seems credible. But as a member of HM forces I'll bow to you on this one.

Concepts that would be regarded as basic or elementary to someone with a basic concept of the subject. An example may be this one which completely disregards the usefulness of the bayonet (despite numerous recent reports of its' use), and spends half the article singing about underbarrel shotguns! It also forgets to mention that the bayonet is only being removed form basic training, not infantry training.

Don't confuse opinion with fact, it is a fact that the US Army has now removed bayonet drill from basic training, it is the author's opinion that an underslung shotgun would do a better job.

His report however is factual.

There are others, but lets not derail the thread

When it's my thread, and you question one of my sources, what do you expect.

[edit on 4-4-2010 by Retseh]