ghurkas in afganistan?

Any field reports on how the SA80 A1 is fairing. I heard it had a very rocky start. I would be interested in hearing from our English firends. It is interesting in the final attack that two of the infantrymen chose to drop their rifles, one to hold by hand, and the last use his sling.

Also, the link appears to be spelling Gorkha the Indian way.

Will
 
Got word from Pala and Gelbu and they say the khukuri is not from BirGorkha but probably from the village kami from whence that Gorkha comes. Pala says the old tradition of one for show and one for go is alive and well but that most of the go models are produced by village kamis to specs supplied by individual Gorkhas.
 
Uncle: That really shows how good the village kamis can be when they have to. That knife in the 1st pic looks good enough to be an HI model!:D Even looks like it has brass inlay work in the sword of Shiva.

Will: I thought that was an Enfield L85A1? Have the Brits come up with a new version of it? I also remember I heard during the Gulf War that the L85A1 had a habit of jamming in sandy conditions:( . I figure they've had ten years to work on it though, so it probably works just fine now.
 
Matt, you are correct I am mistaken. I think L85 is the final designation for the rifle. I too heard it was a rather poor weapon in the desert (and pretty well anywhere else). I was curious if the A1 modifications changed it into a reliable weapon.

Will
 
The L85 is for most purposes a rework of the Armalite 180 or so I've heard.

The 180 was produced in this country by the Armalite division of Fairchild, then later in Japan by Howa and in Britain by Sterling. I had the Howa and American made versions at one time, but heard repeated warnings to stay away from the Sterlings.

Basically, the idea was to de-engineer the gun from the AR-15 down to the level that technologically middle-level nations could produce it themselves, in country. It used stamped metal pressings rather than high-tensile aluminum forgings or castings etc.
 
I found an articles about the L85A1 on the Jane's defense site. Will, apparently it was/is also called the SA80, but I couldn't tell which was the current designation and whether one is from the manufacturer and one from the army or what.:confused:

They said it was currently receiving extensive upgrades from H&K, and should then be just as good as any other current military rifle. I would assume that anybody going to Afghanistan would be first in line for the modified ones.

Rusty, I didn't see anything about it being developed from the Armalite rifle, but they didn't say too much about where it came from. They did say the first versions worked like they were designed in commity, though. ;) It should turn out to be a good rifle, though.
 
I figure the AK-74 with the 5.45 chambering would be popular with all the Soviet/ Russian influence overthere. (The longer the build up goes on the more they seem to have something to say.) Cheap, reliable, and if you know the 74 you know the 47, so pick'em off the enemy.

Anyway, I doubt that it has a problem in the desert. Reliability is something important in combat, and I would rather have the enemy's weapon than a weapon that doesnt go bang when you pull the trigger.
 
When the firearm was 1st developed, well maybe not that far back but, it always seemed that bigger was better and over the years the calibre has been dropping in size.:confused:
Wasn't the 50 calibres, .50 - .54 and the like what was used in the Civil War and beyond?
I have always thought the larger calibres had more solid Knock Down Power?
Wouldn't that be the objective in some cases?:confused:
I know when I was in boot camp the idea was to wound the enemy rather than flat out kill them as it took more personnel to take care of them. Of course a "kill" was just fine, but all in all the main idea was just to be sure and hit the enemy with the bullet no matter if it was a kill or not.

What's so great about the smaller calibres or what seems to be the reason for them?

Anyone? Everyone?
 
In the Vietnam era, and slightly before,our military became focused on firepower, for the rifleman, and, to some extent, backed away from the age-old emphasis on accuracy at the longest possible range. 1,000 yd. ranges are almost non-existant, now. The OMA cadets at Claremore used to shoot out to 1,000 yds. on a fairly regular basis.
The "effective range" of today's infantry weapon is considered to be adequate at 400 yds. In the quest for more firepower per man, the 5.56 round was developed from the .222 Remington, the .222 Remington Magnum, and finally became what in civilian terms is the .223 Remington. The smaller cartridge meant "more rounds per pound". An infantryman can only carry so much weight, and increasing his ammo load without a great weight increase was considered an advantage - also, training would be easier with the lighter, lower-recoiling round, and each man would have the "advantage" of full-auto fire. The destructiveness of the higher velocity round was considered a good trade for the .30 cal rounds (.30-06 and 7.62 {.308}) of previous wars.

Now, the full-auto is giving way to "controlled burst" (three rounds with each pull of the trigger). Full auto, it seems, wastes mucho ammo. They seemed to forget the lessons learned in the islands - that the old .30-06 would penetrate tree trunks that Japanese troops took cover behind, while the light 6mm-6.5mm Japanese rounds (.24 and .27 cal) would not penetrate the trees we hid behind.

One of these days, with new barrel technology and the improvements we are seeing in powders and electronic sights,we may see line infantrymen with .30 cal weapons accurate out to 1,500 yds, at night, with no recoil and a couple of team members to pack the heavy ammo - unless caseless ammo finally comes along to stay, and he can pack twice as much .30 as the Vietnam grunt packed in 5.56. Who knows....

My current favorite is the .338 Lapua Magnum - for those who really like to "reach out and touch someone".
 
My favorite battle rifle is the M14. I have a Springfield M1A that is 100% reliable and very accurate. I love the .30 class of rifles. I read once that the .223 was a better spray and pray round for encounters in the jungle where you might walk right up to your enemy without realizing it until the very last minute. However, in the open country or even in the cities, a good M14 or M1 Garand can't be beat.
 
Just never stopped to think about it that way.

I'm with Ad. I carried the M-14 in boot camp and it became my favorite rifle of all time. But I think that's true of whatever the infantryman learns on. I have heard a lot of guys praise the M-16 to high heaven, but that's what they learned on.\
The .308 may not be the most powerful round, I know little, close to nothing about velocities and vectors, but I could hit accurately with it and coming from the Oklahoma hills accuracy still counts, although I understand the reasoning behind the lighter cartridge.:)
I also liked the way the M-14 always came right back on target for me.
Something the AK-47 won't do, but that may be my fault, haven't studied it out yet and have been out with it only 1 time so there's not enough info to understand fully, yet.:)

Kinda funny that my two rifles turned out to be an old SMLE and an
AK-47. One to reach out a reasonable distance and touch someone and one that's good for closer in. I don't count the .357 Mag.Marlin Carbine a full rifle and feel that anything beyond a 100 meters is pressing the round. But Barb has a .30-30 that I wouldn't want her shooting at me with out to a couple 200 meters.:)) Or the Mossberg 500 from the hip!!!!)
Actually I really like the AK-47 and the way it shoots. I'm not as good as T-Bone at getting 2 or 3 quick rounds off that sounds _almost_ like full auto, nothing but full auto sounds like full auto, but he has had more experience than me.:)
 
I also really like the M1A. Scoped out to 1000 metters plus, it can really reach out and touch some one. :)


Heber Ellsworth
 
Yvsa,

The reason for at least some of the diameter decreases, is that firearms developments have moved us from very short-range, slow, smoothbore black powder arms to rifled, "smokeless" bullets. Smokeless powder enabled a much smaller projectile to be sent out much faster, with lower pressure. This took us to the .30-06 round. The .308 (7.62x51mm) was a slightly smaller, streamlined version of the .30-06...

Rounds since then have been driven by a different tactical philosophy, more than technological advancement.
 
Originally posted by Spectre
Yvsa,
The reason for at least some of the diameter decreases, is that firearms developments have moved us from very short-range, slow, smoothbore black powder arms to rifled, "smokeless" bullets.
Click to expand...

My emphasis on "very short range.":)

Spec I have to disagree on the "very short range." The .50 Calibre Sharps was good out to 1,000 yards on Buffalo!!!!
And some of the "good old boys" were supposed to be able to do that with the open iron sights and just for fun.:)

I agree with the tactical philosophy and technological advancement as it seems most firefights in this day and age are at much closer ranges than in the past and, with the automatic fire or 3 round controlled bursts that Walosi mentions, accuracy doesn't count as much as it used to.
Sorta reminds me of the calculators that are alright to use in arithmetic nowadays.:(
And Walosi's comment, "The destructiveness of the higher velocity round was considered a good trade for the .30 cal rounds (.30-06 and 7.62 {.308}) of previous wars." confirms that accuracy doesn't count as much as it once did.
I had the privilige(?):barf: of seeing several pix brought back by a friend of mine in Nam that showed the destructiveness of the M-15 and M-16. A hit in the arm with the smaller .22 calibre, that would have at one time just went on through with a .30 calibre round unless it hit bone, took the arm almost completely off!!!!
There was also a pic of a head shot where the man was hit in the middle of the forehead and lost the entire back of his head.

I don't keep up with much that goes on in the world of guns, but I understand that the M-14 is still being used as a sniper rifle where accuracy over a long distance still counts?
And I have heard that the M-14 is still carried by the President's Guard?
I can see the SF's carrying smaller lighter weight calibres on most of their missions as they have a rep of getting in quite close but I wonder if perhaps there isn't at least one M-14 in a small squad for longer ranges where accuracy does count?

I do wonder though that with the different terrain and longer distances, without much cover or concealment, in Afghanistan if the M-14 wouldn't be a better weapon to equip our troops with if it comes to a ground war there?
 
The M14 had the rep of being nearly uncontrollable on full-auto (even prone, on a bipod) although it did have fair accuracy, although not up to the old M1. The M1 fell short of the Springfield,for pin-point accuracy. Every tactical advantage gained in weapons development has some sort of trade-off. The M16 was well suited for bush warfare at close ranges. In Desert Storm, it fell short as to distances, but that was an armored and air fight. The present "special" groups move with a weapons mix suited to the individual job. They have the Remington-based long range rifles to back up their close-in weaponry, and variations of the Barrett .50 for hard targets, or really "way-out" stuff. Many of them are not restricted to "as issued" weapons, but are allowed to pick and chose to suit the mission, and some have developed their own variations of existing stock. It is always changing. At one time, one of the Govt. procurement officers turned down a repeating rifle in favor of the existing smooth-bore musket, as the repeaters "wasted ammunition". Them days are gone forever, but the attitudes still get stuck in the mud. We will see times of flux, experimentation, etc., and then we will settle on a current "best" (when the tests, battle history and kickbacks are all together), until a new situation forces development of a new breed, and then it will start all over again. "Set your phasers on stun, Scotty, and beam us the hell out of here". :rolleyes:
 
Yvsa,

In my initial post, I began mentioning the .50, then went back and removed before posting! :D

There was a fairly short period when cartridges firing black powder were used, to include such rounds as the .50-70, .45-70, .45 Colt and (IIRC) the .30-40 Krag. These arms had the benefit of hundreds of years or experience, metallic cartridge cases, and rifling, but were still much smaller than the .69+ bores of a hundred years before.

Yvsa, killing a buffalo at 1000 yards with one of those big 'ole rounds was possible. Hitting him- or, at least, the one you were aiming at- may have been another. I recall one test the Army did a little before the turn of the century. It involved enormous circles drawn on the ground! Even then, the hit rate was (again, IIRC) less than 50%.
 
Assuming my memory isn't failing me: John Masters, in one of his autobiographical books ("Bugles and a Tiger"?) has a little to say about a successful British action in Afghanistan in the 1930's - don't know whether it was large-scale enough to be called a campaign. (But I can't find the book to confirm this...) He was an officer in one of the Gorkha regiments in the (British) Indian Army.
 
Back in the late 70's the only SWAT type unit in our area was a multi-agency group. While very well trained and effective, their response time was often affected by their member composition.

Our agency elected to maintain a "rifleman" per shift whenever possible, the idea being to "hold the fort" in certain scenarios until the SWAT boys arrived. Yours truly was one of the original riflemen chosen and trained... :eek:

We had one officer who was assigned to a tricked out Remington bolt action, the rest of us had these neat-o Garands. They were all black, had (IIRC) glass bedded barrels, nice recoil pads, and (again IIRC) Williams Gun Sight Co. sights installed. I had never fired a Garand before, and I soon learned that mine was a tack driver! It was truly a joy to shoot from sandbags or an improvised rest. Made for a really effective addition to the .38 revolvers and 18" bead-sighted shotguns that we carried back then. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top