- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
If Frank does it, it must be a good idea.
;D
;D
Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun
- Thread starter daftandbarmy
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
George Wallace said:
George, your memory must be a bit hazy....the COAX doesn't have sights and does not come with bipod or the replacement butt anymore. Now the AK AK has a spade butt most times as well.
Can they still be used dismounted? Sure, but you'll have to be a bit determined and creative to use it.
Regards
- Reaction score
- 17,093
- Points
- 1,260
The 240H helicopter door gun comes with a pistol grip and butt for dismount options with downed aircraft, to me it would not be that hard to offer for the co-ax - especially if you put a 1913 rail on the top cover, that could give an optical option in-extremis
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The problem with the LAV coax is that it is incredibly tight confines in there. It's not like a pintle (or helo door gun) where you can basically have a complete system just on a swivel pin that can pop out and carry with you.
A LAV's coax is extremely bare-bones by comparison.
A LAV's coax is extremely bare-bones by comparison.
Yes... If I recall correctly, it doesn't even have a full pistol grip - just a truncated grip to better allow it to fit within the confines of the turret. Not even a cocking handle either, but rather, a cable with a handle linked to a pin where the cocking handle usually goes. I don't think it would be hard to put a kit together to allow the coax to be used dismounted in extremis, but it would involve replacing or adding the butt, pistol grip, bipod and the barrel at a minimum, to say nothing of proper sights or cocking handles. Done easily enough inside a couple of minutes when you're sitting in a FOB, but during a firefight?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
The MAG-58 coax also has no front sight, although the rear sight mount is present, there is no rear sight fitted. The EPC* is also absent. No front sling swivel either, or carrying handle.
The flash suppressor is also a different style, as is the gas system from the standard MAG-58 type, and the gas regs are not interchangeable. One cannot put a standard reg on to a coax or flex barrel.
*Ejection Port Cover
OWDU
The flash suppressor is also a different style, as is the gas system from the standard MAG-58 type, and the gas regs are not interchangeable. One cannot put a standard reg on to a coax or flex barrel.
*Ejection Port Cover
OWDU
- Reaction score
- 25
- Points
- 430
Der Panzerkommandant.... said:
I know it has been a while, but there are still rear sights, and if using BOT, then it is a no brainer. "Gunner's Determination!"
Bipod is removable, so it can also be added. It is also not necessary if mounted on an SF Kit.
Spare Butt plate and Pistol Grip can be stored in Wpns Kit/Tool box. A bolt on scope or sight may alleviate any problems of no front sights on barrels.
As for Cocking handle being replaced by a cable. What difference does this make.? The C-5 and some .50 Cal had cables instead of cocking handles, and they worked fine. Wpn still cocks and fires.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
George,
This issue is that yes technically you can do 10 things to revert a coax to a dismount role ready C6, but no it is not worth the time because it would take far too long to do for what it's worth in a modern battle field.
Further, it must be expected that if you have just had your vehicle killed, you are likely in a hostile area and still under contact so you would be better off firing with your C7 immediately than firing the C6 in 10 minutes.
If you need to get off of the Ambush X and find some cover then something like the pintle is a good idea...the coax is not.
And on the modern battle field, it's not like the vehicle would be lost and the troops then have to do a 100km march to safety; pretty much all other ops would stop and the helos would be inbound.
This issue is that yes technically you can do 10 things to revert a coax to a dismount role ready C6, but no it is not worth the time because it would take far too long to do for what it's worth in a modern battle field.
Further, it must be expected that if you have just had your vehicle killed, you are likely in a hostile area and still under contact so you would be better off firing with your C7 immediately than firing the C6 in 10 minutes.
If you need to get off of the Ambush X and find some cover then something like the pintle is a good idea...the coax is not.
And on the modern battle field, it's not like the vehicle would be lost and the troops then have to do a 100km march to safety; pretty much all other ops would stop and the helos would be inbound.
- Reaction score
- 7,388
- Points
- 1,160
Are all dismounts hasty dismounts in contact? Or are there also planned dismounts where the section leaves its wagon at a Zulu point and operates entirely on foot for extended periods?
Because if the latter, and assuming the OC gave me permission I would be inclined to strip out whatever systems I could carry that I felt would enable me to do the job assigned. And, from this discussion, there seems to be a fair number of people that would be happy to see an additional 4 C6s available if contact is made.
As to the subject of dismounting the 25mm and man-packing that (or jeep-porting it) I recall a Swiss system from the 1980s (Diana???) that was based on that exact premise. It was an early model RWS where the operators screen was attached by cable to the base of the mount with a coax camera so the operator could park the system on the parapet and operate from the comfort of a nice snug trench (Clearances and other IAs and Stoppages excepted).
Because if the latter, and assuming the OC gave me permission I would be inclined to strip out whatever systems I could carry that I felt would enable me to do the job assigned. And, from this discussion, there seems to be a fair number of people that would be happy to see an additional 4 C6s available if contact is made.
As to the subject of dismounting the 25mm and man-packing that (or jeep-porting it) I recall a Swiss system from the 1980s (Diana???) that was based on that exact premise. It was an early model RWS where the operators screen was attached by cable to the base of the mount with a coax camera so the operator could park the system on the parapet and operate from the comfort of a nice snug trench (Clearances and other IAs and Stoppages excepted).
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 430
George Wallace said:
George....I've taught a few gunnery courses in the past few years, both tank and 25mm and been on tour with the tanks too.
There are completely NO sights (front blade or rear aperture) on any coax, either mounted in a Coyote or tank. If there are some out there it's because they haven't been turned in for modification yet. I haven't seen any in the past 3 years.
It is a purpose modified weapon and not intended for dismounting. Gone are the days when we could dismount them. The parts are not held at the Sqn level either. You can't even put a bipod on because the front swivel is now gone as well, thereby no way to retain it on the weapon. All the barrels have been modified as well, so gone are the days of ensuring the #1 position on the gas regulator was next to the barrel...they've all been bored out to the #3 size. Some also have the new gas plug retaining system vice the quick release.
Do I agree with whoever made the decision to take them away? Nope.
Could you still use BOT? Sure, but that beaten zone would be HUGE!
Regards
Manpacking a 25mm... The thought makes my gorge rise. I suspect you meant it somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the system (feeder, receiver, and barrel) weighs nearly 250 lbs. Plus ammo, and cranking... what, seven times for each shot? Makes me tired just thinking about it.
As far as dismounting the pintles from the Zulu LAVs... We never did it overseas, even on dismounted patrols away from the LAVs and I personally never heard the idea being fielded. Whatever advantage that might have been gained in firepower was outweighed by the additional weight, awkwardness and relative slowness in bringing the gun into the fight. Since you can't sling a box under the guns we used, you had only a ~30 rd. teaser belt before someone had to bust out a box. The gunner for the platoon C6 that we *did* take out had a "predator pack" that helped a bit, but was prone to causing stoppages.
As far as dismounting the pintles from the Zulu LAVs... We never did it overseas, even on dismounted patrols away from the LAVs and I personally never heard the idea being fielded. Whatever advantage that might have been gained in firepower was outweighed by the additional weight, awkwardness and relative slowness in bringing the gun into the fight. Since you can't sling a box under the guns we used, you had only a ~30 rd. teaser belt before someone had to bust out a box. The gunner for the platoon C6 that we *did* take out had a "predator pack" that helped a bit, but was prone to causing stoppages.
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
Hello Illegio
My point on the dismounted 25mm was entirely tongue in cheek.
Now, as for the pintle-mount, coax, etc, I just raise those points because our infantry in Canada is entirely mechanised: a point many seem to forget.
Yes, I realise that some rifle companies are "mechanised without vehicles"; however, for operations, they have the LAV III APC with them. Naturally, the option remains to leave them in a FOB, on base, or whatever, and have those platoons go in helicopters, on foot or whatever. But my only point is that if the platoons are with LAV III APCs, then in addition to the 6 x LMGs and the 1 (or 2) dismounted GPMGs, there are 4 x 25mm Chain Guns, 4 x 7.62mm Coax MGs and 4 x 7.62/5.56mm Pintle MGs. (And the MBGDs). If the LAV III APCs have to be left behind, the options are there to "task tailor" the platoon according to the mission at hand, and with the pintle mounted MGs, if so desire, a very robust weapons section could be formed.
My final point is that I am not thinking "Afghanistan only", but for whatever use and/or task. Maybe except for domestic operations after ice storms, but, I think you get the picture.
My point on the dismounted 25mm was entirely tongue in cheek.
Now, as for the pintle-mount, coax, etc, I just raise those points because our infantry in Canada is entirely mechanised: a point many seem to forget.
Yes, I realise that some rifle companies are "mechanised without vehicles"; however, for operations, they have the LAV III APC with them. Naturally, the option remains to leave them in a FOB, on base, or whatever, and have those platoons go in helicopters, on foot or whatever. But my only point is that if the platoons are with LAV III APCs, then in addition to the 6 x LMGs and the 1 (or 2) dismounted GPMGs, there are 4 x 25mm Chain Guns, 4 x 7.62mm Coax MGs and 4 x 7.62/5.56mm Pintle MGs. (And the MBGDs). If the LAV III APCs have to be left behind, the options are there to "task tailor" the platoon according to the mission at hand, and with the pintle mounted MGs, if so desire, a very robust weapons section could be formed.
My final point is that I am not thinking "Afghanistan only", but for whatever use and/or task. Maybe except for domestic operations after ice storms, but, I think you get the picture.
- Reaction score
- 7,388
- Points
- 1,160
WRT the Swiss 25 my point wasn't tongue in cheek. Admittedly the Swiss were equipping for a "Home" game, as opposed to playing "Away", some of there Infantry battalions were/are more akin to Maginot Line units where kit was only humped a couple of hundred yards to a prepared firing position. But people have hauled heavier loads over longer distances for suitable effect. The Royal Navy eventually made a sport out of their Boer War experience with the Earl's Court Gun Run.
Further to TV2s comments it seems to me that it would make for an interesting fire-base to dismount platoon weapons, (4x 25mm, 4x 7.62 Coax, 8-12 C6-C9) and heliport them in to a secure point.
But if I understand the second part of your comment your "dismounted" problem was not the lack of systems to carry but the lack of carrying capacity, which I suspect is the same problem that Marius dealt with.
And doesn't that bring us full circle? How can you effectively carry the fight to the enemy? And do you have enough tools in the toolbox to overmatch the enemy in all the environments you oppose him?
If the answer is "yes" then bash on regardless. If the answer is "no" then: what tools would make your performance more effective?
And one thing I have learned in a multitude of years trying to dodge the situation - everyone is a salesman/politician - whether you like it or not. The secret to success is being able to effectively argue a business case to support your strongly held belief.
The problem is not a lack of money. There is never enough of that to go around. The problem is how to make the case against competing cases.
Further to TV2s comments it seems to me that it would make for an interesting fire-base to dismount platoon weapons, (4x 25mm, 4x 7.62 Coax, 8-12 C6-C9) and heliport them in to a secure point.
But if I understand the second part of your comment your "dismounted" problem was not the lack of systems to carry but the lack of carrying capacity, which I suspect is the same problem that Marius dealt with.
And doesn't that bring us full circle? How can you effectively carry the fight to the enemy? And do you have enough tools in the toolbox to overmatch the enemy in all the environments you oppose him?
If the answer is "yes" then bash on regardless. If the answer is "no" then: what tools would make your performance more effective?
And one thing I have learned in a multitude of years trying to dodge the situation - everyone is a salesman/politician - whether you like it or not. The secret to success is being able to effectively argue a business case to support your strongly held belief.
The problem is not a lack of money. There is never enough of that to go around. The problem is how to make the case against competing cases.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Technoviking said:
A very recent fad due to high losses in the Afghan-specific theatre.
Only a few years ago, as you know there were still three entirely light battalions out of nine, which only went mech due to what was going on in A'stan.
I know there is talk of everyone being the same, but it is retarded to give up all light focus.
It was quite embarrassing for 1 RCR's companies in Petawawa to lose all the March-And-Shoot competitions to not only 3 RCR but also to 2 CER. Such is life when you spend 90% of your time on taking care of a vehicle.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
3RCR may have won in the fall '09, but 1RCR crushed the 3rd Bn in 2008.
In any case, what was embarrassing was those losers in
"Stand Up! Hook Up! Drop Ramp! Wha?!?!"
- Reaction score
- 1,300
- Points
- 1,040
This may end up in another tangent, but here goes.
Force Generation/Force Employment for the structure for 2013 has all battalions being mechanised. Given that we don't have the suite of vehicles for a truly light capability (outside of CANSOFCOM), it only makes sense to either make our infantry mechanised (with the requisite fleets of armoured vehicles that come with the other combat arm or the combat support arms), or to make our infantry at least motorised (that is, for those who don't know, with enough integral motor transport, or trucks, to lift the unit simultaneously).
But if there is any infantry battalion in Canada, regular or reserve, that cannot maintain a basic level of physical fitness required of the infantry, then that unit's entire chain of command ought to be fired. And I state here, emphatically, that the myth of the "fat-in-the-track" mech battalions is just that: a myth. I saw it first hand when this "mech warrior" showed up to 3 RCR, all afraid that they were a collection of leg-shaving professional runners. After our first run, looking back to see 3/4 of the battalion BEHIND me, it was a bit satisfying.
And the crew maintenance bill on the LAV III APC is much less than that required of the old fleets of M113 APCs. So, no, I don't buy it.
As for force employment, a 39 soldier infantry platoon, with or without LAV III APCs, is quite the beast. And given our small army, it makes sense to train up to mech level, and then "cut back" to "other modes of fighting" when required. This can be best achieved by training. While the entire company is mechanised, having "specialist-trained" NCOs, WOs and Offrs within the ORBAT as a default would assist for heliborne or other operations. So, if "whatever" coy of "whatever" battalion of "whatever" regiment is deployed on Operation "INSERTNAMEHERE", and that battalion has to deploy by hovercraft to objective "SUICIDE", then they can call on those specialist trained NCOs, WOs or Offrs as required.
Finally, having all 9 battalions homogenous in nature assists with the force employment concept. Remembering that we would not fight with 9 battalions side by side, but rather with a max of two battalions at any given time, the remaining are used to replace those deployed. Right now, we have effectively two battalions overseas in Afghanistan. If we had a mix of mech and light, well, our light battalions would have had a pretty cushy last four years, marking time whilst our "fat bastards" continued to take the fight to the deserts of Afghanistan. Or we could have used those light battalions as camp security, or whatever. (Yes, this is me being sarcastic on that last point).
Force Generation/Force Employment for the structure for 2013 has all battalions being mechanised. Given that we don't have the suite of vehicles for a truly light capability (outside of CANSOFCOM), it only makes sense to either make our infantry mechanised (with the requisite fleets of armoured vehicles that come with the other combat arm or the combat support arms), or to make our infantry at least motorised (that is, for those who don't know, with enough integral motor transport, or trucks, to lift the unit simultaneously).
But if there is any infantry battalion in Canada, regular or reserve, that cannot maintain a basic level of physical fitness required of the infantry, then that unit's entire chain of command ought to be fired. And I state here, emphatically, that the myth of the "fat-in-the-track" mech battalions is just that: a myth. I saw it first hand when this "mech warrior" showed up to 3 RCR, all afraid that they were a collection of leg-shaving professional runners. After our first run, looking back to see 3/4 of the battalion BEHIND me, it was a bit satisfying.
And the crew maintenance bill on the LAV III APC is much less than that required of the old fleets of M113 APCs. So, no, I don't buy it.
As for force employment, a 39 soldier infantry platoon, with or without LAV III APCs, is quite the beast. And given our small army, it makes sense to train up to mech level, and then "cut back" to "other modes of fighting" when required. This can be best achieved by training. While the entire company is mechanised, having "specialist-trained" NCOs, WOs and Offrs within the ORBAT as a default would assist for heliborne or other operations. So, if "whatever" coy of "whatever" battalion of "whatever" regiment is deployed on Operation "INSERTNAMEHERE", and that battalion has to deploy by hovercraft to objective "SUICIDE", then they can call on those specialist trained NCOs, WOs or Offrs as required.
Finally, having all 9 battalions homogenous in nature assists with the force employment concept. Remembering that we would not fight with 9 battalions side by side, but rather with a max of two battalions at any given time, the remaining are used to replace those deployed. Right now, we have effectively two battalions overseas in Afghanistan. If we had a mix of mech and light, well, our light battalions would have had a pretty cushy last four years, marking time whilst our "fat bastards" continued to take the fight to the deserts of Afghanistan. Or we could have used those light battalions as camp security, or whatever. (Yes, this is me being sarcastic on that last point).
C
c4th
Guest
Gents, the LAVIII is a weapons platform that includes over and above the 25MM, the coax AND the pintle. No one in any theatre on any operation or ex that I can think of is going to start dismantling weapons platforms in order to change a dismounted section or platoon’s load. In my experience gunfighters had guns to bring to the fight. If we needed more guns we got them from Coy no issue. In fact, Coy was really good about giving me more guns than I needed, but I could deal with that. If by chance we didn’t have enough guns they gave us a FOO.Kirkhill said:
Aside from swapping out a C6 pintle due to an NS dismounted C6 in an emergency there is no good reason to start stripping LAV’s and dozens of good reasons not to. I can’t imagine a LAV Capt, LAV Sgt or anyone qualified LAV would consider doing so a good COA.
As for dismounting the 25MM, best suggestion ever.
C
c4th
Guest
Technoviking said:
Yup, probably nothing cushier than being OMLT and PRT. Are you for real? Let's just go with you're wrong.
Similar threads
