Petamocto said:
You guys who use the weight issue are completely blinded by bias.
Yes the CASW system itself weighs more than the mortar, but is that the only thing a soldier is expected to carry, or am I right out to lunch to expect that they would actually be carrying ammunition for it, too?
Even if you share the load, have fun getting any more than one quick fire mission out of a mortar.
This is not my opinion...this is all based on the CF's direct comparison of the two. Essentially the findings showed that mortar ammunition weighed so much that it was essentially impossible to have multiple effects (ie missions) with it.
Actually, that comparison is flawed. Allow me to re-illustrate
The mortar, bipod, sight unit, Mortar Fire Data Calculator, Vector/Thermal Binos and 8 rounds weighs 27 kg. This is carried by three.
I don't have the illustrative weight on hand for the CASW, with tripod, FCS and 28 (?) rounds weighs signficantly more. The largest component that cannot be broken down (eg: carried by one) is 30 kg. That one piece alone weighs more than a complete mortar with enough for one mortar firing one mission of say 5 rounds fire for effect (assuming 3 rounds adjusting). That comparison said that it is man-portable over short distances, which meant up to 10 km.
Today's soldier, armed with C7A2, ammo, water, plates, grenades, etc, carries quite a bit. To assume that he/she can carry 30 kg (that one component alone) on top of all that
and still function in combat effectively is flawed. Yes, with that weight load, the CASW can fire more. My answer? If 30 kg is "light" enough to allow one person to carry and still be man-portable, then three soldiers could carry 3 complete mortars with 24 bombs and still be up by 9 kg of illustrative weight.
Now, could a GMG with FCS have its use? Certainly! It's a fantastic weapon system, capable of direct fire out to ~2000 m, able to hit people behind *some* cover (2 m or so); however, it is not effective in a high QE engagement: it's range band is 1700 metres to 2000 metres: a circle of 300 metres. The comparison says that the platoon would have to call upon a CASW further back from the target to engage in high QE. My answer to that is: if you're going to call someone, call the artillery.
The CASW is a fantastic weapon for light infantry: those who don't have 25mm Chain Guns integral to their ORBAT. In our army, the only true light infantry are probably CSOR or JTF-2 (nb: this is an assumption. Our infantry are not light infantry, even without LAVs. They are just "mechanised without vehicles", whatever that means).
A 60 mm can screen and blind: a CASW cannot. A 60 mm can illuminate: a CASW cannot. Our 60mm can engage
in high QE fire, by both direct and indirect means, from about 80 metres to over 2800 metres. A CASW cannot.
For direct fire engagements out to just over 2000 metres, the current Infantry Platoon has 4 x 25mm Chain guns (with associated coax fire to 1500 or so) and a GPMG (SF) that can shoot about the same distance.
The point is that a platoon, even separated from its LAVs, already has a plethora of direct fire low QE-fire weapons: 1 x GMPG, 6 x LMG and many rifles. If a "target of opportunity" appears out to say 800 metres or so, the platoon can shoot it (so long as they can see it). The 60mm only adds flexibility that a CASW cannot.
(Now, having said all of this, a .50 calibre machine gun can do what a CASW can do, in most cases, in the low QE-fire role. The weights are similar (ammo, tripod, gun, etc). Given the role of a .50 in a light unit, perhaps a CASW would be better compared to it.)
So, the comparison in area that can be engaged in high QE-fire by the CASW is 3,487,065 m2. This represents the area in a circle from a single CASW that is from 1700 metres out to 2000 metres. That sounds like a large area; however, remember that it is only 300 metres "thick"
The area that can be engaged in high QE-fire by a 60mm is 24,629,360 m2. This represents the area ina circle from a single 60mm Mortar that is from 80 metres out to 2800 metres. This sounds like a large area, and it is: by far.
So, to illustrate the usage of a 60mm in a random scenario, assuming that a platoon has no LAVs in location for whatever reason. Some enemy (any scenario) appear say at 1500 metres. The platoon can engage in direct fire with the GPMG immediately. "Point and shoot". The enemy, being smart, takes cover. This will take time, and the rest of our platoon can simply watch. Assume that the 60mm is not set up, let alone laid on the target. It can be set up and laid within 2 minutes (I'm using the old standard for an 81mm to go into action, roughly). Assume three minutes have passed, and those enemy have gone to ground, the platoon commander is sending contact reports higher and is preparing to send a fire mission. The enemy are in cover, and the GMPG is having a tough time engaging, because the enemy most likely cannot be effectively engaged. At about the four minute mark, the first 60mm bomb is landing, from above, and the cover the enemy have taken no longer protect them effectively. Or it does, pinning them in a grape hut, bunker or whatever. At the five minute mark, the 60mm has found the range and is starting to effectively engage the enemy, keeping them in place, when the GPMG can no longer do so. At this point, the real killers, the 155mm HE rounds, are about to start landing. The 60mm no longer needs to fire, and neither does the GPMG: the M777s are winning the fire fight and the platoon can go about conducting its quick attack in the manner dictated by the ground. The GPMG and the mortar can form the firebase to keep the enemy in place for now, and the 60mm can continue to fire when the M777s must lift due to danger-close restrictions.
Yes, I understand that this is an illustrative scenario, but the point is that the 60mm can fire when other low QE-fire weapons cannot. It gives the platoon commander the ability to outrange enemy direct fire low QE-fire weapons with his own assets, and to hit the enemy in complex terrain when other weapons within his personal tool-box cannot.
