- Reaction score
- 27,505
- Points
- 1,090
Technoviking said:
Well, the infantry did give the Artillery the 81mm (with no PYs), so it sounds like a fair deal...
Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
Well, the infantry did give the Artillery the 81mm (with no PYs), so it sounds like a fair deal...
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
I think argument over it being for the LAV right now is a non-starter, no more relevant than saying how right/wrong a Browning .50 cal would be on a B17 bomber.
The same way it has been mounted on everything over its life cycle, so has a C6, and over time so will a C16.
The September 2010 outlook of where the C16 might fit on a LAV may not be perfect, but we can't be that narrow minded.
If some staff officer said to put it with the Infantry on is first draft just so we could buy the d@mn thing I say good for him; IMO it is such a good weapon (without the FCS) that we should buy it.
I love the Brit concept of 50% .50 cal and 50% GMG on their light vehicles (which I am convinced we will be on again at some point in the next decade somewhere). The only better death-spewing combination would be 1/3 .50 cal, 1/3 GMG, and 1/3 flamethrower.
The same way it has been mounted on everything over its life cycle, so has a C6, and over time so will a C16.
The September 2010 outlook of where the C16 might fit on a LAV may not be perfect, but we can't be that narrow minded.
If some staff officer said to put it with the Infantry on is first draft just so we could buy the d@mn thing I say good for him; IMO it is such a good weapon (without the FCS) that we should buy it.
I love the Brit concept of 50% .50 cal and 50% GMG on their light vehicles (which I am convinced we will be on again at some point in the next decade somewhere). The only better death-spewing combination would be 1/3 .50 cal, 1/3 GMG, and 1/3 flamethrower.
- Reaction score
- 1,476
- Points
- 1,040
But...Petamocto said:
if to get it, we need to take away a 60mm mortar...(which was a false premise: that we won't/can't use it, that it's from 1949, etc)...when it is being used, and any arguments about its age only scream "so what? Get a new model that fires the same ammo".
And fireballs. It must shoot fireballs. ;D
But, as stated, for a weapon system, the AGLS is more like a HMG than a light mortar. Knowing that the collective IQ in the procurement shop of whoever bought this thing must be in the low 20s, I'm surprised that they didn't try to bin the .50. After all, it's from when? Before 1920?
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Can anyone prove that the 60mm being cut is specifically because of the adoption of the C16?
I have heard everyone from DLR to LGen Leslie compare the two and I get the feeling that the 60's retirement is more due to it's age and condition than it has to do with capability.
It seems just a coincidence that we are going after this at the same time. It may have hastened the exit, but I don't think it was what started it.
I have heard everyone from DLR to LGen Leslie compare the two and I get the feeling that the 60's retirement is more due to it's age and condition than it has to do with capability.
It seems just a coincidence that we are going after this at the same time. It may have hastened the exit, but I don't think it was what started it.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Old Sweat said:
Technoviking said:
And that's where I'm coming from: All the references I have seen would suggest they are related but not in the way that everyone seems to get worked up about.
I do not think that the 60mm was going to be around for a lot longer and then all of a sudden the C16 came along and someone said "this thing is far better than the 60mm so the mortar has to go".
Reading between the lines, I do in fact see something resembling "if we adopt X then we need to divest Y", I don't think it was the C16 that started it; I get the impression that the 60mm mortar was already on the way out because of its age, and it was more of a coincidence that something came along that was also a suppression quasi-possible-to-do-indirect weapon and someone said "okay if we're going to buy the C16, what are we going to get rid of?", and then the decision was made that since the 60mm was going soon anyway that this would just be the last straw.
If anyone can show me a ref that says otherwise though I am very interested to see it. Basically, something that states "The 60mm was still going to be in service for a long time, but due to the C16 being 'so much better' the 60mm must go".
- Reaction score
- 1,476
- Points
- 1,040
Well, not in so many words, but that one document that compares the capabilities of the "CASW" to the M19 CDN is flawed, but its inference is that "due to the C16 being 'so much better' the 60mm must go". Not in so many words, however. But as Old Sweat stated, ingornant staff officers who didn't know what the 60 could do just showed that they were out of the loop. But that misconception wasn't limited to staff officers.
In 2002, on ex ROYAL FIST, then LCol Vance was out when G Coy did an attack or defence of whatever. We had just disbanded the mortar platoon, and on the recommendation of the 2IC of G Coy (not me), the 4 coy mortars were brigaded and were used in the fireplan. Watching the fire come in, he mused that "I have 12 of those in my battalion?" Oh, the coy inserted via chinook, so those mortars were carried in, and did quite the number down range.
Granted, it was a fairly staged "event" (as most live fires are); however, until then, he wasn't aware of the full potential of the 60s. The "old obsolete" 60s.
In 2002, on ex ROYAL FIST, then LCol Vance was out when G Coy did an attack or defence of whatever. We had just disbanded the mortar platoon, and on the recommendation of the 2IC of G Coy (not me), the 4 coy mortars were brigaded and were used in the fireplan. Watching the fire come in, he mused that "I have 12 of those in my battalion?" Oh, the coy inserted via chinook, so those mortars were carried in, and did quite the number down range.
Granted, it was a fairly staged "event" (as most live fires are); however, until then, he wasn't aware of the full potential of the 60s. The "old obsolete" 60s.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
You're talking capability again though, not the specific tubes. What I understood is that the specific systems we had were too old, not the capability itself. It wasn't that we were divesting mortars so much as what we had was now dangerous to use.
That being said, I do not know if a decision was ever made that we should just buy new 60mm mortar tubes that were cheaper/better/lighter like the new 84s we bought, but I would be interested in seeing that, too.
Perhaps we were going to start looking at new 60mm (or 50s, or whatever) mortars and then the C16 is what derailed that, but if there's one thing I'm trying to get across is that the actual mortars we have been using for decades were ending their life cycle.
But for whatever reason, unlike the .50, the C6, or even Star Trek, it was not given a chance at a next generation.
That being said, I do not know if a decision was ever made that we should just buy new 60mm mortar tubes that were cheaper/better/lighter like the new 84s we bought, but I would be interested in seeing that, too.
Perhaps we were going to start looking at new 60mm (or 50s, or whatever) mortars and then the C16 is what derailed that, but if there's one thing I'm trying to get across is that the actual mortars we have been using for decades were ending their life cycle.
But for whatever reason, unlike the .50, the C6, or even Star Trek, it was not given a chance at a next generation.
- Reaction score
- 1,476
- Points
- 1,040
Nice star trek reference ;DPetamocto said:
But, the pieces I had seen all referred to the age of the M19 CDN, and not the fact that there are newer, lighter and longer ranged 60mm mortars that fire the same ammo that we already have.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
Just got an email from Ottawa:
I guess NDHQ wasn't following the discussion here
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Journeyman said:Just got an email from Ottawa:I guess NDHQ wasn't following the discussion here
Outside information is counter-productive to the well situated estimate. ;D
ArmyRick
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,347
- Points
- 1,010
"situate the estimate" your bringing back memories of 3B. The do and don'ts of the combat estimate. (Flashing back to trying to sit on snow shoes and scribble out my plan all while battling sleep and hoping the DS does not pick me for the next brief).
- Reaction score
- 4,265
- Points
- 1,260
- Reaction score
- 1,476
- Points
- 1,040
Ladies and Gentlemen
Come one, come all, and witness the marvel that is our procurement system! Conceived as the "be all, end all" for infantry platoon support weapons that was thought of before combat in Kandahar, and deemed so important, that it was brought into service just as soon as we left combat. That's right, it's the C16 AGLS! Bigger, stronger and faster (and heavier!) than anything we have ever had! So good, we could not wait until our next deployment, we are implementing it now! Write your MP, and thank him or her personally for the government expending millions of your dollars on a weapon system that the users neither desired or know how to use effectively. Egos trump common sense once again as a complex and overly heavy weapon system will replace a simple and man-portable weapon system.
If our robust soldiers can carry it beyond 50 metres from the truck, it will be worth its weight in gold. Once again, the army shows its true colours in maintaining the aim of situating the estimate and ignoring the hard work, back-breaking effort and lives and blood spilled on the field of battle by bringing in a modern-day Ross Rifle that its prime user, the Infantry, has just collective just realised is too heavy to carry.
Once again, we are f*cked. Thank you kindly, motherlovers. God bless the PBI.
Come one, come all, and witness the marvel that is our procurement system! Conceived as the "be all, end all" for infantry platoon support weapons that was thought of before combat in Kandahar, and deemed so important, that it was brought into service just as soon as we left combat. That's right, it's the C16 AGLS! Bigger, stronger and faster (and heavier!) than anything we have ever had! So good, we could not wait until our next deployment, we are implementing it now! Write your MP, and thank him or her personally for the government expending millions of your dollars on a weapon system that the users neither desired or know how to use effectively. Egos trump common sense once again as a complex and overly heavy weapon system will replace a simple and man-portable weapon system.
If our robust soldiers can carry it beyond 50 metres from the truck, it will be worth its weight in gold. Once again, the army shows its true colours in maintaining the aim of situating the estimate and ignoring the hard work, back-breaking effort and lives and blood spilled on the field of battle by bringing in a modern-day Ross Rifle that its prime user, the Infantry, has just collective just realised is too heavy to carry.
Once again, we are f*cked. Thank you kindly, motherlovers. God bless the PBI.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
COMPANY / Close Area Support Weapon
304 Weapons
3 Regiments
9 Battalions
27 Companies
81 Platoons
243 Sections
Ah..... I get it.
1 CASW per section with 60 left over for Maintenance, Testing and Warstocks.
Welcome to the Foot Artillery.
304 Weapons
3 Regiments
9 Battalions
27 Companies
81 Platoons
243 Sections
Ah..... I get it.
1 CASW per section with 60 left over for Maintenance, Testing and Warstocks.
Welcome to the Foot Artillery.
Similar threads
