Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[VIChris]

Noob Q: Is that vertical plate on the .50 supposed to be armour? What will it stop? It looks like it's only thick enough for fragmentation, no? I'm no expert, just hoping to learn.

Noob Q #2: In regards to the C-16, how effective would it be from a pitching deck against (potentially) moving targets? Would it's significantly lower muzzle velocity vs. the .50 not mean much greater lead off is required? And is that not made much more difficult when the shooting platform is unstable? 

 

[vonGarvin]

Noob Q: Is that vertical plate on the .50 supposed to be armour? What will it stop? It looks like it's only thick enough for fragmentation, no? I'm no expert, just hoping to learn.

It's not armour, it's a sight.  From the side, I see what you mean, it sort of looks like a bit of armour.

Noob Q #2: In regards to the C-16, how effective would it be from a pitching deck against (potentially) moving targets? Would it's significantly lower muzzle velocity vs. the .50 not mean much greater lead off is required? And is that not made much more difficult when the shooting platform is unstable?

It would probably need more lead at longer targets.  I don't know if it would be more difficult, but the navy guys would have to answer how much or how often they fire from a significantly pitching deck.  Maybe some sort of stabilisation system could be mounted?

 

[observor 69]

@HMS_Nonsuch
HMS Nonsuch
RT @3PDee Canadian Air Force total sorties as of 23:59Z 16 May: CF-188 HORNET 276; CC-150 POLARIS 104; CP-140 AURORA 44

 

[GAP]

Maybe some sort of stabilisation system could be mounted?

They did it for the Abrams.....ships should be easy..... ;D

 

[VIChris]

Thanks for the info, TV and GAP.

 

[vonGarvin]

Thanks for the info, TV and GAP.

You're welcome.  And here is an image of a .50 cal sight similar to the type in the picture.

And for reference, here is the C-16 in ground mount role, from the "business end" (eg: you don't want to face this from this end). 

As you can see, there are a variety of sights on it.  Including sights that allow the gunner to "see" at night.  For characteristics, the C-16 is similar to the .50 in terms of range and *some* target effects.  In other words, you can still mess up boats that a .50 can, at the same range with the same limitations that a .50 would have (rough seas, etc). 

I think that the main advantage would be the ability for the gunner to "see" threats in periods of low-light visibility.

 

[Occam]

It's not armour, it's a sight.  From the side, I see what you mean, it sort of looks like a bit of armour.

I think VIChris was referring to the vertical plate that I've highlighted in red, TV.

 

[vonGarvin]

I think VIChris was referring to the vertical plate that I've highlighted in red, TV.

:rofl:

Wow, how on earth did I miss that?


Yes, that's armour.  What it stops?  Other than some sea water, I wouldn't have a clue....

 

[dapaterson]

And for reference, here is the C-16 in ground mount role, from the "business end" (eg: you don't want to face this from this end). 

As you can see, there are a variety of sights on it.  Including sights that allow the gunner to "see" at night.  For characteristics, the C-16 is similar to the .50 in terms of range and *some* target effects.  In other words, you can still mess up boats that a .50 can, at the same range with the same limitations that a .50 would have (rough seas, etc). 

I think that the main advantage would be the ability for the gunner to "see" threats in periods of low-light visibility.

Well, that looks nice and man-portable.

 

[dapaterson]

:rofl:

Wow, how on earth did I miss that?


Yes, that's armour.  What it stops?  Other than some sea water, I wouldn't have a clue....

Some people are sent to recce platoon because of their ability to observe and report on what they see.  Others are sent to mortars...

 

[Occam]

Yes, that's armour.  What it stops?  Other than some sea water, I wouldn't have a clue....

I'm sure it's at least thick enough to defend against an empty bottle of Sangria thrown by an irate Spanish fisherman.  (Lessons Learned from the great Turbot War) 

 

[VIChris]

Yeah, that was the plate I was referring to, haha. And that makes a lot more sense. When he said it was part of the sight, I thought, okay, the Navy uses some sort of weird assed siting system to compensate for firing from an elevated position or something.

From reading about the C16, I gather that it would fill a similar role to Ma Deuce, but my thoughts about the slower round still stand in regards to leading off potentially fast and erratically moving targets. I guess stabilization technology is at a point now where that could be somewhat mitigated though? TV, you're probably right too about it not being fired from a heavily pitching deck either. Thinking more about it being a close range system, it would be more likely employed in calmer, coastal or inland waterways vice high seas hi jinx.

 

[Journeyman]

Some people are sent to recce platoon because of their ability to observe and report on what they see.  Others are sent to mortars...

I'm sure it's at least thick enough......

Oh, after this discussion, I now suspect that the original poster is "thick enough"  ;D

 

[NavyShooter]

1.  Armour plate.  Yes.  Provides some protection to the gunner.  Better than having no armour plate, right?

2.  C-16?  Sure, why not.  But the last time the Navy asked for a piece of shiny army kit (NODLR) we got smacked down by a 1 Leaf in green.  Can you imagine the hooplah if the Navy deployed an army weapons system operationally before the Army did? 

NS

 

[vonGarvin]

Some people are sent to recce platoon because of their ability to observe and report on what they see.  Others are sent to mortars...

:rofl:

 

[vonGarvin]

2.  C-16?  Sure, why not.  But the last time the Navy asked for a piece of shiny army kit (NODLR) we got smacked down by a 1 Leaf in green.  Can you imagine the hooplah if the Navy deployed an army weapons system operationally before the Army did? 

NS

On behalf of the infantry, I say to you "Please, do!  No objections here!"  >

 

[observor 69]

FYI:

The first systems will be delivered to train the trainers in February 2011.  The Infantry School and the Canadian Forces School of Electrical and Mechanical Engineering will receive systems in April 2011, and units will begin receiving systems in May 2011.

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/news-nouvelles/story-reportage-eng.asp?id=4774

 

[Journeyman]

Can you imagine the hooplah if the Navy deployed an army weapons system operationally before the Army did?

On behalf of the infantry, I say to you "Please, do!  No objections here!"  >

Hell yes!! Take it!
The only people who believe it is even remotely man-portable are staff officers in NCR who will never have to carry even part of it, let alone the ammo allocation.  :

 

[CougarKing]

UPI link

Report: Canada buying more bombs for Libya

Please see link for full article.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Can you imagine the hooplah if the Navy deployed an army weapons system operationally before the Army did? 

How about "parallel deployment" 
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/TrainingAndAdventure/ArmysApacheFiresFirstHellfireMissilesAtSea.htm