New Small Arms For The Teams?................

Discussion in 'Royal Naval Reserve (RNR)' started by hookyh, Nov 6, 2006.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Heard a couple of buzzes lately about the SPO (Sorry, FP Teams) getting a new primary weapon, both rumours coming from fairly senior, reliable sources. The two weapons mentioned were the Heckler & Koch MP7 (Same as the MOD Plod) and the Diemaco C7/C8 as used by SF troops.

    Realising this could well be another load of old cobblers, does anyone have any 'Gen' on these snippet's of info? Can't say i've seen anything official anywhere, but if there's any truth in it, it would be very interesting in terms of how serious the mob is in using us........
     
  2. Wouldn't the C7 be a bit long for use aboard ship?

    Top rifle otherwise though!
     
  3. I am a big fan of the Diemaco weapons family and would love to see them rolled out as the standard rifle in British Forces, when the SA80 is finally put to bed. I have to agree with TT though - a bit long for use within the confines of a ship.

    The K&K MP7 is also a cracking weapon and definitely more suited to the role http://s93485377.onlinehome.us/images/MP7.jpg
     
  4. It wouldnt surprise me if they were, there has always been an issue with regard to using an SA80 below decks due to the calibre of round and potential collaterral damage of equipment etc, a nine mm round whilst larger has less velocity so may be more appropriate. However on the upper deck I would rather have the SA80 far better weapon when considering threats inboard and outboard!
     
  5. Since one of the primary roles for GSSR (as I understand it) is FP on RFA or Charter vessels don't you need something more akin to the kit used by the Boarding Teams up in the NAG?

    Most teams have a number of physical response alternatives when a rifle discharge may create additional ship safety concerns (particularly on RFA tankers for example).

    These include weapons such as 9mm pistols and shotguns which do not produce a significant muzzle flash (though on a non-gas-free tanker the thought of ANY muzzle flash is too horrible to contemplate), nor do the rounds have sufficient kinetic energy to puncture a metal hold (much more relevant).

    If the thinking ref your weaponry is moving to a weapon more suitable for CQB/internal use (which I am personally a bit dubious about) shouldn't someone be looking into the nature of the specific environment that you might find yourselves in (ie possible hazardous cargoes on RFA or merchant vessels)?

    Just a thought.
     
  6. Interesting concept, but I suspect there are a lot of people further up the food chain who would get first refusal.
     
  7. If this were true (and i suspect it's not) i believe that any decision of this type would be more likely to be based around the role of it's user and the selected weapons environment / suitability for use, than position on the food chain.

    You having a poke at us GSSR's again RM? :lol:
     
  8. It's probably true! Just as things are settling down in GSSR and everyone is qualified, they change the rules and no-one is qualified.:twisted:
     
  9. I'm still being told that Bicester has run out of water bottles and size 9 boots!
     
  10. Cheers for all the replies so far folks1

    It's a weird one i know, but the two sources i got the info. from are not your average punter's swinging a line, otherwise i wouldn't have even contemplated puttingthis up on here.

    Agree totally about the C7, but the C8 or the MP7 would be blinding if it is true. The one really big thing for me if it is gen. is that maybe, just maybe we are going to get the support we need from above at last, not just making constant demands for higher and higher levels of professionalism of us without actually giving us the kit and training to do so, as opposed to trawling through the same old tired stuff we've been doing for the last year or so.

    COMMARRES note please. We're not all newbies who've only been in a couple of years.

    If you want us to do the job properly we need: helmets, armour, webbing the right weaponry for the job, i.e. CQB weapons and 9mm for all, not to mention roping, boarding and CQB training, not just constant 100m range work. If you want us to be serious, let's get serious. Many of us are experienced, keen and capable, so let us do the job right. (End of rant!).

    Thoughts anyone?
     
  11. If you do get the C8, let's hope you get issued Aimpoints as well. Fantastic for quick target aquisition once you get used to having both eyes open.
     
  12. Why do you need roping, boarding and CQB training when your principal role is Force Protection to RFA and Chartered Merchant vessels?

    The primary task will be to ensure that you keep unwelcome elements AWAY from the vessels not try and remove them FROM vessels - we already have CT units trained to do that.

    Not wishing to pour cold water on enthusiasm but 'let's keep it in context'.
     
  13. Probably for the same reason we train Ship's Response Force to search and clear between decks - because shit invariably happens.

    Regarding the procurement of new weapons for the teams, if you do get the MP7 I'll be suitably impressed, but the cynic in me can't ever see it happening. In my experience you either get something cheaper OR you get it more efficient, but you never get both and you usually just get cheaper. But it does beg the question that if the Plod are slouching around our gates with the new MP7, what happened to all their old MP5s? They'd be a damn sight better for 'tween deck work than a rifle too.
     
  14. Are they also given rope and boarding training as well?
     
  15. How will we do boarding training if we cannot get boats courses, as they are now "Not required". When the old salts who drive boats retire or die, they will not have a watch relief.
    O sorry is that the plan? Natural waste till unviable
     
  16. Why do you think you need to do boarding training?

    I can't understand why there is a collective feeling that FP of RFAs and Chartered merchant vessels (or even Pussers war canoes if it ever comes to that) requires you to be able to conduct (possibly) opposed boardings from small boats or helicopters, storm your way into the accommodation of the ship you are supposed to be stopping people from getting onto, taking out the bad guys using your new CQB skills and presumably then melt away into the blackness in your newly issued frogman suits with a box of black magic under your arm.

    Having said that, I am pretty partial to a box of chocolates.
     
  17. The thing is, while we're training to prevent people from getting onto our big grey things, the other side are training, just as hard if not harder, to get past the guys doing the FP. I mean, we can't possibly have people selling drugs on the streets of Britain because Customs and Excise won't let anyone bring drugs into the country, right? Why bother having a goalkeeper and defenders in a football team? Your midfield and forwards should be in possession, right? That's what they're trained to do, after all

    Shit, as they say, happens. I share your amused view of the Man with the Milk Tray image that boarding and clearing conjures up (while the reality is a repetitive and usually very boring procedure), but let's not underestimate the capabilities of the opposite team. While I'm in no way suggesting we focus training efforts on cleaning up after someone's gained access at the expense of prevention, it's got to be better to be prepared for the eventuality than not?
     
  18. And i always thought he left the chocolateson the bedside table - Not stole them???

    Must be from fat fighters!
     
  19. Scribes,

    I am seriously impressed by your view of the requirements of a Boarding Party. On the other hand, I suggest you go read BR1920, and find out which bits of the RN conduct un-opposed compliant boardings, un-opposed non-compliant boardings and opposed boardings. When you've done that, let me know why on earth you need CQB training and all this gucci kit? An SA80-A2 will do you fine, unless you're particually luck in which case you'll get an SA80-Carbine.

    Have a good un
     
  20. all this fantasy about gucci kit is a distraction. the reality is that our functional employer is not yet getting fully trained and deployable FPT,s .
    what is the point of mission impossile weaponry when a lot people are not in date for APWT/WHT/BATON etc ? :(
     

Share This Page