vonGarvin
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 22
- Points
- 430
There is another thread on the C16 AGLS and there are those who suppose that it has a niche within the mechanised infantry platoon. I argue, vehemently, that it does not. The capabilities it will offer already exist in terms of the effect you wish to inflict upon the enemy. Some would argue that in cases where the LAV APC is not available (either its tasked away, or that infantry platoon is dismounted for any reason), then the C16 would provide a capability where none currently exists.
This is bunk for several reasons. I will attempt to illustrate that now, but please bear with me, don't go on tangents and remember that I am speaking from experience.
First, my experience. I will talk only of my time as an NCM in The RCR. I was in a mechanised battalion as rifleman, section 2IC and section commander of an M113 equipped platoon. We had with us the M2HB .50 calibre machine gun, mounted on the vehicle. My section didn't carry a tripod for it (there was one in the platoon), and in my time in that battalion, I saw one instance in which a .50 was dismounted and moved into position to fire.
In that one time, the troops carried it, out of contact, for about 2000m. They also had ammo for it. Of the platoon that carried it, fully one half of it was burdened with the extra weight of gun, tripod and ammo. The ammo was the biggest limitation in terms of weight. Remember, 4 boxes of ammo weighed the same as the gun and tripod. (I can't recall how many spare barrels were brought along).
The troops were able to get the gun into position in order to fire, but it was all out of contact. Once contact was made, moving the gun was out of the question for obvious reasons: it was unwieldy and too heavy to move while maintaining fire on the enemy.
So, moving the .50 cal dismounted was not an option. I don't have all weights, but the gun weighs around 38kg. With tripod and ammo, and they were carrying over 100kg just for that one weapon system.
Now, for the C16, the gun weighs around 29 kg. That does not include tripod or ammo, but suppose just over 90kg for gun, tripod and four belts of ammo (32 rounds per belt box). The lesson here is that the C16 is as mobile as a .50: it isn't. So any employment methods that are dismounted are to be discounted outright.
Yes, it could be used in static locations such as a FOB or a COP, and with great effect, but I can think of better ways of spending procurement cash. I mean, we already have a proven weapon system, the .50 calibre, that is perfect for such a role.
Now, mounted, that is where a C16 could earn its pay: and then some. Remember, it isn't being purchased in any role other than ground mounted, so this is just a thought experiment. But what a thought! Given that right now, the infantry have LAV 3 APCs only (with exceptions in theatre: OMLT using RG 31s, other elements using LAV RWS due to combat losses to LAV APCs), this is not a current infantry weapon. Future systems, such as a TAPV, which as an RWS mount, cry out for a C16. The LAV ENGR, also with a RWS, also cry out for it.
What is the analogy with the .50? Well, back in the olden days, we had a very heavy, non-mobile system that could, in theory, be ground mounted. If we were moving by foot (and we often did even in mechanised battalions), then that .50 didn't move with us. Now that we have troops moving by foot in combat, even today, it is irresponsible to think that they can carry something as heavy as the C16. So what? Mount it, and when you do so, look into our recent history and learn from it. Use the C16 in fixed, static locations where it won't be moved. Next, mount it on vehicles with an RWS. But please, for the love of all that is good in this world, do not burden the mechanised (eg: LAV 3 APC equipped) infantry: we have no room or effective use for it.
(Mod Note: this is a new thread because now that the decision has been made on the system, we can focus from concepts such as high-angled CASW fire and now look at the C16 and say "how do we use it?")
This is bunk for several reasons. I will attempt to illustrate that now, but please bear with me, don't go on tangents and remember that I am speaking from experience.
First, my experience. I will talk only of my time as an NCM in The RCR. I was in a mechanised battalion as rifleman, section 2IC and section commander of an M113 equipped platoon. We had with us the M2HB .50 calibre machine gun, mounted on the vehicle. My section didn't carry a tripod for it (there was one in the platoon), and in my time in that battalion, I saw one instance in which a .50 was dismounted and moved into position to fire.
In that one time, the troops carried it, out of contact, for about 2000m. They also had ammo for it. Of the platoon that carried it, fully one half of it was burdened with the extra weight of gun, tripod and ammo. The ammo was the biggest limitation in terms of weight. Remember, 4 boxes of ammo weighed the same as the gun and tripod. (I can't recall how many spare barrels were brought along).
The troops were able to get the gun into position in order to fire, but it was all out of contact. Once contact was made, moving the gun was out of the question for obvious reasons: it was unwieldy and too heavy to move while maintaining fire on the enemy.
So, moving the .50 cal dismounted was not an option. I don't have all weights, but the gun weighs around 38kg. With tripod and ammo, and they were carrying over 100kg just for that one weapon system.
Now, for the C16, the gun weighs around 29 kg. That does not include tripod or ammo, but suppose just over 90kg for gun, tripod and four belts of ammo (32 rounds per belt box). The lesson here is that the C16 is as mobile as a .50: it isn't. So any employment methods that are dismounted are to be discounted outright.
Yes, it could be used in static locations such as a FOB or a COP, and with great effect, but I can think of better ways of spending procurement cash. I mean, we already have a proven weapon system, the .50 calibre, that is perfect for such a role.
Now, mounted, that is where a C16 could earn its pay: and then some. Remember, it isn't being purchased in any role other than ground mounted, so this is just a thought experiment. But what a thought! Given that right now, the infantry have LAV 3 APCs only (with exceptions in theatre: OMLT using RG 31s, other elements using LAV RWS due to combat losses to LAV APCs), this is not a current infantry weapon. Future systems, such as a TAPV, which as an RWS mount, cry out for a C16. The LAV ENGR, also with a RWS, also cry out for it.
What is the analogy with the .50? Well, back in the olden days, we had a very heavy, non-mobile system that could, in theory, be ground mounted. If we were moving by foot (and we often did even in mechanised battalions), then that .50 didn't move with us. Now that we have troops moving by foot in combat, even today, it is irresponsible to think that they can carry something as heavy as the C16. So what? Mount it, and when you do so, look into our recent history and learn from it. Use the C16 in fixed, static locations where it won't be moved. Next, mount it on vehicles with an RWS. But please, for the love of all that is good in this world, do not burden the mechanised (eg: LAV 3 APC equipped) infantry: we have no room or effective use for it.
(Mod Note: this is a new thread because now that the decision has been made on the system, we can focus from concepts such as high-angled CASW fire and now look at the C16 and say "how do we use it?")
