• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Marc22
  • Start date Start date
I have read a summary which came to the conclusion that neither the 60mm nor the CASW met all the requirements of the CDR.  It seems to me that CASW may be something that is being approached with blinders on in order to replace one piece of kit of another.  Just as ALAAWS suffered because it was not part of a larger anti-armour concept expressing the role of all systems, the CASW does not appear to be within a larger infantry support weapons concept.  When the only dicussion seems to be light mortar vs CASW, then I tend to think we've lost sight of the bigger operational picture.  How does CASW fit next to .50 cal, C6, M203, etc?
 
Hi - I noticed this article; http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/us-marines-buying-715m-in-flowformed-mortars-04571/ And felt it would be of interest in this debate
 
Kirkhill said:
PMEWS?  I assume Multi-Effects Weapons System but the P? Personal? Platoon? Primary? Preferred?
Portable Multi-Effect Weapon System.  It is the M3 Carl.  PAAWS = Personal Anti-Armour Weapon System

Lone Wolf Quagmire said:
Whatever happened to the KISS rule.  Esp in a time of war.  The .50 Cal has been around longer then most on this board.  It is a simple, effective design and has remained relatively unchanged during its life time. 
Same could be said of the M2 Browning HP.  Would you be happy keeping the current pistol because it is old, or would you be willing to acknowledge there is some flaw in your argument?

CG440 said:
... as the ranges for long 60s reaches the 6km mark and full fire controller training is required.  We do not want to see an infantry platoon crew served weapon team burdened with this...  ..
What about as an infantry company crew served weapon?  Considering all of the enablers that must already be coordinated in the Coy fight, this does not seem like too much of a leap.

Thucydides said:
Perhaps what we need is an automatic mortar like ...
Maybe, and to make it more man-portable lets reduce the ammo from 60 mm down to 51 mm or 40 mm.  Let's also make it breach loaded so so that in a pinch it can do the direct fire role ... oh wait!  40 mm automatic mortar with a direct fire capability ... it's CASW.  What have I done!  :-\
 
CG440 said:
...Insertion into an integrated indirect fire plan would have to be considered.  This alone is a huge doctrinal consideration as the ranges for long 60s reaches the 6km mark and full fire controller training is required.  We do not want to see an infantry platoon crew served weapon team burdened with this... 

In the LAV Coy or even combat team with tank troops attached OPCOM, you have a variety of hard hitting low trajectory weapons, firing a variety of kinetic and chemical energy munitions.  The max effective range of engagement is circa 1800 m (I know things shoot farther, but the vast majority of low trajectory weapons, from GPMG (SF) to Leopard cannon can all engage to that range.)  Even without tanks, the most any weapon can fire is just under 2.5 km.  The 60mm with current CF ammo can engage just beyond that.  In terms of range, it is a nice fit. 
The one integral tool missing from the Coy/Cbt Tm tool box is NLOS* capability.  Given the nature of the 60mm mortar's external ballistics, and terminal ballistics as a by product of its high angle flight 1, it adds a certain dimension to the all arms battle that is both timely and integral to the coy/cbt tm.  It reduces the need for coys to call for fire to the battle group, thus reducing the reaction time required to engage often fleeting targets.  As well, it reduces the staff effort required at the battlegroup FSCC as it assists in the destruction of the enemy as part of the all-arms battle.  Besides, the FSCC has bigger and better things to worry about, such as the deep battle and coordinating external fire support elements.
The CASW, though able to engage NLOS targets to some extent, cannot match the 60mm in terms of firepower.  With a plethora of low trajectory weapons available to the combat team, there is no niche for the CASW to fill in third tier units.  The question that needs to be asked is: on which AFV is it to be mounted?  And it certainly does not lend itself to be easily man portable.  Though probably a capable weapon system, it just cannot compete with a fully stabilised 25mm auto cannon or certainly not a 120 mm smoothbore fully stablised tank cannon. 

As for training section commanders on call for fire, that is a non-starter.  The skill sets are being taught now, though certainly not to the level taught to FOOs (or once taught to infantrymen on the advanced mortar course).  I highly doubt that we would expect section commanders or platoon commander to make calls for linear targets as one example.
As for plotting the fire at the mortar group/battery, the procedures are really no different than calculating data for indirect machine gun fire, a skill already expected of section commanders in the infantry.

As for integrating the firepower of the 60mm into a fire plan, that is well within the capability of any infantry company commander and tank squadron commander.  Let us not forget that they are all staff trained, and have probably already completed a battle group (or higher) staff job, contributing to fireplanning for much greater operations than a combat team hasty attack.  To say that integrating the 60mm firepower into a combat team fireplan is too much for a company commander is, in my professional opinion, a non-starter. 

Though the CASW may have a niche with tier 2 or tier 1 units, that is not my concern as I am not knowledgable enough about their TTPs to comment on their orbat or weapons.  The fact is that we have a battle proven weapon system, though old and tired.  I have a much simpler solution: acquire new barrels.  We do that when tank barrels reach their maximum EFCs.  Why throw the baby out with the bath water?

EDIT: Of course, I neglected to add that the 60mm can also provide the combat team with illumination and screen/blinding capabilities, thus further reducing the strain on the battle group.  After all, if integrated with higher assets, the screen/blind missions could easily be carried out by the 60, thus freeing larger calibre weapons to deliver HE on the target. 


----------------------------------
1 Due to the projectile impacting at nearly vertical angles, the blast pattern from a mortar bomb is virtually circular when viewed from above, thus maximising its blast potential.  Low trajectory weapons that are not shaped charges typically have circular blast patterns as well, but they are vertical, thus losing nearly 50% of its blast potential on impact.
*NLOS: Non Line of Sight
 
MCG said:
I have read a summary which came to the conclusion that neither the 60mm nor the CASW met all the requirements of the CDR.  It seems to me that CASW may be something that is being approached with blinders on in order to replace one piece of kit of another.  Just as ALAAWS suffered because it was not part of a larger anti-armour concept expressing the role of all systems, the CASW does not appear to be within a larger infantry support weapons concept.  When the only dicussion seems to be light mortar vs CASW, then I tend to think we've lost sight of the bigger operational picture.  How does CASW fit next to .50 cal, C6, M203, etc?

We didnt set the parameters of discussion, rather DND did by touting CASW as the replacement for the 60mm mortar. For my money AGS/CASW is complimentary to the .50 cal and other crew served weapons. Each serves a purpose.
 
tomahawk6 said:
We didnt set the parameters of discussion....
Not sure why you thought the finger was pointing at you.  Try reading what you've quoted again.
 
"Same could be said of the M2 Browning HP.  Would you be happy keeping the current pistol because it is old, or would you be willing to acknowledge there is some flaw in your argument?"
There may be a flaw but none that I am aware of.  The M2 is past its prime.  A brand new M2 or variation that actually works well is fine by me and most others.  If its built well from the beginning like the .50 cal or C6 and maintained and tweaked why make something more complicated.  Are you being the Devil's Advocate because I would have assumed that you would agree that the simplest effective weapon system is the best for those using them in austere conditions.
I should also add that I would rather have a new realiable 60mm then a CASW if I had to choose between one or the other.
 
actually, the flaw is in the comparison (no offense intended).  Here's what I mean
Pistol is worn out.  DLR offers to get us a taser to replace it.  I would keep a refurbished browning over a taser

(My point is that DLR is "offering" to replace the 60mm with a weapon that is more like the .50 than anything else)
 
If you want CASW buy the Russian AGS-30. It weighs 16kg - lock stock and barrel. :)

p1010127ps0.jpg
 
MCG I was just responding to this line.Its quite possible I have misunderstood the post. :)
When the only dicussion seems to be light mortar vs CASW, then I tend to think we've lost sight of the bigger operational picture.
 
FYI the Browning M2 is the .50, the pistol 9mm service Inglis No.2 Mk1* is the BHP as used by the CF.

  I agree with Mortarman Rocjpainters analogy between the pistol and the taser replacement, as as to the method that was used for the GMG.
I am a big fan of AGL's but they are not a substitute for a Mortar.

 
 
  The more I read both here and elsewhere about CASW debate the more I am left with the feeling that it is a solution in search of a problem .This is not to say that  it might not be a good idea  just the way it is being sold however bothers me  bothers me a bit. 
I don't view it as the answer but as perhaps as part of the answer..Is it just possible that maybe we should be looking to purchase both an AGL and a new 60 MM mortar?
Please don't make me bring up the fact that we are a member of the G- 8 one would think we could afford both after all in the greater scheme of things they are relatively cheap compared to Pumas, Chinooks and CC177s'.
 
GK .Dundas said:
I don't view it as the answer but as perhaps as part of the answer..Is it just possible that maybe we should be looking to purchase both an AGL and a new 60 MM mortar?
I hereby nominate you as a CQ.  So you'll have to ensure you've got sufficient ammo for the C7s - 5.56 ball.  For the M203s - 40mm grenades - a variety of natures.  For the C-9s - 5.56 4B1T.  For the C-6s - 7.62 4B1T.  For the Inglis Mk II pistols - 9mm.  For the Carl Gustavs - 84mm in a variety of natures.  For the 60mm mortars - in a variety of natures.  For the AGL - 40mm belt fed.  A supply of whatever fire-and-forget AT system we acquire (M-72 or otherwise).

Am I forgetting any man-portable weapons in the company?


Add to this the need to maintain proficiency with the all weapons (something we don't do now, unless we're deploying).  Add the requirement for more training for your armourers (where we're already concerned about the length of training).

Lots of tools in the toolbox = a good thing.  But are we forgetting to KISS?

 
Meh having a full tool box is a good thing in my mind.  You do not have to use every tool for every mission.  But the flexibility to include certain ones or the right mixture of them all greatly enhances a commanders ability to conduct the mission.  Hamstringing leaders by taking out proven and still used weapon systems and replacing them with systems that don't do the same job is assine.  I'm a big fan of AGLs but not at the loss of the 60mm mortar.  Two different weapons systems with different effects and abilities.  One cannot simply replace the other.

In any case I really wish that someone would get off their ass and make a decision.  There is no more 60mm mortar taught on IPSWQs out here in the west and there is damm little if any ammo for domestic training.  But surprise surprise no AGL in sight to replace the mortar and no news on when if ever it is to be delivered.  Me thinks that the 60mm will become like the .50...taken out of service then magically reintroduced a few years later when someone realizes that it works.
 
Ummm the 60mm was taught on the last IPSWQ we ran which was only a few months ago.  I want to say Nov.
 
Yes and we taught it as well just recently but you'll find that it probably will not be on future courses.  Again it may be more specific to my Bn as that is where I get my information from. 
 
Roger that.  I wasn't sure if you were basing this on older info and that is what confused me as we just ran one.  I haven't heard anything on this end but will assume your info is accurate and applicable to me.
 
Kirkhill said:
Interesting bit of "Canadianization" here - a High Angle tripod.  I don't know what that will do for range but in terms of effect might it not put the weapon into the same category as the Vasilek?  Rate of fire compensating for weight of shot?
CG440 said:
I am the project director for the CASW.
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
The CASW is a direct fire weapon that ... cannot replace a high trajectory weapon that the 60mm is. 
I would like to ask the PD to answer one quick question for the board.  It has been pointed to a few times that the project intent (as seen in various media articles) is to deliver a 40 mm automatic weapon capable of indirect fire.  In some of my own searching for answers, I've been told this indirect fire capability includes the same high angles of mortars so that the CASW will be able to put fire onto targets protected by complex terrain (such as compound walls, berms, buildings, hills, etc).  However, in this thread, the standing argument seems to be that CASW cannot replace a mortar because AGLs are direct fire weapons.  So, here comes the question.

Is there a 40 mm automatic weapon, capable of direct and high angle indirect fires, that has been proven in operational trials under realistic field conditions?
 
All I know is this: if a 40mm grenade were to be launched at angles above 1600 mils, then it would be very susceptible to atmospheric conditions, and therefore largely inaccurate
 
Mortarman Rockpainter said:
All I know is this: if a 40mm grenade were to be launched at angles above 1600 mils, then it would be very susceptible to atmospheric conditions, and therefore largely inaccurate
And by that you mean that anything spin stabilized in an atmosphere naturally wants to invert itself and so we would expect the 40 mm grenade to return to earth facing backward & no longer stable?
 
Back
Top