Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
George Wallace
Army.ca Dinosaur
- Reaction score
- 184
- Points
- 710
TheHead said:QQ I hit a target at 18500m (whatever max range is) with a 25mm SABOT round :
I wish there was better ways to denote sarcasm on the internet.
One too many zeros there. LOS hit at 18.5 km is pretty good. :warstory:
- Reaction score
- 1,476
- Points
- 1,040
22177 m is max range at 40 degrees of elevation, I believe. (charts not directly on hand).TheHead said:QQ I hit a target at 18500m (whatever max range is) with a 25mm SABOT round :
I wish there was better ways to denote sarcasm on the internet.
Was your target the earth? Otherwise, I imagine it would take a lot of BOT to get on, given that the ballistic site only goes to 2400 for Sabot.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
TheHead said:QQ I hit a target at 18500m (whatever max range is) with a 25mm SABOT round :
I wish there was better ways to denote sarcasm on the internet.
Yes, we also wish there was a way. :clown:
Anyway, let me talk to the ones who will listen....
Eliminating one of the 40mm/60mm from the inventory would be foolish. Depending on the mission and terrain, both weapons have a distinct difference in capability.
For instance:
the 40mm AGL would be excellent for quick defensive and offensive firepower from 200 - 2200 m. Given to ability to instantly correct and repeat engagements with a limited TOF would give the operator max flexibility to engage multiple targets at various ranges, and also to hit multiple moving targets.
A 60mm mortar, can engage from 500-6000m (depending on the sight and ammo used) in the direct or indirect roles. But has an increadably long TOF esp at the longer ranges. Not so good agianst mobile targets like Taliban fighters on the run. But better at the indirect role from position of natural cover.
So I agree "a this or that" weapon system idea is not productive, because it will remove a tool from the toolbox and not enhance capability. But there is an arguement out there, IRT why we need a 60 when the combination of the 40mm AGL and a 81 mm mortar can do just as much, with one less type of weapon and ammo to procure and maintain, as there would be if we to adapt a 40mm, 60mm, 81mm ground based bomb delivery sytem.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
MCG said:
+1, Given the size and wieght of current AGLs and its ammo, I find it would be highly unlikely that such a weapon system would find alot of use in a dismounted role. The best use of a weapon like that is, as you mention, veh mounted to supplement MGs. Whereas newer models of 60mm are quite man portable and easily carried by dismounted troops.
It would be as you say, mission dependant.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,634
- Points
- 960
I never understood this deep need by some to replace perfectly good weapons with some newer system. BTW how many times have we replaced the.50 caliber HMG 3 or is it 4 times?
While I like the concept of the AGL (actually love it ! ) I really don't want to give up the 60 MM either.perhaps we could look at getting both an AGL and a new mortar ,does any one here have any experience with the American M-224?
While I like the concept of the AGL (actually love it ! ) I really don't want to give up the 60 MM either.perhaps we could look at getting both an AGL and a new mortar ,does any one here have any experience with the American M-224?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
The elevation giving max range is altered by the proj velocity, weight, sectional density and coefficient of drag, as the higher you put the bullet the less air resistance it will encounter and the farther it will go.
So in short there is no single perfect answer, but 800 mils (45 deg) is in the ball park.
Mix the AGLs in with the vehicle mounted GPMGs. The AGL in a RWS such as in a Nyala is a very potent direct or indirect weapon.
So in short there is no single perfect answer, but 800 mils (45 deg) is in the ball park.
Mix the AGLs in with the vehicle mounted GPMGs. The AGL in a RWS such as in a Nyala is a very potent direct or indirect weapon.
This is an interesting topic. A system of systems for indirect fire support and direct fire support within the infantry rifle company is great issues. The Canadian Army is currently at a cross roads in terms of equipment. The capabilities of the M19 60mm mortar is extremely important, but it is also lacking in capability. The M19 mortar is extremely limited in its ability to provided direct fire support and rapid area suppression capability. The M19 must be dismounted or incorporate a special mount to be fire effectively. In the handheld mode the M19 is limited to less than 2km range. More importantly the M19 require large quantities of ammuntion--see mass--to be effective.
How does the Canadian Army provide effective integral company indirect fire support? The answer includes the answer revolves around question of how the infantry provides long range direct fire support to its infantry companies. The Canadian Army infantry companies will acquire a platoon, company, and battalion level indirect and direct fire support capability that eliminate the need (drastically reduce) the need for the Eyrx, M72 (SRAAW[L]), Carl Gustav [M], and M19 mortar at the company level. The Canadian Army should acquire the Milkor MGL-140 40mm multi-barrel grenade launcher, the Mk.47 Striker automatic grenade launcher, and the Saab Bofor NLAW or Lockheed Martin Predator/Kestrel Short-Range Attack Weapon to be provide the required capabilities.
I personally believe the light infantry at least should operate 2 MGL-140 and at minimum 6 and maximu 12 NLAW or Predator/Kestrel at the platoon level. All regular and reserve nfantry companies should operate a heavy weappons platoon with a platoon headquarters section, an anti-armour section equipped with 2 Javelin anit-armour detachments, a heavy machine gun section with 2 12.7mm M2HB-QCB heavy machine guns, and a 40mm automatic-grenade launcher section with 2 Stirker 40mm AGL detachments. Comined with the procurement of the Milkor 40mm MGL-140 multi-barrel grenade-launchers, the M203 UGL, and the NLAW/Predatore the Canadian Infantry will have a drastically improved capability at the infantry rifle platoon and company level.
How does the Canadian Army provide effective integral company indirect fire support? The answer includes the answer revolves around question of how the infantry provides long range direct fire support to its infantry companies. The Canadian Army infantry companies will acquire a platoon, company, and battalion level indirect and direct fire support capability that eliminate the need (drastically reduce) the need for the Eyrx, M72 (SRAAW[L]), Carl Gustav [M], and M19 mortar at the company level. The Canadian Army should acquire the Milkor MGL-140 40mm multi-barrel grenade launcher, the Mk.47 Striker automatic grenade launcher, and the Saab Bofor NLAW or Lockheed Martin Predator/Kestrel Short-Range Attack Weapon to be provide the required capabilities.
I personally believe the light infantry at least should operate 2 MGL-140 and at minimum 6 and maximu 12 NLAW or Predator/Kestrel at the platoon level. All regular and reserve nfantry companies should operate a heavy weappons platoon with a platoon headquarters section, an anti-armour section equipped with 2 Javelin anit-armour detachments, a heavy machine gun section with 2 12.7mm M2HB-QCB heavy machine guns, and a 40mm automatic-grenade launcher section with 2 Stirker 40mm AGL detachments. Comined with the procurement of the Milkor 40mm MGL-140 multi-barrel grenade-launchers, the M203 UGL, and the NLAW/Predatore the Canadian Infantry will have a drastically improved capability at the infantry rifle platoon and company level.
- Reaction score
- 21,948
- Points
- 1,260
Allow me to comment - :
VLTOR is making an updated licensed version of the Milkor for the USMC. Effectively you've removed a rifleman for a heaiver system with a brief increase in firepower over the M203 or Hk AG/C. That is a periphery issue (if related anyway) to the Mortar/CAWS issue.
The Hk GMG is IMHO going to be the CAWS -- and I fail to see what any of your other jibbering was somehow related?
VLTOR is making an updated licensed version of the Milkor for the USMC. Effectively you've removed a rifleman for a heaiver system with a brief increase in firepower over the M203 or Hk AG/C. That is a periphery issue (if related anyway) to the Mortar/CAWS issue.
The Hk GMG is IMHO going to be the CAWS -- and I fail to see what any of your other jibbering was somehow related?
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 430
Command-Sense-Act 105 said:
Let's see the ammunition load and load tables, in both mounted and dismounted TOE.
GK .Dundas
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 1,634
- Points
- 960
Now I know I waaayyy out of my lane here but I suspect we're looking at at least one 18 wheeler for a section sized fire unit.......BTW is there a smiley for bemused astonishment?Michael O'Leary said:
I guess its time for me to reply to my slightly confusing post that I wrote last time and clarify what I wrote; note to self...do not post while slight under the influence.
Personally, I do not believe the CASW or Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) should replace the M19 60mm light mortar. I also do not believe that CASW should be grouped at the company level, but as it is it looks like that is the way the army will be grouping it, but I could be wrong as I am out of the loop now.
With that said, if the CASW is to grouped the rifle company level it should be part of a new heavy weapons platoons. This platoon will require additional soldiers rather than be manned by soldiers with the existing manning numbers...much like the mechanized companies have higher manning levels than light infantry company. Understrength companies are an issue in it of itself...but I digress.
I propose a heavy weapons platoon consisting of an anti-armour section with 2 Javelin ALAWS dets, a CASW section with 2 CASW dets, a heavy machine gun section with 2 M2HB dets, a 60mm mortar section with 2 dets, and a platoon headquarters section. Each heavy weapon section will have 8 soldiers. The platoon headquarters will consist of a platoon commander/company ops officer (senior captain), a platoon warrant officer, a platoon radio operator (an attached signaller not an infantry soldier), and 3 corporal/private soldiers functioning as driver/storeman/gunners/signallers for a total platoon strength of 39 soldiers and 1 officer.
The platoon itself would normally operate mounted in fire support vehicles--currently the GWagen LUVW C&R--or in static defence roles, but will in parts be capable of conducting extended dismounted operations. In the future, a variant of the planned Light Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle to be procured for the infantry reconnaissance platoons would be a better option as a dedicated fire support vehicle for the platoon. The French long wheelbase VBL/VBR springs to me as a potential vehicle see http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/index.htm for details.
The complete platoon could conduct dismounted operations with the assistance of Gator 6X6 vehicles or similar to reduce the burden of ammunition weight in most areas of operation. I think CASW and HMG dets would be hard pressed to carry a useful load of ammunition if man packed, but perhaps if the 2 sections combined to man pack 2 of the CASW/HMG...the 2 sections could carry a useful load of ammo in the dismounted role even w/o a Gator 6X6 assisting.
As it appears based on unconfirmed reports the CASW may be slated to replace the 60mm mortar in the rifle company, but as I am now outside of military that might be a rumour.
Personally, I think creating a heavy weapon company with 3 heavy weapons platoons, minus the mortar sections, would be a far better organization as the company could detach sections to rifle companies as required, but the company also be used independently at the battalion/battle group commanders discretion. Where do the soldiers come from...that is a separate, but related issue.
Fire Support at the Rifle Platoon Level:
****************************
In any case, I believe the Milkor MGL140 six-barrel grenade launcher at the platoon level would be far more useful given the lighter weight of the ammo and system allow for a greater number of target engagements than the 60mm light mortar. The 40mm LVG weighs .23kg versus 1.68kg for a 60mm mortar. The MGL140 weighs 5.9kg each while the M19 60mm mortar in the light role weighs 7.7kg. A 60mm mortar debt can engage targets theoretically out to around 1000m, but in reality accuracy is limited with the mortar dial sight. Typically it takes 4 round to bracket the target and 1 to hit it for a total of 5 rounds to hit one target. While some soldiers can do much better on the range the stress of combat will probably require 5 rounds for a single hit on target. As such 8.4kg of 60mm mortar ammo is required for 1 target with a 60mm mortar. Therefore a two man light mortar det could carry 16.8kg of ammo and the 7.7kg M19 mortar (a total of 24.5kg/54lbs) and engage only 2 targets with 1 mortar hit each or 1 target with 6 rounds to suppress/attack the target. Keep in mind that the 4 or 8 rounds are likely off target and may cause unwanted civilian casualties. Finally, the stated mortar load is in addition to the normal infantry load and doesn't take into the physical volume of 10 60mm mortar rounds.
Now compare a two soldier MGL140 det with 1 (or 2 MGL140). Each soldier could carry 24 X 40mm LVG @ .23kg or 5.52kg each of ammo and 1 MGL140 @ 5.9kg for a total load of 16.94kg or 37.3lbs. Add a second MGL140 and the total load jumps to 22.8kg/50.25lbs. Now consider that the MGL140 can engage in a semi-indirect and direct fire role very rapidly and accurately without wasted rounds. Each MGL140 could use up 6 40mm rounds per engagement. As such with 48 rounds, 8 separate targets could be engaged or more if fewer rounds are required. I concede that the 60mm mortar bomb has approximately twice the range of 40mm grenade under ideal conditions; future 40mm rounds will have longer ranges. More important is the ability of the MGL140 to rapidly engage targets at most combat ranges. Finally, I propose that the 60mm mortar be re-tasked to the company fires support role in the bipod role where the enhanced accuracy of the dial sight and greatly increased range of the mortar in the bipod role make it far more useful. The 60mm mortar will still be available at the platoon level if detached for specific missions. I believe the benefits of replacing the mortar by the MGL140 at the platoon level outweigh the negatives...but I am not in favour of retiring it, just relocating it to a company suppport level
Where do soldier come from to operate the MGL140 at the platoon level? I would argue that rifle platoon weapon det should consist of a C-6 det and an MGL140 det of 2 soldiers each plus the det commander. The Carl G SRAAW (M), the M72 SRAAW(L), and Eryx SRAAW (H) should be nixed in favour of something like the new generation of throw-away missiles Bofors (BAe) NLAW or Lockheed Martin Predator (Kestrel) or Rafale Spike SR. The latter weapons are capable of defeating armour and able to function as bunker busters and all have soft-launch capabilities. When MGL140 and one of the above stated low-cost throw-away missiles are combined with the current 40mm M203 UGL in the rifle sections, the infantry rifle platoon would have better combat capabilities and reduced training requirements. Keep in mind the British Army has a very similar set up. I am not suggesting that there are no disadvantages, but I believe it provides for better overall combat capabilities while attempting to reduce combat load creep.
Personally, I do not believe the CASW or Automatic Grenade Launcher (AGL) should replace the M19 60mm light mortar. I also do not believe that CASW should be grouped at the company level, but as it is it looks like that is the way the army will be grouping it, but I could be wrong as I am out of the loop now.
With that said, if the CASW is to grouped the rifle company level it should be part of a new heavy weapons platoons. This platoon will require additional soldiers rather than be manned by soldiers with the existing manning numbers...much like the mechanized companies have higher manning levels than light infantry company. Understrength companies are an issue in it of itself...but I digress.
I propose a heavy weapons platoon consisting of an anti-armour section with 2 Javelin ALAWS dets, a CASW section with 2 CASW dets, a heavy machine gun section with 2 M2HB dets, a 60mm mortar section with 2 dets, and a platoon headquarters section. Each heavy weapon section will have 8 soldiers. The platoon headquarters will consist of a platoon commander/company ops officer (senior captain), a platoon warrant officer, a platoon radio operator (an attached signaller not an infantry soldier), and 3 corporal/private soldiers functioning as driver/storeman/gunners/signallers for a total platoon strength of 39 soldiers and 1 officer.
The platoon itself would normally operate mounted in fire support vehicles--currently the GWagen LUVW C&R--or in static defence roles, but will in parts be capable of conducting extended dismounted operations. In the future, a variant of the planned Light Armoured Reconnaissance Vehicle to be procured for the infantry reconnaissance platoons would be a better option as a dedicated fire support vehicle for the platoon. The French long wheelbase VBL/VBR springs to me as a potential vehicle see http://www.panhard.fr/anglais/index.htm for details.
The complete platoon could conduct dismounted operations with the assistance of Gator 6X6 vehicles or similar to reduce the burden of ammunition weight in most areas of operation. I think CASW and HMG dets would be hard pressed to carry a useful load of ammunition if man packed, but perhaps if the 2 sections combined to man pack 2 of the CASW/HMG...the 2 sections could carry a useful load of ammo in the dismounted role even w/o a Gator 6X6 assisting.
As it appears based on unconfirmed reports the CASW may be slated to replace the 60mm mortar in the rifle company, but as I am now outside of military that might be a rumour.
Personally, I think creating a heavy weapon company with 3 heavy weapons platoons, minus the mortar sections, would be a far better organization as the company could detach sections to rifle companies as required, but the company also be used independently at the battalion/battle group commanders discretion. Where do the soldiers come from...that is a separate, but related issue.
Fire Support at the Rifle Platoon Level:
****************************
In any case, I believe the Milkor MGL140 six-barrel grenade launcher at the platoon level would be far more useful given the lighter weight of the ammo and system allow for a greater number of target engagements than the 60mm light mortar. The 40mm LVG weighs .23kg versus 1.68kg for a 60mm mortar. The MGL140 weighs 5.9kg each while the M19 60mm mortar in the light role weighs 7.7kg. A 60mm mortar debt can engage targets theoretically out to around 1000m, but in reality accuracy is limited with the mortar dial sight. Typically it takes 4 round to bracket the target and 1 to hit it for a total of 5 rounds to hit one target. While some soldiers can do much better on the range the stress of combat will probably require 5 rounds for a single hit on target. As such 8.4kg of 60mm mortar ammo is required for 1 target with a 60mm mortar. Therefore a two man light mortar det could carry 16.8kg of ammo and the 7.7kg M19 mortar (a total of 24.5kg/54lbs) and engage only 2 targets with 1 mortar hit each or 1 target with 6 rounds to suppress/attack the target. Keep in mind that the 4 or 8 rounds are likely off target and may cause unwanted civilian casualties. Finally, the stated mortar load is in addition to the normal infantry load and doesn't take into the physical volume of 10 60mm mortar rounds.
Now compare a two soldier MGL140 det with 1 (or 2 MGL140). Each soldier could carry 24 X 40mm LVG @ .23kg or 5.52kg each of ammo and 1 MGL140 @ 5.9kg for a total load of 16.94kg or 37.3lbs. Add a second MGL140 and the total load jumps to 22.8kg/50.25lbs. Now consider that the MGL140 can engage in a semi-indirect and direct fire role very rapidly and accurately without wasted rounds. Each MGL140 could use up 6 40mm rounds per engagement. As such with 48 rounds, 8 separate targets could be engaged or more if fewer rounds are required. I concede that the 60mm mortar bomb has approximately twice the range of 40mm grenade under ideal conditions; future 40mm rounds will have longer ranges. More important is the ability of the MGL140 to rapidly engage targets at most combat ranges. Finally, I propose that the 60mm mortar be re-tasked to the company fires support role in the bipod role where the enhanced accuracy of the dial sight and greatly increased range of the mortar in the bipod role make it far more useful. The 60mm mortar will still be available at the platoon level if detached for specific missions. I believe the benefits of replacing the mortar by the MGL140 at the platoon level outweigh the negatives...but I am not in favour of retiring it, just relocating it to a company suppport level
Where do soldier come from to operate the MGL140 at the platoon level? I would argue that rifle platoon weapon det should consist of a C-6 det and an MGL140 det of 2 soldiers each plus the det commander. The Carl G SRAAW (M), the M72 SRAAW(L), and Eryx SRAAW (H) should be nixed in favour of something like the new generation of throw-away missiles Bofors (BAe) NLAW or Lockheed Martin Predator (Kestrel) or Rafale Spike SR. The latter weapons are capable of defeating armour and able to function as bunker busters and all have soft-launch capabilities. When MGL140 and one of the above stated low-cost throw-away missiles are combined with the current 40mm M203 UGL in the rifle sections, the infantry rifle platoon would have better combat capabilities and reduced training requirements. Keep in mind the British Army has a very similar set up. I am not suggesting that there are no disadvantages, but I believe it provides for better overall combat capabilities while attempting to reduce combat load creep.
Similar threads
