British Special Forces small arms 2017

[IronDuke99]

The Royal Marines Fleet Protection Group.
This is a roughly battalion sized force.

It is responsible for the security of UK nuclear subs, bases and missiles. It also provides RM detachments for Royal Navy warships and Royal Fleet Auxiliary (supply and support) ships.

It is also trained to protect, and retake, oil rigs and merchant ships etc.

The whole unit (like the Special Forces Support Group and the Pathfinders of the Parachute Regt) uses the L119A2 Colt Canada 5.56mm Assault Rifle rather than the L85A2 SA80.

For scenario designers British warships (and RFA's) on overseas deployments normally carry at least a section of Royal Marines from the Fleet Protection Group for boarding and small scale landing operations and that number can be increased in 'high risk' areas like the Gulf.

As an aside UK is just now opening a permanent RN Base in Bahrain in the Gulf, the first new base East of Suez for many years.

[IronDuke99]

Why don't British Special Forces, and associated units, use the L85A2 SA80?

Well, these days it is not reliability, and certainly not accuracy, the SA80 A2 performs very well under all conditions. The main reason it is not used is that the L85A2 SA80 is a very bloody heavy assault rifle and that weight, as it is a bull pup design, is mostly towards the rear of the weapon.

The L85A2 SA80 A2, with loaded 30 round magazine, and optic sight, weighs 4.98kg (just about 11 lbs).

The L119A2 Colt Canada, with loaded 30 round magazine, and optic sight, weighs 3.9kg (just over 8.5 lbs).

That is a big difference for a soldier to carry around constantly and, of course, on operations a good soldier never, ever, leaves his rifle.

My first, much loved, British Army rifle, in the early 1980's, was a L1A1 SLR (that example a beautiful older rifle with wooden furniture, that I was genuinely fond of) and that weighed, with a full 20 round 7.62mm magazine, 4.96kg (or well under 11lbs)...

[jp10]

So British Special Forces can't carry an extra 2.5 pounds? Times really are changing. I guess it take a whole squad to carry a machine gun.

[IronDuke99]

Originally Posted by jp10

So British Special Forces can't carry an extra 2.5 pounds? Times really are changing. I guess it take a whole squad to carry a machine gun.

As the British Army always says, "Any fool can be uncomfortable."

If you need a GPMG, you carry a GPMG, or whatever kit you need. You do not waste effort on a weapon, if you can get the same effect from lighter kit, especially if you are SF type forces who very often do not have APC's.

Another British Army saying was "Bull **** baffles brains."

Average British soldiers, like most soldiers around the world, get the best, weapon in terms of value for money for the Government, filtered through assorted companies that need to make a profit and assorted civil servants who do what civil servants do (or don't do).

Special Forces soldiers, generally, get the best weapons money can buy. It's that simple.

I have never met one single British Army infantry soldier, who was around at the time of the change over, who thought the 5.56mm SA80 was a better weapon than the 7.62mm SLR, not one. I did meet a fair number of South African soldiers who preferred the the R4 (basically the Israeli Galil) to the R1 (not a lot different from the UK SLR).

The SA80, when first introduced, was not a good service rifle, in any way. The modern SA80 A2 is a good weapon, but it took years to get there and it is still very heavy for an assault rifle and not well balanced.

[IronDuke99]

While I am, sort of, on this subject it has been known, for many years, certainly since the mid 1990's, that the 'ideal' military round is somewhere between 7.62mm (too large and heavy) and 5.56mm (too small and weak).

The best Military forces these days have a mixture of 7.62mm and 5.56mm weapons, that mixture is not efficient, in terms of logistics, costs and effects.

Although remember, one of the major lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan was a lot of infantry fire power is about suppression (sending the enemy to ground) so he can be killed by mortars, artillery, attack helos, aircraft, etc... Although how far that would be true about a enemy that comes close to matching you in technology remains very much to be seen.

The experts have been saying, for a long time, that the 'ideal' military round is probably about 6.2-7mm. But this will not happen when every nation has thousands of 5.56mm and 7.62mm weapons and companies turning out those weapons and those rounds.

In NATO terms change will only come when the US changes and that depends, largely, on what happens with caseeless (ie non metal) rounds.

As a old -non bold- soldier I take a certain small comfort that we were right back in the day that 5.56mm really was too small and weak as a military round.

If I can find it there is a bloody good video on YouTube from a US Army officer about this...