Machine Guns and Cannons (Ground, Vehicle, and Aircraft Mounted Weapons)

[rickshaw]

These things evolve to meet the situation.   The situation in Afghanistan is always evolving.  The Taliban are a canny foe, as the British Army found out over 150 years ago.   One only has to read Slim's book, Unofficial History, to see that, then of course you have the unforgettable Flashman's memoires. 

[Maverick]

I've always like the Singaporean Ultimax 100: 100 round drum or M-16 mag seems a good compromise between the various limitations of boxes and belts.

By all accounts, the Ultimax was a superb weapon.  It also came in a 'para' version with an abbreviated barrel.  Another plus for the Minimi is that it can use STANAG magazines in addition to it's own belt, so the arguement that it's a purely beltfed weapon is invalid.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

My impression was that only the US version of the Minimi (which BTW the Australian Army adopted) was able to use magazines?  I also understood that it was rarely if ever used in this way because the magazines became easily damaged.   The really crazy thing was that downunder we adopted the US version of the Minimi but the British version of the L7 FN-MAG58 (the original ones were actually ex-British Army ones) at the same time, rather than the US version.

[Weaver]

IIRC, all versions of the Minimi have the dual feed ports for belt/magazine, but some armies have blocked off the magazine feed because it's chronically unreliable.

[Old Wombat]

IIRC, all versions of the Minimi have the dual feed ports for belt/magazine, but some armies have blocked off the magazine feed because it's chronically unreliable.

Yep!

Feeding

The weapon is fed from the left-hand side by disintegrating-link M27 ammunition belts (a miniaturized version of the 7.62mm M13 belt), from either an unsupported loose belt, enclosed in a polymer ammunition box with a 200-round capacity attached to the base of the receiver, or from detachable STANAG magazines, used in other NATO 5.56 mm assault rifles such as the M16 and FNC. Magazine feeding is used only as an auxiliary measure, when belted ammunition has been exhausted. The ammunition belt is introduced into the feed tray, magazines are seated inside the magazine port at a 45° angle, located beneath the feed tray port. When a belt is placed in the feed tray it covers the magazine port. Likewise, a magazine inserted into the magazine well will prevent the simultaneous insertion of a belt. The magazine port, when not in use, is closed with an L-shaped hinged flap equipped with a tooth, which engages a corresponding opening in the magazine and serves as a magazine release. This feature was developed by FN's Maurice V. Bourlet and allows the Minimi to be instantly changed from belt feed to magazine feed without any modification.[3]

The pawl-type feeding mechanism is modeled on the system used in the MAG general-purpose machine gun, which was originally used in the World War II-era MG 42. The belt is moved in two stages during both the forward and rearward movement of the reciprocating bolt carrier, which provides for a smooth and continuous feeding cycle. The feeding mechanism top cover features a device that indicates the presence of a cartridge in the feed path.

[jcf]

These things evolve to meet the situation.   The situation in Afghanistan is always evolving.  The Taliban are a canny foe, as the British Army found out over 150 years ago.   One only has to read Slim's book, Unofficial History, to see that, then of course you have the unforgettable Flashman's memoires. 

That's an interesting trick as the Taliban didn't exist 150 years ago.

[dadlamassu]

Way back in 2003/4 in Iraq we had the Minimi Para issued to us with 1 per fire team (2 per section).  At first we quite liked it until we found that the AK-47 had a longer range!  So we had to rely on the LSW for long range automatic or single shot accurate fire, SA-80 for main killing power and minimi para for frightening the enemy it could not reach.  The standard Minimi has about the same range as the AK-47. 

Each Section had 1st Fire Team - Corporal (SA80), 3 x Privates (Minimi, LSW, SA80 with UGL), 2nd Fire Team L/Cpl (SA80), 3 x Privates (Minimi, LSW, SA80 with UGL)

Old chaps like me really wanted our old GPMG and L4s back for range and hitting power.

[rickshaw]

These things evolve to meet the situation.   The situation in Afghanistan is always evolving.  The Taliban are a canny foe, as the British Army found out over 150 years ago.   One only has to read Slim's book, Unofficial History, to see that, then of course you have the unforgettable Flashman's memoires. 

That's an interesting trick as the Taliban didn't exist 150 years ago.

Their name may have changed but its still largely the same culprits...

[rickshaw]

Old chaps like me really wanted our old GPMG and L4s back for range and hitting power.

A common complaint down the ages.  I don't doubt that the old soldiers preferred their longbows to their matchlocks.

The older weapons were too powerful.  Why have a cartridge which can fire its bullet out beyond what you can even see, let alone hit?   5.56x45mm was perhaps the wrong choice to go for in an intermediate cartridge but that can be blamed on the US for adopting it in a hurry to meet the needs of Vietnam.   A lot of research has gone into this now and the generally agreed round is about 6.5-6.8x45mm.  However there is simply too much, recent investment in 5,56x45mm to see a switch at any time in the near term (and changing in the middle of a war is a bad idea anyway).   In the meantime, what is required is a rethinking of tactical doctrine and a greater investment in the use of supporting arms.  If your rifles can't reach the bad guys then HMGs, Grenade MGs, Mortars, Artillery and airstrikes can.

[Weaver]

Way back in 2003/4 in Iraq we had the Minimi Para issued to us with 1 per fire team (2 per section).  At first we quite liked it until we found that the AK-47 had a longer range!  So we had to rely on the LSW for long range automatic or single shot accurate fire, SA-80 for main killing power and minimi para for frightening the enemy it could not reach.  The standard Minimi has about the same range as the AK-47. 

Each Section had 1st Fire Team - Corporal (SA80), 3 x Privates (Minimi, LSW, SA80 with UGL), 2nd Fire Team L/Cpl (SA80), 3 x Privates (Minimi, LSW, SA80 with UGL)

Old chaps like me really wanted our old GPMG and L4s back for range and hitting power.

Cheers - that's interesting.

Do you know what scale they're issuing the L129A1s at?

Off topic a little, but what's the opinion of the UGLs? Are they better or worse than M203s?

[scooter]

In the meantime, what is required is a rethinking of tactical doctrine and a greater investment in the use of supporting arms.  If your rifles can't reach the bad guys then HMGs, Grenade MGs, Mortars, Artillery and airstrikes can.

You may be able to hide from my team...but not from the Strike Eagle with the JDAMs onboard.

[Weaver]

In small arms terms, I think one of the most significant and useful development to come out of Iraq/Afghanistan is the rediscovery of the value of sniping, particularly "mass sniping", i.e. having a marksman in each section as well as the specialists at battalion level (of course the French and the Russians never forgot this in the first place...). It's effective both physically and psychologically, it's precise, restrained and relatively cheap.

[scooter]

In small arms terms, I think one of the most significant and useful development to come out of Iraq/Afghanistan is the rediscovery of the value of sniping, particularly "mass sniping", i.e. having a marksman in each section as well as the specialists at battalion level (of course the French and the Russians never forgot this in the first place...). It's effective both physically and psychologically, it's precise, restrained and relatively cheap.

Indeed, the cost of training a sniper to such high standards is probably a hell of a lot cheaper than training up the fighter/bomber pilot and a 1 buck per round is definitely cheaper than a JDAM.

[Maverick]

Their name may have changed but its still largely the same culprits...

I'd suggest that's erroneous.  The British of the 19th Century faced Afghan tribesmen who had little in common with each other, beyond the fact that they were Afghans.  The Taliban of today are strong on the whole fundementalist (ie: perverted from its original form) Muslim dogma and are quite a lot better organised.  They are also deeply linked with other Muslim nations & supporters which was patently not the case with the 'old' Afghans.

The ethos of the two camps is poles apart.  The earlier Afghans fought for the sake of it (it was said that if they didn't have a foreign enemy to fight, they'd fight each other) in addition to fighting a 'foreign invader'.  The insurgents of today have a much wider perspective and agenda.

Regards,

Mav

[rickshaw]

*SIGH* sometimes a simile can be carried too far.   The Afghans have always been a fractious, violent lot.  The point I was attempting to make was that while the name may have changed, their objectives remain largely the same - an Afghanistan free of foreign interference where they can be left alone to kill one another at their leisure.  While they may be using different slogans and different propaganda when you get down to tin tacks, invariably their motivations remain similar.  Those at the top might be fighting for their own reasons but so are those at the bottom as well.  I refer you to David Kilcullen's, "Accidental Guerrilla" for an excellent effort at analysing why guerrillas fight.  "Taliban" was merely a convenient label in my original comment, nothing more.  I could have suggested "Pushtunn guerrillas" but then, not all Taliban are Pushtun, nor all Pushtun Taliban...