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

Should the C-6 MMG be upgraded??

I'll step out of my lane for a sec and put in .02 (or less....it is a recession!)

I'm a sailor, so my exposure to the C-6 has been relatively limited, however, one thing that I think might be needed is a better aircraft mount for the Sea King. 

I recall seeing them bungeed into place with a jury-rigged brass bag.

Things may have changed since the last time I saw this rig setup (been 3-4 years since the fly-boys were on a ship with me) so this issue might be a non-issue.

I'll just toss out that while it is primarily an "Army" weapon, they're in use by the other services, so don't forget to ask around when you decide to change an inservice weapons system.

I mean, ya never know when we'll need to borrow some more 40mm Bofors guns from the Gagetown Museum.....(or some such thing)

NS

 
Jammer said:
Strong Point Gundy Ghar and Lakokhel...maybe you've heard of them?

Lakokhel?  That all-inclusive resort?  Pfft!!  ::)



(that is just kidding, btw.  You guys had a hell of a go over there  :salute:)
 
Jammer said:
Strong Point Gundy Ghar and Lakokhel...maybe you've heard of them?

Just talked to my friend who I worked with in Mushan. He spent 4 months in Lakokhel before coming to us and he clarified the C6 in SF role there. There was a C6, mounted on a tripod, simply because it was easier to 'swing around and engage targets wherever they popped up.' They used the tripod simply because it was there and was easier than picking the gun up and moving it. There were never pre-designated targets registered to the gun, and there was never a C2 sight mounted to it.

I hardly classify this as using the C6 in the SF role, or as indirect fire.

Ill talk to a few friends at work tomorrow about GG and see what the deal was there.
 
NavyShooter said:
I'm a sailor, so my exposure to the C-6 has been relatively limited, however, one thing that I think might be needed is a better aircraft mount for the Sea King. 

I recall seeing them bungeed into place with a jury-rigged brass bag.


NS

So were these door guns? I have only ever been on one Brit Sea King, and it did have a GPMG as the door gun, but there was a mount for it.

I find it shocking that they would simply bungee it in there without a proper mount! I hope they have fixed this.
 
basrah said:
So were these door guns?

Yes and there is a proper mount.

http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=casimages&template=detail2_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=8732&site=casimages
 
I just want to jump back in here for a moment and hopefully end the "my tour was xxx" and so forth.  This isn't about tours, who's done what, etc.

(First of all, for basrah, Op ARCHER "is the deployment of about 12 senior CF members in Kabul with the Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan (CSTC-A), a U.S.-led multinational organization that provides mentors and trainers to help Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior organize, train, equip, employ and support the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police."
If you were on TF 1-08 (BG or OMLT or PRT), then you were part of Op ATHENA, but that's neither here nor there).

Now, the argument of "it wasn't using properly, therefore the proper way to use it" is a fallacious argument.  I know of at least two specific cases where a GPMG set for firing using map and firing table would have been appropriate.  There are more, I'm certain of it. 

Here's the thing.  In every case where there were contacts within about 2 km from any position with GPMG, in most cases (not all), use of the GPMG in this way would have worked.  Let me give a hypothetical.

Imagine that there is a high feature somewhere in Darfur.  It overlooks a plain that stretches for kilometres in all directions.  On that plain is a network of roads that the CF as part of Op DEUTERONOMY, uses for supplying its OPs, checkpoints, etc.  On top of that high feature is a platoon or so of soldiers who monitor the ceasefire between the Sudanese Army and the Rebels of Darfur.  The Rebels are mounting an insurgency, and IEDs have become a threat.

WO Jack Stone, a tough as nails fellow, is the platoon warrant officer.  Lt Hymie Newguy, is the platoon commander, barely seven months out of the Infantry School.  Looking around their AOO (Area of Operations) on the map, WO Stone points out that there are five identified "hotspots" where insurgents like to place IEDs every few days.  They do so at night, and recently there have been cases in which the supporting artillery battery has been unable to fire their missions due to higher priority targets being engaged.  All five are within two kilometres or so of the COP (Combat Out Post).  The platoon commander talks about setting up ambushes along the hotspots.  The Warrant has a better idea.

"Sir, we due to us being out here on our own, we have two GPMGs with SF kits.  I can set them up such that they both can engage any of the five hotspots."

"Why, that's crazy?  How can you do that?"

"Let me tell you," begins the Warrant, whose brother is Vince from Sham WOW.  "I can have them set up and use those five targets as recorded targets.  If we see someone down there doing 'stuff', and if we are cleared to engage, then I can have fire on them instantly, without having to resort to calling in a fire mission."

"That's great, Warrant, but what if someone finds a new place to set them up?  Surely we can't engage them unless we see them!"

"That's where you're wrong.  All I need is the grid of the bad guys, and I can engage them as well."

So, after explaining the methods, the good warrant, along with Sgt Tony Rock, set the guns up and dry record them.

That night, as Lt Newguy worried, some insurgents were seen setting up IEDs at Grid 123456 (how convenient!).  As it turned out, that grid was not visible from the outpost due to some intervening terrain.  (A goat herder saw them, reported it, and it was verified by an un-armed UAV overhead).  After some quick calculations, WO Stone deduced that the trajectory of the bullets would clear the intervening terrain.  The guns were laid on a bearing and elevation, and using the live feed from the UAV to apply corrections, the guns engaged.  One quick adjustment was needed, and soon the three insurgents were struck down in a hail of gun fire.

"Wow, warrant, that was awesome," said Lt Newguy.


Anyway, the proper employment of the GMPG with SF kit is but one tool in the tool box.  People may have been using rocks as hammers over there, and sometimes that's necessary; however, that doesn't mean that we don't need hammers.  The GPMG with SF is but one hammer, and it's a crying shame that it's not being used to full potential.
 
Amen to that MR.

Using a GPMG in the direct fire role to engage (fleeting) point targets is possible, but hardly addresses the potential of the gun. For that matter, IMO, the best way to engage a fleeting point target would be a sniper or platoon marksman, who can move and act much quicker than a gunner weighted down with the 11 KG GPMG and lord knows what else.

Marking and recording targets is a "must" in any defended locality, and I am astonished to hear that this isn't being done at FOBs or COPs (or maybe we're just messing with the minds of unfriendly anonymous readers for OPSEC reasons...).

Our friend WO Stone would also know that setting up cut offs in Urban Ops can be done quickly and effectively using an SF kit, and the gun crew can be more than a kilometer away from the building they are isolating, something that you should think about when making the approach march with the assault group; the bad guys have a lot less notice of you getting in position than if the GPMG has to come within 800m of the position. Terrain will dictate.

Dividing urban terrain into sectors and using GPMG fire down streches of arterial rioads is also more effective when the guns can engage out to 1800m.

Lets face it, the real reason many people don't understand how to use the GPMG in the SF role isn't because it is a bad or outdated idea, it is because we have developed bad habits, are lazy in training and have not properly absorbed the lessons of the war (much less "war"). I would hope WO's out there will dust off the pams and put this back into the training program (and this includes the CSS and other arms and services.)

.05 (due to the recession)
 
If it was niether here nor there, and bringing up tours had nothing to do with the discussion, then why bother pointing out what role and name Op Archer was? Was that your attempt at pretending not to care, but being smug and condecending at the same time? Well played. In the 3VP lines, there are large murals of photos, with the unit that participated written under the OP name. Ours says OP Archer, so thats what I go by. I couldnt care less what the name is.

As for the SF kit, you can bring up any make believe situation you like, but the fact is that it is not being used. Perhaps you should, in all your infinite knowledge, start telling people overseas how to properly engage the targets they are shooting at... who knows, you could be the missing link to winning the war on terror in Afghanistan!

The kit is no longer used because with all the additional, modern weapons we have, and ways of calling in fire, and unit mobility, it is no longer the most viable solution to an enemy threat.

Feel free to keep coming up with pretend stories about roads and high features to try and prove a point, Ill just keep going from real operational experience.
 
basrah said:
If it was niether here nor there, and bringing up tours had nothing to do with the discussion, then why bother pointing out what role and name Op Archer was? Was that your attempt at pretending not to care, but being smug and condecending at the same time? Well played. In the 3VP lines, there are large murals of photos, with the unit that participated written under the OP name. Ours says OP Archer, so thats what I go by. I couldnt care less what the name is.

As for the SF kit, you can bring up any make believe situation you like, but the fact is that it is not being used. Perhaps you should, in all your infinite knowledge, start telling people overseas how to properly engage the targets they are shooting at... who knows, you could be the missing link to winning the war on terror in Afghanistan!

The kit is no longer used because with all the additional, modern weapons we have, and ways of calling in fire, and unit mobility, it is no longer the most viable solution to an enemy threat.

Feel free to keep coming up with pretend stories about roads and high features to try and prove a point, Ill just keep going from real operational experience.
Part of my pointing out what the name of the operation was that you were on was about the first rule of writing: accuracy.
3VP was never part of Op Archer.  Why not just put is as part of Op OVERLORD? 
Have a look again at my "made up" situation.  It may resemble a situation (place) in Zharey.  Western Zharey.  South of Howz-e Medad, west of Lakokhel, and north of Mushan.  Just maybe a bit similar is all I'm saying.
I'm telling you, and yes, put your helmet on because here it comes, that I do have the training and I do have the experience (some of which pre-dates your enrolment, thank you very much).
I don't care for your self-proclaimed expertise on the matter, however, you opinion DOES matter.  I ask you though: was there not at least ONE occasion in which the SF kit could have been used because air/arty/lasers/satellites/Death Stars weren't available?  There were several on my tour.

Is the SF kit the be-all/end-all?  By no means!  But throw it out because some 3 VP para-corporal doesn't like it?  Bullocks!
Get your PLQ then your 3A then we can talk. 
 
What doesnt help is taking a 5-6 week long MG Crse and condensing it to the currrent PSWQ.  In that the C6 in the SF role is taught and passed in a fraction of the time as it use to be.  Gone are the in depth lessons that use to be mandatory for the SF kit. 

I dont know if I should laugh or cry on some of the posts that rely on " we did not use it there " therefor it must be usless. 
 
It's a shame that you haven't seen the C6 firing indirect.  And if you fully understood what "indirect fire" means, you would acknowledge that there are plenty of times for it.  (You are not alone in mis-interpreting "indirect fire".

To clarify, I've got the book-learning required to shoot the C6 indirect and we're on the same page with the terminology.  I did my IPSWQ, passed the PO Check, got the qual, etc.  What I don't have is experience as a C6 gunner beyond the course material, flat ranges, and odd tasks here and there.  Also, I shouldn't have mentioned the CASW - you're right, thats a different argument.

I understand that you can shoot the C6 indirect - even though the bullets fly on a relatively flat trajectory.  What I'm saying is that because of it's flat trajectory, the C6 is not a very effective indirect weapon.  In real life, the badguys just don't do things out in the open.  They look for wadis, grape rows, ditches, ect.  Unless WO Stone managed to catch the bad guys in the first burst (which by that distance would be a fairly large and therefore unsaturated beaten area), they'd be diving for cover and the 7.62 would pass harmlessly overhead.  If I were WO Stone I'd be recommending that the young Lt employ the 60mm mortar - a weapon that drops some high-angle hell to get those hard to reach places.  Because of it's steep trajectory, you need overhead protection to protect from it.  Because of the C6's flat trajectory, a ditch is good enough.

I understand that things cost money, and it's just not possible to buy every bell and whistle for every weapons system.  What I'm saying is that the money is better spent on optimizing the C6 for direct fire by adding optics and lasers instead of clinging to the indirect capability.  While thermal viewers can be obscured by various things, they don't require you to mark and record targets prior to contact.  IMHO the tradeoff is well worth it.  Keep the tripod for the defensive if you want - It'll tighten the beaten zone and increase effective range.  But there's no reason why in 2009 our most effective weapons systems shouldn't be able to see in the dark.

Thucydides, PM inbound.

On a side note, my barracks box had "Op Athena" spray painted on it when I went to Kabul in '05, then they told me to spraypaint "Op Archer" when I went to Kandahar in '06. Both tours with a rifle coy.  What gives? I'm not being snarky, just curious.
 
Wonderbread said:
To clarify, I've got the book-learning required to shoot the C6 indirect and we're on the same page with the terminology.  I did my IPSWQ, passed the PO Check, got the qual, etc.  What I don't have is experience as a C6 gunner beyond the course material, flat ranges, and odd tasks here and there.  Also, I shouldn't have mentioned the CASW - you're right, thats a different argument.

I understand that you can shoot the C6 indirect - even though the bullets fly on a relatively flat trajectory.  What I'm saying is that because of it's flat trajectory, the C6 is not a very effective indirect weapon.  In real life, the badguys just don't do things out in the open.  They look for wadis, grape rows, ditches, ect.  Unless WO Stone managed to catch the bad guys in the first burst (which by that distance would be a fairly large and therefore unsaturated beaten area), they'd be diving for cover and the 7.62 would pass harmlessly overhead.  If I were WO Stone I'd be recommending that the young Lt employ the 60mm mortar - a weapon that drops some high-angle hell to get those hard to reach places.  Because of it's steep trajectory, you need overhead protection to protect from it.  Because of the C6's flat trajectory, a ditch is good enough.

I understand that things cost money, and it's just not possible to buy every bell and whistle for every weapons system.  What I'm saying is that the money is better spent on optimizing the C6 for direct fire by adding optics and lasers instead of clinging to the indirect capability.  While thermal viewers can be obscured by various things, they don't require you to mark and record targets prior to contact.  IMHO the tradeoff is well worth it.  Keep the tripod for the defensive if you want - It'll tighten the beaten zone and increase effective range.  But there's no reason why in 2009 our most effective weapons systems shouldn't be able to see in the dark.

Thucydides, PM inbound.

On a side note, my barracks box had "Op Athena" spray painted on it when I went to Kabul in '05, then they told me to spraypaint "Op Archer" when I went to Kandahar in '06. Both tours with a rifle coy.  What gives? I'm not being snarky, just curious.
You make some very good points.  (The reason I brought up "indirect fire does not always mean high angle" wasn't meant to slight you or anyone else.  I just find that not many people realise that, is all)
(Op ARCHER was the first part of 1 VP's tour in Kandahar.  It "transferred" to ATHENA on 01 Aug 06 when you stopped being part of OEF and began to be part of ISAF.)
I understand that the GMPG in SF role, especially indirect, will not always hit.  Having said that, imagine the situation you mentioned.  First burst misses, but forces them to ground.  That's when the 60 can hit them.  The one ability that the GPMG has is that it could keep firing (especially in pairs) to keep them there, and who knows, maybe buy time for the A-10 fleets to come in, or M-777 gunners to end mission on other targets, or whatever.
As for night sight capability, I would argue that a rail not be put on the thing.  I'm serious when I say this: it would only involve DLR, and they could mess up the proverbial circle.  Having said that, a night sight capability for it, light or SF role, is already available, if i'm not mistaken.  I'll have to get back to you on that one.

 
helpup said:
What doesnt help is taking a 5-6 week long MG Crse and condensing it to the currrent PSWQ.  In that the C6 in the SF role is taught and passed in a fraction of the time as it use to be.  Gone are the in depth lessons that use to be mandatory for the SF kit. 

I dont know if I should laugh or cry on some of the posts that rely on " we did not use it there " therefor it must be usless.
I couldn't agree more.  The basic MG course was 5 weeks (or so), and boy, did we ever fire a crap load.  Then on the SAIC, we fired even more.
GPMG with SF, used to record targets, indirect (sorry, the term is now "using map and firing tables"), whatever, is one hell of a potential we seem to be throwing away.
 
helpup said:
I dont know if I should laugh or cry on some of the posts that rely on " we did not use it there " therefor it must be usless.

By that logic:  We haven't done an airborne insertion in Afghanistan.  Therefore, we should disband the jump companies.

 
Midnight Rambler said:
Part of my pointing out what the name of the operation was that you were on was about the first rule of writing: accuracy.
3VP was never part of Op Archer.  Why not just put is as part of Op OVERLORD? 
Have a look again at my "made up" situation.  It may resemble a situation (place) in Zharey.  Western Zharey.  South of Howz-e Medad, west of Lakokhel, and north of Mushan.  Just maybe a bit similar is all I'm saying.
I'm telling you, and yes, put your helmet on because here it comes, that I do have the training and I do have the experience (some of which pre-dates your enrolment, thank you very much).
I don't care for your self-proclaimed expertise on the matter, however, you opinion DOES matter.  I ask you though: was there not at least ONE occasion in which the SF kit could have been used because air/arty/lasers/satellites/Death Stars weren't available?  There were several on my tour.

Is the SF kit the be-all/end-all?  By no means!  But throw it out because some 3 VP para-corporal doesn't like it?  Bullocks!
Get your PLQ then your 3A then we can talk.

Like I said, I couldnt care less about the name of the OP. Why dont you call the CO or RSM here and have them repaint the writing on the walls so it has the proper name. I guess the problem is that we really dont care what the name is, because that is the least important part of it. Speaking of accuracy, how do you know what my enrolment date is? Granted, Im not a 42 year old MCpl, but I have more than my fair share of operational experience, and a Mod 6 and SA course arent going to change my opinions on the usage of these weapons.

Considering that the people who decided not to use these SF kits were far above my paygrade, perhaps they are on to something there. It seems to me that courses and TI are what make a soldier understand the theory of MG fire. I wonder why they chose  not to use these weapons.

Did I ever see a time when the C6 would have been better fitted in the SF role? I am being completely honest here when I say a big no. If it had, we would have used it, because the kits were all there, collecting dust. We did use the tripod, but never for the indirect role. We had a great artillery crew backing us up, a mortar pit with pre designated targets, and a few other nice things that for OPSEC Im not going to mention. A C6 in the SF role really wasnt worth the time, and it was never even brought up.

As for dapterson, there have been plenty of airmobile ops in Afghanistan, and that is part of being in para coy. Also, the US have done several para drops, one of which was large scale. A cookie to the first who can tell me where that drop was.
 
Are you talking about the drop by one of the Ranger battalions to sieze Kandahar Airfield in October 2001?
 
Old Sweat said:
Are you talking about the drop by one of the Ranger battalions to sieze Kandahar Airfield in October 2001?

Yes indeed! On 20 October 2001, 200 Rangers from the 75th and a number of special ops pers made a night time drop into the kandahar airfield.

Im willing to bet they didnt jump in any SF kits either....
 
..so call the 75th Rangers and ask them, I'm sure they would value your opinion.
I like the reference to me though, you can't seem to let that one go.
 
basrah said:
Like I said, I couldnt care less about the name of the OP. Why dont you call the CO or RSM here and have them repaint the writing on the walls so it has the proper name. I guess the problem is that we really dont care what the name is, because that is the least important part of it. Speaking of accuracy, how do you know what my enrolment date is? Granted, Im not a 42 year old MCpl, but I have more than my fair share of operational experience, and a Mod 6 and SA course arent going to change my opinions on the usage of these weapons.

Considering that the people who decided not to use these SF kits were far above my paygrade, perhaps they are on to something there. It seems to me that courses and TI are what make a soldier understand the theory of MG fire. I wonder why they chose  not to use these weapons.

Did I ever see a time when the C6 would have been better fitted in the SF role? I am being completely honest here when I say a big no. If it had, we would have used it, because the kits were all there, collecting dust. We did use the tripod, but never for the indirect role. We had a great artillery crew backing us up, a mortar pit with pre designated targets, and a few other nice things that for OPSEC Im not going to mention. A C6 in the SF role really wasnt worth the time, and it was never even brought up.

As for dapterson, there have been plenty of airmobile ops in Afghanistan, and that is part of being in para coy. Also, the US have done several para drops, one of which was large scale. A cookie to the first who can tell me where that drop was.
OK, FYI, Airmobile Ops is one of the tasks expected of the infantry.  Period.  N Coy of 3 RCR (a mech infantry company, by the way) conducted air assaults this past spring in Afghanistan.  dapaterson mentiond Airbone ops.  FYI: there is a difference.  The question: how many has CANADA done in Afghanistan?  None.  Should we get rid of that capability? By your argument, a big fat YES.

Now, I've seen your profile (and you've probably seen mine), and it was from there that I deduced (a) that you are a Cpl and (b) that you don't have 3A or PLQ (Mod 6).  FYI, 3A will teach you things about stuff.  If you knew the subject material, then you'd be done with it and ask for an equivalency.

Now I will surrender to you, since you obviously have more relevant experience than I.  So: no SF kits.  Basrah said so.
[/exit]
 
basrah said:
Yes indeed! On 20 October 2001, 200 Rangers from the 75th and a number of special ops pers made a night time drop into the kandahar airfield.

Im willing to bet they didnt jump in any SF kits either....
They didn't bring LAVs with them either.  So fucking what?  Besides, they use a variant of the M2 tripod with their M-240s (M192 is the latest variant).
 
Back
Top