Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[MJP]

Where do the crews come from?

Kirkhill is bang on.

I hate this numbers game hiding behind "crews".  I know that is how they choose weapons systems sometimes but it is ridiculous.  If it were true a Pl weapons det would have at least 7-9 people if not more to man the weapons we currently have available.  I think they are forgetting that they are taking one tool out of the toolbox only to replace it with something similar but can't do the same job.  Give leaders the tools and let them pick the most appropriate one for the mission at hand.  Company raid, go and draw the 60mm mortar.......Convoy escort, mount the vehicle with the AGL etc etc

 

[Fusaki]

.Convoy escort, mount the vehicle with the AGL etc etc

Which vehicle though?

In a Rifle Coy mechanized with LAV3s, the AGL is not really necessary as the 25mm cannon uploaded with HEI-T kills dismounts and soft skins pretty effectively.

I think the AGL will really shine with sub units that roll in RG-31s, TLAVs, Bisons, or those fancy new LAVs-with-no-turrets (Strykers?).  A convoy escort throwing a healthy mix of .50, 40mm, and 7.62 downrange is pretty intimidating.  Our allies have been using that mix effectively for awhile now.

 

[MJP]

Which vehicle though?

In a Rifle Coy mechanized with LAV3s, the AGL is not really necessary as the 25mm cannon uploaded with HEI-T kills dismounts and soft skins pretty effectively.

I think the AGL will really shine with sub units that roll in RG-31s, TLAVs, Bisons, or those fancy new LAVs-with-no-turrets (Strykers?).  A convoy escort throwing a healthy mix of .50, 40mm, and 7.62 downrange is pretty intimidating.  Our allies have been using that mix effectively for awhile now.

Ideally what you listed is where it would go, ideally have CSS and other vehicles that have some heavier firepower makes sense.  That way you can lessen the load of LAV/Armoured guys that do some of the convoy escort now. 

It is still a weapon that a LAV centric Pl should have, probably not on the LAV itself but I wouldn't discount the idea. LAVs aren't the end and be all of all things warfare.  Simply another tool in the box and another (of many) method of getting troops to where they need to go.  Again giving as many tools as feasibly possible to a leader to tailor their equipment to the task/msn at hand.

 

[Fusaki]

LAVs aren't the end and be all of all things warfare. 

Heresy!! ;D

Seriously though, I see your point. An AGL would compliment the C6 in the SF role in places the LAVs can't get to.

 

[KevinB]

Your AGL would be able (hopefully) in its mount to elevate higher than the LAV cannon, which as several of us know, does not always elevate as high as one would want...

 

[Kirkhill]

Your AGL would be able (hopefully) in its mount to elevate higher than the LAV cannon, which as several of us know, does not always elevate as high as one would want...

So do want the AGL on a ring mount on the Comd hatch like the C9, on a ROWS mount on the turret or, like the old Marder, a separate mount on the rear deck?

And if super-elevating (over 45 degrees, presumably for urban combat) doesn't that launch the projectiles on the same trajectory as ....... a mortar?

Not to create too much of a firestorm but it does seem that if you athe daling with a platform like the LAV, or even an armoured HLVW, the whole question of "manning" becomes moot, especially with Remote Operating Weapons Systems.  One operator could operate main, coax, MBGD and ROWS and the vehicle could support the payload and the ammunition.

The question is somewhat other if you are talking about dismounted/light troops.  Then it really does become a case of what can be taken into the field if the LAVs ain't there - but perhaps there is a spare jackass or two.

 

[a_majoor]

Although this gets away from the CASW arguments, high elevation mounts for AFV's are important to operate in complex/3D environments (putting HE rounds into the upper floors of buildings can do wonders against RPG crews hiding up there). For a LAV or similar vehicle with a powered turret mounting an automatic cannon, this also provides a means to discourage helicopters/UAVs and UACV's from coming too close.

High elevation mounts also provide the means for larger AFV's such as tanks or fire support vehicles mounting 105mm cannons to act as SP artillery under certain circumstances, use through tube missiles for extended range engagements (13 KM with a spotter for LAHAT) or special buckshot or self forming fragment rounds vs helicopters and aircraft. AFV's with secondary SP and AAA capabilities would need high bandwidth communications with spotters and targeting systems to be fully effective.

So far the best turret design to allow this is the Wegmann "cleft" turret. As for AGL's mounted on AFV's, this seems a bit redundant given 20mm+ rounds can be had in HE and more advanced forms (like AHEAD ammunition) in addition to AP, so mounting AGL's on patrol vehicles like the RG-31 makes perfect sense. Indeed, a small turret like the old AVGP Grizzly mounting a .50 for hard targets and an AGL for area targets might actually be the best solution for convoy escorts.

 

[McG]

So do want the AGL on a ring mount on the Comd hatch like the C9, on a ROWS mount on the turret or, like the old Marder, a separate mount on the rear deck?

... but if we go back through this thread, we might find where the proj staff pointed out that the CASW as we are buying it cannot be mounted on a vehicle.  It is a dismounted weapon that can shoot at its targets, shoot airburst over the targets, or do a high trajectory automatic mortar thing.

 

[Kirkhill]

... but if we go back through this thread, we might find where the proj staff pointed out that the CASW as we are buying it cannot be mounted on a vehicle.  It is a dismounted weapon that can shoot at its targets, shoot airburst over the targets, or do a high trajectory automatic mortar thing.

We would find that.  We would also find that there was/is a separate project for a vehicle mounted ROWS capable of mounting AGLs similar to those also being considered for the CASW - but, admittedly, different. 

My point was, for those that were talking about choosing weapons based on vehicles and crews, that once you have a platform you can bolt on a multitude of weapons and wire them all under the control of a single operator.  Situational Awareness would be a bit of a bugger but it seems that that is a problem in any event.  There seems to be a degree of antipathy to something called SAS.

On the other hand, dismounted troops don't have the luxury of humping everything that they would like to have at hand - but that shouldn't preclude having alternate solutions in their immediate A-Ech.

 

[KevinB]

argh large comment was lost.

My point was not nec vehicle mounting, but the ability to dismount it and employ it in a move advantageous postion.
  Somewhere in my plethora of pictures I have a Hk GMG employed on the roof of a house in Iraq, as well as the LW 60 mortar.  Hard to do hump a 25mm Chaingun up to the third or foruth floor of a house...

 

[MedCorps]

Of note from the recently released Third (US) Infantry Division (Mechanized) After Action Report for Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. Realizing this is Iraq and not Afghanistan.

Issue: The MK-19 40mm machine gun repeatedly proved itself as the decisive weapon while in contact

Discussion: In every contact, the MK-19 distinguished itself as the premier killing system throughout the engagement. Its ability to simultaneously and overwhelmingly both suppress and destroy enemy positions saved the lives of countless U.S. soldiers. The wing man concept of precision M2 cal .50 machine gun fire in tandem with the MK-19 quickly overwhelmed any dismounted or lightly armored enemy force. The MK-19 is a magnificent weapon in combat, despite the shortcomings in training ammunition and its unfamiliarity to many soldiers.

Recommendation: Continue to use the MK-19 and manufacture greater numbers in the Army inventory. This will allow gunners to become more proficient and result in fewer shortages during times of war.

Cheers,

MC

 

[vonGarvin]

There is no doubt in my military mind that the MK-19 is a superb weapon.  Of note is that it was mostly used by 3 ID as a mounted weapon, similar to the M2HB, which is noted in the AAR point.  The CASW is intended to be a ground-mounted system, so the AAR point by 3 ID is moot.

 

[Kirkhill]

To me the whole thing seems silly.

We have/had a direct fire weapon (C5/C6/Vickers MMG) that can/could be fired in suppressive and indirect modes.
With the C5/C6 the same crews used the same sights on the 60mm mortar to deliver high angle indirect fire.

Consider 3 soldiers with a vehicle with a ROWS with a dismountable Mk19 or HK-GMG or Striker or whatever 40mm variant you like.  Throw a 60mm tube and bi-pod in the back.  On dismounted ops, where the vehicle can't go, you have the option of lugging the 40mm (a possibility if you are planning on staying in a fixed position for a while)  or breaking out the 60 and hauling it and the ammunition (a possibility in both fixed positions and manoeuvre ops).  VC and Gnr maintain/swap roles in dismounted action.  Dvr becomes an ammunition number/spare gnr.

Higher gets to decide if vehicles or not, if 60 or 40, or the mix appropriate to the mission. IM (not so) HO.

 

[a_majoor]

The CASW arguments seem to have devolved into the issues of mobility when dismounted (which seems pretty appropriate considering the size/weight of the thing). In a way, this seems almost like a turn of the wheel back to the Canadian MG Corps in WWI.

The Corps became virtually an arm of its own, with MG firepower increasingly centralized partially due to the size/weight issues of machineguns of the day, a water cooled MG being roughly similar in size and weight to a .50 on a ground mount today. With everyone having limited mobility and warfare having devolved into trench warfare, this wasn't that much of an issue, and may even have been to the advantage of the Canadians by emphasizing the power of MG's in the defence.

During the last 100 days, however, the Corps was less able to make a contribution. The habit of centralization made them less flexible and the size/weight issues left them less able to keep up with the advance anyway. Superior tactics by the infantry and the widespread availibility of the Lewis gun in platoon formations worked to overcome the deficiencies of the Canadian Machine Gun Corps.

Back to the 21rst century, we now are offered a great weapons system which offers lots of benefits in the defense, but is not well suited to the dismounted advance. TTPs will develop taking this into account (centralizing the CASW firepower, anyone?). The 60mm mortar has the potential to be the "lewis gun" of the story because it is portable and flexible.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wouldn't go any further in centralization than putting the 40/60 combo (in the TAPV) under the direct control of the OC as a Company Weapons Section (12 soldiers with 4 vehicles and 8 weapons).  In a LAV mounted Company the same entity could be used as the OC's own flank force.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I wouldn't go any further in centralization than putting the 40/60 combo (in the TAPV) under the direct control of the OC as a Company Weapons Section (12 soldiers with 4 vehicles and 8 weapons).  In a LAV mounted Company the same entity could be used as the OC's own flank force.

I think the UK's 'Commando 21' orbat is designed to make best use of the new weapons systems we now have available. It might just be time to ditch the orbat we in the infantry have been using, relatively unchanged, since WW2 to make better use of weapons like the Mk19. Oh, and note that they've managed to keep the light mortar too apparently!:



Commando 21

We have a range of new equipment coming into service that is increasing the firepower and mobility of our units today and, by 2010, will have converged to provide a comprehensive, modern and highly effective range of capabilities that will take the UK Amphibious Force through to 2020 and beyond. The challenges now facing the Royal Marines are to organise the Landing Force to make best use of this equipment, to maximise the effectiveness of the Amphibious Force to deal with Defence Tasks assigned to it, and to evolve National and NATO operational concepts. The first part of this process is a programme for restructuring our three Commandos, which has been given the project title of 'Commando 21'.

http://www.onceamarinealwaysamarine.co.uk/cdo21.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commando_21
http://www.navynews.co.uk/articles/2000/0012/0000122901.asp

 

[baboon6]

Good article. In particular I liked the comments on the 60mm, which apparently 'they' don't think 'we' need anymore... sheesh...

For longer-range fire, each platoon
possessed the venerable 60 mm mortar. Old, heavy, and
rudimentary, no other weapon system in the platoon could
saturate an enemy position with fragmentation bombs at
2,000 m more than the dependable 60 mm mortar.
Although the bipod mount, which allows for sustained and
accurate fire, is old and growing increasingly unstable, the
60 mm mortar is still a critical weapon system in the
platoon’s arsenal (especially given the fact it can also fire
smoke and illumination rounds).
http://armyapp.forces.gc.ca/allc-clra/Downloads/bulletin/TheBulletinVol12No3eng.pdf
[quote/]

The Danish Army got rid of their mortars a few years ago. After a couple of months of fighting in Afghanistan, they purchased new Spanish 60mm mortars. I suspect if the Canadians get rid of theirs something similar will happen.

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

I suspect if the Canadians get rid of theirs something similar will happen.

The only reason that we would get rid of them is because we have bought new ones. When they do it will probably be replaced with the M224.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The only reason that we would get rid of them is because we have bought new ones. When they do it will probably be replaced with the M224.

What do you base that statement on?

Plans are afoot to withdraw them without a mortar replacement.  See these threads:
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/1910.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/28805.0.html

 

[Oh No a Canadian]

Although the DND is not the smartest with what equipment is needed and what is not in the field (refer to main topic) but with the nonlinear type conflicts with enemies using guerilla warfare tactics the light motor is a must. All talk is just that, until something happens it's just talk. Wasn't the M2 supposed to be gone years ago?