Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Peerhaps we are looking at "last year's technology", automatic grenade launchers have been around since the 1960's, but we are dealing with new threats and environments.
Perhaps what we need is an automatic mortar like the Soviet 2B9 "Vasilek" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek, although I think with a little inginuity we could make a lighter and less complicated version. Breech loading mortars exist in sizes as small as 60mm (mostly designed for use in turret mounts), which might also be closer to what we are looking for: a weapon that can fire both direct and at a high angle, and deliver a useful payload against the enemy.
The illustration is the "Scorpion", an automatic mortar mounted on a HMMVW
Perhaps what we need is an automatic mortar like the Soviet 2B9 "Vasilek" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek, although I think with a little inginuity we could make a lighter and less complicated version. Breech loading mortars exist in sizes as small as 60mm (mostly designed for use in turret mounts), which might also be closer to what we are looking for: a weapon that can fire both direct and at a high angle, and deliver a useful payload against the enemy.
The illustration is the "Scorpion", an automatic mortar mounted on a HMMVW
- Reaction score
- 21,604
- Points
- 1,260
I got to see the 82nd Abn do a Mk19 demo in Pet from Juliet Tower in the fall '92 time frame. Add in what I've seen them accomplish overseas and I think it is a very valuable weapon system. Either it or preferably the Hk GMG.
(GAP -- well Mike tells his story one way -- I tell mine the other, and admittedly he did lend me the Mortar Firing table book - I had neglegently left behind, and when I did the demo for the group elsehwere - I would have looked REAL dumb without Mike's help --- and then me briefing the Safety Officer on what I was and was not allowed to do :
- true story )
I do think the 60 could be improved in the handheld role -- with a angle/cosign indicator thingy (you can get them for sniper rifles to determine slope [and its effect on your book value range]) so you could lay on more aqccurately.
Other issue is the PSQW does not really qualify you for a mortat - its more of an intro -- I started in the Arty and also have a reasonable familiarity with the 81 so I ran the 60 det like a real mortar -- but they dont teach Indirect Fire methods of recording and layign the tube on the PSWQ (I took course 0 as I did not have Eryx and thus my MG, Mortar, SAC and a bunch of other stuff did not count :)
Sorry for the Kev hijack -- but I think IF the 60 is to remain (and I think it has a role -- that it needs both some upgraded parts - and the 031's need to go back to Mortar school)
Still I'd kick the 60mm to the Light Units -- and replace the 60mm 1:1 with the 81mm in the Mech units - give the coy a 4 tube group in the defence -- and though I've used the 60 in the attack -- it was light -- I've never seen a Mech unit use a 60mm for an attack.
(GAP -- well Mike tells his story one way -- I tell mine the other, and admittedly he did lend me the Mortar Firing table book - I had neglegently left behind, and when I did the demo for the group elsehwere - I would have looked REAL dumb without Mike's help --- and then me briefing the Safety Officer on what I was and was not allowed to do :
- true story )I do think the 60 could be improved in the handheld role -- with a angle/cosign indicator thingy (you can get them for sniper rifles to determine slope [and its effect on your book value range]) so you could lay on more aqccurately.
Other issue is the PSQW does not really qualify you for a mortat - its more of an intro -- I started in the Arty and also have a reasonable familiarity with the 81 so I ran the 60 det like a real mortar -- but they dont teach Indirect Fire methods of recording and layign the tube on the PSWQ (I took course 0 as I did not have Eryx and thus my MG, Mortar, SAC and a bunch of other stuff did not count :
) Sorry for the Kev hijack -- but I think IF the 60 is to remain (and I think it has a role -- that it needs both some upgraded parts - and the 031's need to go back to Mortar school)
Still I'd kick the 60mm to the Light Units -- and replace the 60mm 1:1 with the 81mm in the Mech units - give the coy a 4 tube group in the defence -- and though I've used the 60 in the attack -- it was light -- I've never seen a Mech unit use a 60mm for an attack.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
For those that have seen the 40mm gun in action, I'm sure that you will agree that it is an awesome weapon. It provides much needed area suppression capability that we are currently lacking. Not to degenerate the 60mm mortar, of course, but the rate of fire of the Mk19 and the effects downrange are astounding.
I have been arguing for years that we should have bought the 40, of course my argument was for each platoon to have one mounted in a RWS, preferably in a LAV III chassis. I'm kind of worried that we will only buy the ground mounted version, and try to cram the weapon, tripod and ammunition in the back of our already to crowded LAV's. I hope that we do buy the RWS variant!
As for the 40 replacing the 60mm mortar, I'm of two minds. While the preferred option would be to have both, if the choice was boiled down to "pick one, and only one", I think that the 40 is a more versatile weapon when mounted in a RWS. Perhaps we can also purchase some vehicle mounted breech loaded mortars that are appearing, sometime down the road.
I have been arguing for years that we should have bought the 40, of course my argument was for each platoon to have one mounted in a RWS, preferably in a LAV III chassis. I'm kind of worried that we will only buy the ground mounted version, and try to cram the weapon, tripod and ammunition in the back of our already to crowded LAV's. I hope that we do buy the RWS variant!
As for the 40 replacing the 60mm mortar, I'm of two minds. While the preferred option would be to have both, if the choice was boiled down to "pick one, and only one", I think that the 40 is a more versatile weapon when mounted in a RWS. Perhaps we can also purchase some vehicle mounted breech loaded mortars that are appearing, sometime down the road.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
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? Wouldn't it also allow for engagement of EN in defilade with the C2A1 sight without having to resort to the more exotic "programmable" rounds?
I still can't really see the AGL (or for that matter the HMG or the 81mm MOR) as "dismounted" systems except in a prepared position. Due to the weight of ammunition involved don't you require at least a light vehicle with each weapon or two?
- Reaction score
- 21,604
- Points
- 1,260
Well I disagree on the 60 being manportable -- it can be -- but when you factor in the ammo weight -- your not going very far with the thing and be effective.
When you start overloading troops you ruin combat effectiveness. Not to mention you've got a 2min ammo supply
Keep in mind with the weapons and ammo we currently saddle the troops with they are carrying damn near (and over in some cases) 100lbs of gear BEFORE you add Mortar - Carl G etc.
I always wanted to play "Rat Patol" with an Iltis and Mk19
--- the US mil has some Mk19's in RWS here on both Strykers and Hummers -- but the majority are manned turrets. I think for the Light Bn's that a vehicle mounted - like a mobility det Hummer - with the CASW would be advantageous -- and you can always dismount them and even jump them (though once again we are getting in to the law of Light Infantry Firepower diminishing returns)
When you start overloading troops you ruin combat effectiveness. Not to mention you've got a 2min ammo supply
Keep in mind with the weapons and ammo we currently saddle the troops with they are carrying damn near (and over in some cases) 100lbs of gear BEFORE you add Mortar - Carl G etc.
I always wanted to play "Rat Patol" with an Iltis and Mk19
--- the US mil has some Mk19's in RWS here on both Strykers and Hummers -- but the majority are manned turrets. I think for the Light Bn's that a vehicle mounted - like a mobility det Hummer - with the CASW would be advantageous -- and you can always dismount them and even jump them (though once again we are getting in to the law of Light Infantry Firepower diminishing returns)
- Reaction score
- 21,604
- Points
- 1,260
hehe - touche -
I was more thinking in line with current operations and the requisit force protection equipment worn.
Still even if everyone carries 3 bombs in a Light Pl -- its makes your quick attack a littel bit more deliberate when you need to set an ammo point etc.
I was more thinking in line with current operations and the requisit force protection equipment worn.
Still even if everyone carries 3 bombs in a Light Pl -- its makes your quick attack a littel bit more deliberate when you need to set an ammo point etc.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
Since mortars are "the" area supression weapon, and since a 60mm mortar bomb has much greater volume than a 40mm shell (hence a bigger bang), then there should be some work done to make the 60 lighter and more effective, as well as looking at the possibility of an automatic mortar in that calibre for mounted use (i.e an RWS or turret mounted version, or something which can fit on a flatbed like the Scorpion illustrated earlier). The DF option of shooting a 60mm through a window or into a bunker firing slit would make a dramatic addition to the capabilities of a mortar.
The AGL has its uses, but a mortar with its high trajectory can get to more places, if man portable can be carried to more places, and with a bigger warhead can have a much more dramatic terminal effect.
The AGL has its uses, but a mortar with its high trajectory can get to more places, if man portable can be carried to more places, and with a bigger warhead can have a much more dramatic terminal effect.
- Reaction score
- 8,198
- Points
- 1,160
Panhard has had the vehicle mounted 60mm mor on their AML for a number of decades now. Breech loading, standard rounds, 100m - 4000m range, 10-20 RPM. You would need to add a lot of metal to make an autoloader as capable as the much more flexible No.2. I don't know about DF mode but I don't see why not. If the old British 2" (51mm) MOR could be fired horizontally (using a suitable tree, wall or rock for a base) then presumably this weapon could also be fired at the same angles.
- Reaction score
- 21,604
- Points
- 1,260
Guys while you CAN fire the 60 direct - its NOT ideal.
The 40mm HV round for the CASW have a larger payload - and greater velocity (and hence way greater range) than the M203. The ROF on a 40mm AGL give a HUGE leap in firepower than a mortar just does not have.
Your trying to make the 60 into something it is not.
IF it came down to it -- I'd rather lose the 60 than the CASW, I'd prefer not too -- but..
The 40mm HV round for the CASW have a larger payload - and greater velocity (and hence way greater range) than the M203. The ROF on a 40mm AGL give a HUGE leap in firepower than a mortar just does not have.
Your trying to make the 60 into something it is not.
IF it came down to it -- I'd rather lose the 60 than the CASW, I'd prefer not too -- but..
- Reaction score
- 1,406
- Points
- 1,040
Comparing the 60mm (a great weapon) with the 40mm (another great weapon) is like comparing apples and geosynchronous satellites. Both are round, but that's about it.
I-6 pointed out the really big drawback to the 60: the ammo load. Remember that if you have 4 mortars, and wish to have 5 minutes of fire at 15 rounds a minute (which isn't all that much, when you think about it), that's 4 x 5 x 15 = 300 (someone check my math: PLEASE!) Assume that each round in its tri-pack and its relative share of packing is a "mere" 2kg, then you are talking 600 kg. 0.6 Tons. For five minutes. Sure, you can dole that amount around a bit, BUT, those "pack mules" also carry their own ammo, water, rations, weapons, med kits, ballistic plates, and so forth. The one good thing that can help ease this burden is that with its range using a bipod, you don't have to carry that stuff as far.
One big plus is its ability to fire mulitple natures of ammunition as well as providing reasonably accurate firepower, that can be "zeroed in" by day or by night in all weather. Its high angle ballistics means that it can hit people "hiding" behind "things".
I'm not going to comment on the 40: it's not my lane. Suffice it to say that I share the belief that a better world would be "both" 60 and 40, certainly not "either".
I-6 pointed out the really big drawback to the 60: the ammo load. Remember that if you have 4 mortars, and wish to have 5 minutes of fire at 15 rounds a minute (which isn't all that much, when you think about it), that's 4 x 5 x 15 = 300 (someone check my math: PLEASE!) Assume that each round in its tri-pack and its relative share of packing is a "mere" 2kg, then you are talking 600 kg. 0.6 Tons. For five minutes. Sure, you can dole that amount around a bit, BUT, those "pack mules" also carry their own ammo, water, rations, weapons, med kits, ballistic plates, and so forth. The one good thing that can help ease this burden is that with its range using a bipod, you don't have to carry that stuff as far.
One big plus is its ability to fire mulitple natures of ammunition as well as providing reasonably accurate firepower, that can be "zeroed in" by day or by night in all weather. Its high angle ballistics means that it can hit people "hiding" behind "things".
I'm not going to comment on the 40: it's not my lane. Suffice it to say that I share the belief that a better world would be "both" 60 and 40, certainly not "either".
- Reaction score
- 1,406
- Points
- 1,040
No doubt in my mind that the belt-fed 40mm AGL has a higher firepower. I know very little about it. Can it be zeroed in (aka "DFd") and fired on "target numbers" from a map as with the 60? I imagine that since it's on a tripod (of sorts) that it can (much like the GPMG/SF).Infidel-6 said:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
I don't know gents, but if you give me a target I can see at 3000-5000 m, I would rather pepper it rapidly with 40 mm grenades thru a sight, then having to waste 2-3 rounds and TOF to hit the tgt, and then have a fire for effect.
Lance Wiebe
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 6
- Points
- 230
Captain Sensible said:
Use airburst, of course. It's available for the AGL.
- Reaction score
- 21,604
- Points
- 1,260
Uhm 3-5km is outside what you can do with with either system - realistically outside a pre set firepower demo. - Thats CAS, Arty and the 81mm territory
I've only seen the Mk19 with the .50 T&E once -- HK GMG has both a Tripod and a Quadpod thingy -- with a recoil absorbing cradle, and can be setup with the equiv of a C2 sight -- or more advanced sightign systems.
I have no idea how either could be employed in a RWS in an accurate laying method for IDF (I dont know much about RWS setups).
My answer to the question is 40mm AGL and 81 goes back to the 031's
Button them up with the AGL - and .50 or 25mm depeding who you are -- and then rain IDF on them.
I've only seen the Mk19 with the .50 T&E once -- HK GMG has both a Tripod and a Quadpod thingy -- with a recoil absorbing cradle, and can be setup with the equiv of a C2 sight -- or more advanced sightign systems.
I have no idea how either could be employed in a RWS in an accurate laying method for IDF (I dont know much about RWS setups).
My answer to the question is 40mm AGL and 81 goes back to the 031's
Button them up with the AGL - and .50 or 25mm depeding who you are -- and then rain IDF on them.
- Reaction score
- 1,406
- Points
- 1,040
(I tried to avoid the whole 5 km away thing) ;DInfidel-6 said:
The main advantage of an AGL is the responsiveness of the fire. You see a baddy, you fire at him/her, and you get near instant results.
Even with airburst though, there are some times when the good old high angle fire is what the doctor ordered (so to speak).
Another difference between the two systems is in the terminal ballistics. With the 60 coming from above, you get near uniform 360 degree spread of fragments. There are situations, though, were I would guess that an AGL's up/down left/right blast would be an advantage.
So, to sum up, they aren't the same systems, nor are they similar, and I couldn't see one doing the job of the other.
Similar threads
