Carl Gustav 84mm Recoilless Rifle

[MikeD]

"used properly" ?

There was a very good post on ARRSE a while back about the LSW which I'm trying to find - basically (IIRC) it was supposed to be used to suppress the enemy with accurate fire but we never really bothered to learn a 'new' weapon so we just gave it to the nig and let them crack on giving it big licks on ex because it had a bipod so it can only be a machine gun and everyone knows machine guns are for giving it big licks with.

If I can find the post I'll put the link on here - clearly it was much better explained than I've done it here and something I'd never really had taught to me before either but it made complete sense when you compare it to something like the Gimpy.

[rickshaw]

"used properly" ?

In other words not used as a substitute for a Minimi or a GPMG and trying to be a "bullet hose".  It was never intended for that and wasn't designed for that.   It was designed to be a light-weight, fully automatic, sustained fire version of the SA80 Individual Weapon to allow the section to be able to "reach out" and kill individual enemy more effectively.   For that, it has a bipod and an easily changed barrel IIRC.  It hearkens back to the days of the Bren Gun and Imperial Policing duties on the NW Frontier and in deepest, darkest Africa, at the end of a long, tenuous supply line.

[Old Wombat]

"used properly" ?

Every weapon has its "best use", which includes what you use it for & how it is used.

I wouldn't use a stilletto to hack into someone's neck & I wouldn't try to slide a kukri between someone's ribs.

A M-60 & a L7 have the same role (far too many people forget that the M-60 was designed as a crew-served weapon, in the same way the L7/FN MAG was) but each is used differently, similar but different. If you don't get the method & procedures right, you aren't using the weapon to the best of its ability; it's not being "used properly".

[Weaver]

I've heard it said that the Minimi and the L86 actually complement each other nicely in the section, the former providing volume fire and the latter precision fire.

[DarrenP2]

sustained fire on an LSW? with its built in 30 round stoppage and ergonomic disaster or a reload. The Bren/LMG had 30 round mags that were much easier to reload. It was also designed to provide accurate fire in fact the Bren was deemed to accurate. At least with the bren you could change the barrel.
The LSW yes is a heavy barreled rifle masquarading as an LMG but to reach out that bit further you need a bigger calibre like 7.62mm

[rickshaw]

sustained fire on an LSW? with its built in 30 round stoppage and ergonomic disaster or a reload. The Bren/LMG had 30 round mags that were much easier to reload. It was also designed to provide accurate fire in fact the Bren was deemed to accurate. At least with the bren you could change the barrel.
The LSW yes is a heavy barreled rifle masquarading as an LMG but to reach out that bit further you need a bigger calibre like 7.62mm

That is why you have a SFMG/GMG/Mortar in the battalion.   The L86 was never designed to do more than beef up the section's firepower beyond what their L85s could supply.    It was purely a creation of the Cold War and when that war ended, the British Army found they had a weapon which they had no use for.   They reinvented it for use in the Section as a longer-ranged weapon.  Personally, I'd have ditched it all together or given it purely to the non-Arms Corps units and forgotten about it.   It is not a "bullet hose" replacement and was never intended to be.

I have no idea about how difficult the 30 rd magazines are to reload but if they are STANAG magazines, they shouldn't be too difficult.   Many skills have been lost in the last 20 years unfortunately.   Too much catering to "special interests" IMO.

[Weaver]

Part of the Cold War rationale for giving sections a lighter LMG than a Gimpy was that they'd also be weighed down with large numbers of LAW80 anti-tank weapons which were significantly heavier and bulkier than the 66mm LAWS rockets they had before.

Think I'm right in also saying that British infantry batallions had a machine-gun platoon in the support company with something like 9 x GMPGs on SF tripods, so the firepower was there in the batallion, just not controlled at section level.

[DarrenP2]

we went from 1 GPMG per section to 2x LSW's per sction (in the falklands the marines were carrying LMG & GPMG)In places were there has been fighting and the infantry has had to do its job the Infantry have binned the LSW they did it in Northern Ireland, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and carried weapons like GPMG, L4 LMG and Minimi.

[Weaver]

I didn't think they binned all the LSWs in Iraq/A'stan though: I seem to recall reading that they replaced one of the LSWs with a Minimi and kept the other one. Think they might have replaced that second LSW in A'stan with the L129A1 7.62mm sharpshooter rifle eventually though.

[DarrenP2]

in the British army training review (the in house journal on training and concepts) there have been numerous articles decrying the LSW and its fairly clear that those units who have been in action allot don't rate it.
In the gulf the Irish guards were back to 1 GPMG per section. But as soon as its "peace time" army as ever the hard won lessons are forgoten. I thought allot of the LSW's were broken up to make the carbines and the cadet semi automatics.

[DarrenP2]

Any way back to the Carl Gustav. I have the British Manual for the old L14 and they had planned to buy smoke and flare rounds by the looks of it when it was first bought. Just a pity they hadn't expanded the range of ammo used

[Weaver]

Criminal waste of potential: there's about dozen different round for the Charlie-G IIRC.

The 'new' ones (i.e. the M3s, not the L14s (M2s) ) are much lighter too: the barrel's carbon fibre with a thin steel liner, not solid steel.

[DarrenP2]

And its more flexible than the disposable weapons we opted for. I was told by one of the guards in our base in Iraq that a few days before I arrived an Iraqi farmer had arrived at the front gate with 6 Law 94mm (unfired) that had been left on his land he joked with the guard no wonder the marines had abandoned them given their weight. compared to the RPG he'd used as a soldier.

[Weaver]

There was a period in the '80s, during which the British Army made it's decision to dump it, when the anti-armour performance of the best Charlie G rounds fell behind that of the latest new products. After it's replacement in British service, new rounds were developed for the Charlie G that restored it's performance.

Having said that, the main reason for the revival of interest in the Charlie G is due to the changed tactical environment of the last 20 years, in which the threat from the latest Soviet armour was replaced by the need to breach walls and provide portable HE fire-support to small units with limited armour of their own.

[DarrenP2]

but the falklands demonstrated this to us we needed different ammo natures for the charlie-gee it, 66 and milan being used in the support role. from memory it only engaged 1 AFV an LVTP7.