Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[tomahawk6]

Arius we both know how this game is played. Once CASW is fielded there wont be a purchase of 60mm mortars.This entire argument made by the CASW project is entended to field a weapon that isnt needed. We know right now that CASW will create a capabilities shortfall because it doesnt have the range of even the current 60mm mortar. The door being left open after fielding is disingenuous at best. I cannot believe that infantry officers would support a weapon that isnt even as capable as the venerable M2 .50 cal MG.

 

[McG]

Arius we both know how this game is played.

Which game, the malicious staff officers pulling the wool over the troops' eyes game or the staff juggling the priorities of the troops against the hurdles of bureaucracy game?  If the COs & RSMs of the Army have bought in, then I suspect it is the second game in which case the Army probably will make the effort to introduce a 60 mm mortar project after CASW (though how it survives at higher joint boards would be another question).

 

[daftandbarmy]

There go those old fashioned Royal Marines, using that obsolete 60mm mortar again. And just last week too. Sheesh.

Note: Each company has it's own FS troop (platoon)

------------------

Royal Marines from Fire Support Troop, Charlie Company, 40 Commando Royal Marines engaging Taliban positions near Kajaki, Northern Helmand. The Operation is part of OP GHARTSE SPIKE and Charlie Company was supported by RECCE Troop 40 Commando and elements of the Afghan National Army. [Picture: LA (Phot) AJ Macleod]

http://www.blogs.mod.uk/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/2008/02/07/blog7.jpg

http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/2008/week6/index.html#entry-45205364

 

[vonGarvin]

Those marines are junk.  I mean, come on!  Afghanistan is a land-locked nation!  What were they thinking?  :



(NOTA BENE: this post was in total sarcasm)

 

[Arius]

Not sure what the 40 Cdo adds to the debate...  They are Naval Infantry with fairly old landing crafts and don't have the vehicules to go around and carry heavy stuff - Hence the Quad on the right.  The mortar is a 51mm I would think...  Bit sad actually.  Their 51 and 81 do fit in their original employment concept.  They did an "amphibious" op in one of the reservoir I think.  Royal Marines are exceedingly tough soldiers but they could use some heavy mech in Afghanistan as they are not equipped for long drawn out operations.

 

[vonGarvin]

Not sure what the 40 Cdo adds to the debate... 

In the interest of brevity, you should have left your post as I've clipped it above. 

Allow me to tell you what it brings to the debate: the Royal Marines are using, today, and with great effect, the very weapon type that some feel can be replaced by a 40mm Machine Gun Grenade Launcher.  That's what it brings.

Don't get me wrong: a 40mm grenade launcher would be a welcome addition to any "toolbox"; however, not at the expense of a very unique weapon system, which it could never EVER hope to replace.

 

[daftandbarmy]

More proof that those wacky Royal Marines are way out to lunch.

51mm MOR in use during Op Volcano in the opening sequence...

http://www.operations.mod.uk/video/20070205opvolcano.wmv

 

[baboon6]

Not sure what the 40 Cdo adds to the debate...  They are Naval Infantry with fairly old landing crafts and don't have the vehicules to go around and carry heavy stuff - Hence the Quad on the right.  The mortar is a 51mm I would think...  Bit sad actually.  Their 51 and 81 do fit in their original employment concept.  They did an "amphibious" op in one of the reservoir I think.  Royal Marines are exceedingly tough soldiers but they could use some heavy mech in Afghanistan as they are not equipped for long drawn out operations.

They have Land Rovers too and the Viking tracked vehicle (the latter not shown in this sequence). Here are the rest of the photos from that day, they also have 40mm GMGs, .50 Brownings, GPMGs, Javelin missile, so not exactly lacking in firepower. The Commando21 orbat with two close combat companies (three rifle troops [platoons] each), two stand-off combat coys (each with a rifle troop, HMG/GMG troop and Javelin missile troop), command coy (command/signals plus recce troop, Javelin troop, 81mm mortar troop, GPMG-SF troop) and logistics support coy(admin, medics, 2 A Echelons and a B Echelon) is pretty robust. I assume this "Fire Support Troop" is a composite one made up of elements from Javelin and HMG/GMG troops and attached to a close combat coy.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/PictureViewer.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7b2055C9A7-1237-4CD5-B9C6-980C5E61D52E%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fDefenceInternet%2fPictureViewers%2fInPicturesAggressiveMarinePatrolsSupportHelmandHealthcare%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#image1

Other recent photos of 40 Commando in Afghanistan:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/Templates/PictureViewer.aspx?NRMODE=Published&NRNODEGUID=%7bC3B1B7FA-54AF-4107-B6F8-8E3035AEF41A%7d&NRORIGINALURL=%2fDefenceInternet%2fPictureViewers%2fInPicturesMarinesMeetAfghanCommunities%2ehtm&NRCACHEHINT=Guest#image1

Article on the Viking vehicle:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/EquipmentAndLogistics/VikingVehiclesProveTheirWorthInVolatileHelmand.htm

Commando21 orbat:

http://www.onceamarinealwaysamarine.co.uk/cdo21.htm

 

[daftandbarmy]

Another good example of a light mortar in action. Royal Marines (again) in the assault in Afghanistan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FcXWZ0XVuw&feature=related

2:00 and 2:36

 

[daftandbarmy]

Oops. Forgot this one. UK Airborne Forces in a firefight. 51 mm MOR at the centre of the action starting at about 2:00 mins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUW0BWDX4oA

Tell me again why we'd want to get rid of an important, inexpensive, and easily portable asset like this at the platoon level when we're buying new tanks and aircraft off the shelf for bejillions of dollars?

 

[KevinB]

daftandbarmy -- if I had to take a guess, I'd say a technogeek was incharge or procurment and he/they have zero combat experience.

  I'd have a mortar with me if we where allowed them...
BigRed was going to get us a few when we where on a teamsite together in lower nowhere -

 

[McG]

Oops. Forgot this one. UK Airborne Forces in a firefight. 51 mm MOR at the centre of the action ...

Tell me again why we'd want to get rid of an important, inexpensive, and easily portable asset like this at the platoon level when we're buying new tanks and aircraft off the shelf for bejillions of dollars?

Just to add some more depth to this debate, how does the 51 mm mortar compare to the 60 mm mortar?  Would Canadian mortar proponents support going to a lighter light mortar?

 

[KevinB]

No idea on the 51 -- the 60 has a pretty poor payload as is -- I wonder what the 51's is?
*the 40mm has an even more pathetic burting radius -- but is still pretty good for the intended role (not IDF) with the HEDP round.

Since the 60mm is US issue - and alledgedly Cdn SOF issue as well -  IMHO it makes more sense to adopt a modern 60...
 

 

[AmmoTech90]

The payload on the 51mm ranges from about the same as some 60mm bombs (140-160 grams of HE) to half of some (some 60mm have 300 grams).  The effective danger area is much larger than a 40mm grenade, and will be approximately equal to a 60mm.

As everyone else has said, each weapon has a role and you can't really drop one without losing some sort of capability.  I'm working with the Brits right now and they have got a mix of 51mm, 40mm HV/LV, 81mm, etc.  There are definite roles for each and I have seen first hand what the consequences are when you don't think through disposing of a system.

 

[McG]

Since we don't talk about AGLs here anymore, I would suggest starting another thread on the future use of mortars in the Army.  I would be interested in some real debate and informed opinions.

Done: http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/22545/post-674855.html#msg674855

No idea on the 51 -- the 60 has a pretty poor payload as is -- I wonder what the 51's is?
*the 40mm has an even more pathetic burting radius -- ...

Volume of fire is an important factor in addition to payload of the individual projectile.  If more smaller & slightly dispersed projectiles can be put onto a target in the open, then there is the potential for equal or better blast & frag effects.  If we are going for equal effect, it would be interesting to see a comparison of rounds per min required from 40 mm, 51 m and 60 mm (and then make a comparison by kg per min).

Now, if you want to punch through something (like a field fortification) the bigger projectile is going to be the way to go.

 

[KevinB]

MCG -- well -- if I wanted to work a wall that ol' mohammed was hiding behind the Mk19 with the HV HEDP would be ideal.  I think the design of the payload is also very important, more important thant the weight.

  While weight of fire is cool -- the issue is also how does one hump all that ammo -- having brought a box up to roof top for a Hk GMG -- its not the most easy stuff to pack ina  urban of LI environment -- as opposed to a mortar bomb here and there.

 

[Royal]

Weight Myth: 60mm vs CASW

M19 60mm:              20.5 kg                Mk 47 40mm:      41 kg
M720 x 1 shot           (1.7 kg)                 M383 x 1 shot   (0.340 kg)
18 shots                 30.6 kg                24 shots         8.16 kg
Fire mission:            51.1 kg                 Fire mission:     49.2 kg

Subsequent fire missions
18 shots                  30.6 kg               24 shots    8.16 kg

How many rounds do you really need to carry?  After 1 fire mission, the CASW out strips the 60. 
How long to get an effective round on target with the 60mm?  15-30 seconds with a good, practiced team.
How long for a 99% first round hit with the CASW?  How long to load and press fire......

Next up, 18 rds at max rate takes90 secs to fire and 120 to arrive.  24rds on target with a 5m group takes less than 60 secs.  Also, my personal favourite, I can hit a single person at 2000m with an air-burst and then send in the brooms to sweep-up the mess.

 

[vonGarvin]

Royal:
Perhaps a comparison of the CASW vs. the .50 or the M 242 would be more relevant?  Given that people usually don't like to be shot at, and that said people like to hide  in order to avoid being shot at, there are times when a mortar (of any calibre, and irrespective of who's shooting it) is a better choice.  Given our recent acquisitions, and given the faulty reasoning and in some cases blatant lies in the Statement of Requirement (which I've read), the CASW is going to fill a niche that doesn't need filling given the .50 in light coys and the M 242 in Mech coys.

 

[Royal]

I am all about effects, man.  The biggest tool for the job is usually the best tool.  So if I want to kill/incapcitate dsmtd inf at 2000m or destroy an IED, the most precise wpn is the one that I want.  Besides, the CASW is not replacing the .50cal, the 242 OR the 60mm.  But like most things military, if we want something new, we need to get rid of something old, especially if that thing is both a burden and an administrative nightmare to repair.  We are buying firing mechanisims from european countries who are getting them out of their "for destruction" boxes, but have been to lazy to actually destroy.  Like the tanks, we were buying our own spare-parts back from the people we sold them to as junk at 7times what we sold them for.  Talk about paying through the nose twice......

 

[vonGarvin]

I realise that the CASW isn't meant to replace the 60; however, in a discussion with an esteemed member of DLR, that was his exact point.  Not only was it going to replace the 60, but it was a "Wunderwaffe" that not only looked cool, it did everything but butter your toast.

Then again, if they want to get rid of something old, I can be bought off ;D