Should the C-6 MMG be upgraded??

[basrah]

I never said we should get rid of the SF kit completely. I said that to spend millions on new ones is pointless. Big difference.

War changes. For all we know there may be a front that opens up where we will use the kit, but for Afghanistan it really doesnt have a big enough potential to validate spending money on new ones.

As for not jumping in LAVs.... well, untill we come up with something like a BMD that can be dropped, I would be shocked to see them dropping a LAV. The difference is that SF kits can be dropped in.

 

[vonGarvin]

I never said we should get rid of the SF kit completely. I said that to spend millions on new ones is pointless. Big difference.

I agree with you here.  100%.

War changes. For all we know there may be a front that opens up where we will use the kit, but for Afghanistan it really doesnt have a big enough potential to validate spending money on new ones.

Again, I agree.  We do disagree, however, on whether or not recorded targets for the SF kits could be used over there.  I say we agree to disagree on that.

As for not jumping in LAVs.... well, untill we come up with something like a BMD that can be dropped, I would be shocked to see them dropping a LAV. The difference is that SF kits can be dropped in.

True; however, the US Rangers (et al) don't use SF kits at all.  They use a variant of the M2 tripod.  Whether or not they brought them in, I don't know.  If they brought the .50, you /know/ they brought them in.

My point is this: whatever the US took with them on 20 Oct 2001 is irrelevant.  They have their kit, we have ours.  Some is virtually the same, some are light-years apart.  If comparisons are to be made, then we must make them relevant, that's all.
:cheers:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

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.

I think it's about time you pulled in your horns and got on with discussing the technical merits of the thread question. Either leave the other be, or take it to PMs.

That goes for the rest, forget the ops, stops and para drops. Put the dicks away and go back and read the thread question(s) in the first post and stick to the evolving discussion pertaining to that.

Milnet.ca Staff

 

[basrah]

If comparisons are to be made, then we must make them relevant, that's all.
:cheers:

I can work with that. I'll do my best to make relivant comparisons that fit with the topic at hand.

 

[a_majoor]

Having received a number of PM's on the subject and looking at the direction the thread is taking, I would first of all say: take a breather. Using the SF kit has a time and place, we just don't seem to agree on where that is.

Much of the argument against using the SF kit seems to center on the two factors: speed of target engagements and the mass of the SF kit. Obviously spinning dials and leveling the bubble is longer than swinging the gun around and laying by eye, but the down side is laying by eye is notoriously inaccurate and limits the effective range of the gun by 2/3 according to the new firing tables.

The compromise solution may actually lie in the past, I recall reading about trials of a then new sight called CLASS in the late 1980's or early 1990's. CLASS as described was a day/night sight with a built in laser rangefinder and pre programmed ballistic tables. The gunner attached CLASS to the weapon, set the ballistic computer to the correct weapon then looked through the sight. Once the laser rangefinder did its work, the graticle was adjusted to reflect the correct point of aim and the gunner relaid the weapon. The target audience was actually the Carl-G and first round hits were possible at ranges of 800-1000m if I recall correctly, but ballistic tables were included for GPMG, HMG and the Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher, so the sight could be used for a multiplicity of weapons.

A modern version incorporating thermal imaging would allow for faster target identification, and placement on an SF kit would allow for engagements out to the maximum range. The use of a dial sight to engage reverse slopes and other indirect targets should still be retained. As a BTW, I am still of the opinion that engaging fleeting point targets is not the job of the gunner, a sniper or platoon marksman can probably engage the targets faster and more reliably (as well as with less chance of revealing the position). The MGs can and should be used to create beaten zones that limit the enemy's ability to move and can drive them into KZ's that other weapons (like mortars) can engage.

Why do the higher powers not use the SF kits? I would suggest that since they haven't taken the 5 week MG course they probably are not aware of the full possibilities that the SF kit offers, and there is probably a level of laziness involved as well ("why take the SF kit on this EX, it's heavy and we probably won't use it anyway...") that limits people's exposure to the kit and the full range of possibilities.

 

[Dissident]

I remember reading on this sites years ago that machine gun indirect fire skills were in danger of getting lost. I guess we are here now?

My opinion is that the SF kit and indirect MG fire is a combo that must be maintained or even further this capability.

The CLASS sight sounds interesting, any other info on this?

 

[dangerboy]

I remember reading on this sites years ago that machine gun indirect fire skills were in danger of getting lost. I guess we are here now?

I fear we are losing it very fast, one of the consequences of shorting the Basic Machine gun course and moving it onto the IPSWQ.  On the IPSWQ you have 2 x periods theory. While the Shooting program pam does not even outline indirect shoots.

 

[R031button]

I'm bring this up a little late here, but can somebody explain to me why a laser would be wasted on the C6? I mean sure if will get obscured by smoke and what not, but frankly, so do your eyes. Being able to use your NVG's with the C6 would be valuable in any sort of light infantry patrolling / advance to contact situation.

 

[a_majoor]

I'm bring this up a little late here, but can somebody explain to me why a laser would be wasted on the C6? I mean sure if will get obscured by smoke and what not, but frankly, so do your eyes. Being able to use your NVG's with the C6 would be valuable in any sort of light infantry patrolling / advance to contact situation.

Since the GPMG is an area weapon, the engagement of point targets should be left to the riflemen, particularly any designated marksmen or snipers attached to you. As well, the GPMG is much larger than a rifle and requires a few moments to set up even in the light role. By that point the #2 or det commander should be pointing out your target area(s).

A Laser rangefinder used by the det commander or built into a sight like the CLASS is useful, but a laser pointer is more important for the rifleman.

 

[a_majoor]

The CLASS sight sounds interesting, any other info on this?

http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb58/p507582.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rangefinding+with+Eye-safe+Light-a070367447

CDC - Control Data Corporation ) Computerized LASer Sight (Class) can improve the accuracy of the M40 or of lighter weapons such as the shoulder-fired Carl-Gustaf. Class uses an eye-safe laser rangefinder with a range of up to 4000 metres, and a ballistic computer able to store data for up to ten ammunition types, plus a Gen III image intensification sight. Canadian army trials showed that soldiers using Carl-Gustafs fitted with the Class sight were able to achieve a 73 per cent first-round hit probability, and engage targets at 800 metres or more.

Oddly enough, there seems to be nothing else, and no internet archived copies of the Canadian Infantry Journal (which had an article about the CLASS sight).

 

[R031button]

Since the GPMG is an area weapon, the engagement of point targets should be left to the riflemen, particularly any designated marksmen or snipers attached to you. As well, the GPMG is much larger than a rifle and requires a few moments to set up even in the light role. By that point the #2 or det commander should be pointing out your target area(s).

A Laser rangefinder used by the det commander or built into a sight like the CLASS is useful, but a laser pointer is more important for the rifleman.

Noted, but I would argue that a laser pointer, ie PAQ 4 / PEQ 2, would substantially improve target acquisition at night. I understand that it's an area weapon, but I als know that the C6 gunner is wearing an NVG, and that aiming down the sight with an NVG is a supreme pain, if it's even that useful. Why make the det / gun commander do extra work when you can have the C6 on target in the first or second burst, we are already moving in that direction for the LMG, I fail to see why we aren't going that way with the GPMG. Honestly, compared to the rest of the ammo and kit, a PAQ 4 with a rail mount isn't that much more.

 

[vonGarvin]

For the GPMG (light role), perhaps a laser pointer would work.  Let's not forget that the GPMG is, when dismounted, an LMG.  If you could mount a laser on it without making doing the drills prohibitive, then why not?

 

[KevinB]

Lasers are a force multplier - however most is not all in the CF do not get enough experience with working with them to make a valid determination of their effectiveness.

IR (Dim) Tracer is a much more effective nighttime means of engaging the enemy, as tracer has a nasty point of indicating where round do come FROM as well as where they are going.

If the soldier is able at night (where with STANO items the Western Armies are able to operate much more effectively than our foes) to engage without warning and without major corrections - that is a bonus.

Add a suppressor and your MG is a nightime killing tool without equal.


Ti receiver -cuts out a huge amount of weight
RAS system and top rail cover to add accessories
Better gas plus/regulator system
Shorter Barrel for Complex Terrain Operations
Suppressor
Belt Bag
Ti bipod - more lightwight replacements

The US Military has gone to magnified optics on the M240 to help gunners aim in counter insurgency warfare.  Dispersed positions don't always allow for a AG or Wpn Det Cdr to aid in target detection and identification 

 

[helpup]

  N Coy of 3 RCR (a mech infantry company, by the way) conducted air assaults this past spring in Afghanistan. 
[/exit]

Point to note in accuracy.  N Coy since 3 RCR stood back up has been light Inf with a leaning towards role of being the SME's on Heli Op's.  They were Mech'd up for the tour. ( plus and minus of that is for a differant thread)

Not sure if someone has already pointed that out as I am still reading this

 

[helpup]

I think a earlier post hit the nail on the head.  The IPSW Crse came out of the need to streamline Trg and since the 50 cal at that time was expected to be removed from the System.  It was decided to condense the MG Crse into a IPSW as part of the DP package.  This was done with the noblest intents.  However as was pointed out earlier we are not experiencing a severe case of skills fade with the ability to emply these MG's to their full capability.  The C6 and SF kit are still versitile and could use upgrades but before we think about doing this, I feel we need to bring back a more comprehensive MG crse.  Use the students on that Crse to make suggestions to the Staff on what changes would be required.  Vet this with the pleathora of overseas experience we have.  Cross check with the Navy and Airforce for thier requirements.  Come up with a plan and follow it through.

Or do what we have been doing.  Use the kit we have to the best of our abilities ( the books for Indirect role, or advance tables for C6 & 50 are out there) aknowledge that there is skills fade and work as best as possible to correct it.  Outside of getting my Pl Mech'd up I plan to go over intensivly with the Pl how to fully employ the C6.  If we get over there and the SF kit does not leave a FOB/Strong point so be it.  But better to know how to do something and not need it.  Then find out you could do something but didnt know how. 

 

[Pointer]

A C79 would be nice, methinks.  I don't think it would really take anything away from the gun, particularly if you left the iron sights on.

But really, what the C6 needs is an M203 and side-mounted shotgun for close-range engagements.

 

[1feral1]

But really, what the C6 needs is an M203 and side-mounted shotgun for close-range engagements.

Sorry, but....

op:

OWDU
Armourer and Iraq Vet

 

[Arsenal]

Heat shield for dismount... The use of optics should be up to the gunner.

But seriously instead of bullets it should shoot freakin lasers.

 

[Loachman]

Quick-detachable water jacket for dealing with human-wave-type assaults.

And those neat little metal wheels for hand-towing it around with a full jacket.

I don't know why those went out of fashion.

 

[Loachman]

Sorry, but....

You've been had, mate.

Better compare the lengths of your legs. One might be a little longer, now.