# Should the C-6 MMG be upgraded??



## 421 EME (12 Aug 2009)

OK we are talking about upgrades here and not a replacement. The C-6 MMG is one of the better small arms that we use in the CF but has never been upgraded. The upgrades would be for the C-6 in the dismounted role and not for the mounted role (COAX, Anti-Air).
 Lets hear what you have to say.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

Now having had played with the C-6 long before the Inf got their hands on it, I have to wonder why the Gas Plug is such a screwed up piece of kit in the Ground role.  The 3 posn Gas Plug/Regulator that we had in the Coax was great, even if they were modified for only one rate of fire.  The mods to the Inf Gas Plug/regulator are horrid.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

One problem I have run into in the Coyote, was the retaining pin that held the pistol grip and trigger mech on.  I had one pop out on a Battle Run which resulted in a Runaway gun.  Rather embarrassing when the OC is in the Coyote right on your tail.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Aug 2009)

I'll chime in here.
Is there anything that you would see the C-6 GPMG be able to do that it does not do now?  

(As an aside, the C6 is not an MMG, though it can be employed as such.  It is technically a GPMG, and it can be employed as an LMG or as an MMG.  I know, I know..."details")

Other than keeping the component parts maintained or replaced as they wear, I think that everything from the SF Kit complete to the inner components of the gun itself are fine as they are.  The only thing I could see as being upgraded would be the C2A1 sight (commonly referred to as the C2 sight).  If there were a way to incorporate a GPS and a compass of sorts to allow for the use of indirect fire much more easy, then that is something that I could see being "upgraded" on it.

EDIT (due to George Wallace being faster on the reply than I)
The gas plug should, IMPO, revert the former plug (eg: 3 position plug George mentions)


----------



## dapaterson (12 Aug 2009)

Although, frequently, the biggest problem with the gas plug is the plug on the other end of the weapon.


----------



## 421 EME (12 Aug 2009)

George we have been using the Coax gas reg in the C-6 flex (dismount) for a few years now and it works great.
That retaining pin is a pain in the a** for the Coax, when the CCs are doing there drills they sometime push on the retaining pin thinking its the Safety and then when they start to fire it shakes loose and the trigger mech falls off and there is your runaway gun.


----------



## 421 EME (12 Aug 2009)

My bad, the gas reg that is now used in the C-6 Flex is the 3 position reg for the bow mounted C-6 in the Leo ARV and AEV.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> My bad, the gas reg that is now used in the C-6 Flex is the 3 position reg for the bow mounted C-6 in the Leo ARV and AEV.



Now the question arises:  When do all the rest receive the conversion?


----------



## Fusaki (12 Aug 2009)

Aside from the gas plug, the only other change I'd make is the addition of rails for optics and lasers.

It would be really swell too if they'd issue out the soft bags for teaser belts:


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> George we have been using the Coax gas reg in the C-6 flex (dismount) for a few years now and it works great.
> That retaining pin is a pain in the a** for the Coax, when the CCs are doing there drills they sometime push on the retaining pin thinking its the Safety and then when they start to fire it shakes loose and the trigger mech falls off and there is your runaway gun.



There is a fix for that.  A hinged pin, or a hinged clip on the end of the pin.


Could you post a photo of the plug we are talking about.  The Gas Plug on the Leo was different than that on the ARV, if I recall correctly.


----------



## 421 EME (12 Aug 2009)

The C-6 Flex, ARV, AEV have a 3 position gas reg with a screwed on retaining nut that is held in place with a C-clip. The barrels for these types with only fit this type of reg.

The C-6 Coax (LAV III, Leo and Coyote) is a 3 position reg with a ring type retaining nut that is held in place by a spring and plunger. ( Just like the one one the C-9 LMG )

Once I am off leave I will take some pics of the 2 types and post them here.

The reason the gas reg is not the same on the Leo for Coax and the Leo ARV and AEV is the the room in the bow mount will not allow the Coax gas reg to fit due to the ring type retaining nut. The ARV gas reg retaining nut is about a 1/2 inch in Dia smaller than the Coax retaining nut.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

It is the Retaining nut that I think really needs to be converted to the same type as on the Leo, LAV III and Coyote.  The one on the ground role sucks.  The spring and plunger was so much easier to change/remove.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Aug 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Aside from the gas plug, the only other change I'd make is the addition of rails for optics and lasers.
> 
> It would be really swell too if they'd issue out the soft bags for teaser belts:


I would offer that no rails be added for optics or lasers, and here's why.
The GPMG, either light or SF role, has no need for them (optics/lasers).  They are platoon weapons, they are area weapons, and yes, I am certain that there are times/places where a laser or optics would be useful; however, given that they are platoon weapons, and that they are area weapons, and given the drills when firing them, I would say "no".  Also, once you add rails for that stuff (though there is a method to use add-on sights with them without modification to the gun), you start getting DLR involved.  Once that starts:
 :endnigh:


----------



## basrah (12 Aug 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> Aside from the gas plug, the only other change I'd make is the addition of rails for optics and lasers.
> 
> It would be really swell too if they'd issue out the soft bags for teaser belts:



Everyone seems to be mistaking the gas plug for the gas regulator. The only potential upgrade I could see would be reverting to the gas regulator we used a few years back, the one where you didnt have to unscrew everything.

As for rails and lasers... what kind of lasers are we talking about here? LRF arent really needed, since there really arent many dismounted versions in the system, and there are many alternatives for judging distance. Optical sights also dont have much place on a gun this size... heck, I dont even think the C9 should have one. 

The more stuff we start adding to this gun, the more problems are going to come up.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

421 EME said:
			
		

> The reason the gas reg is not the same on the Leo for Coax and the Leo ARV and AEV is the the room in the bow mount will not allow the Coax gas reg to fit due to the ring type retaining nut. The ARV gas reg retaining nut is about a 1/2 inch in Dia smaller than the Coax retaining nut.



What!  The Germans didn't design something to perfection.  The horror.



As to rails and lasers........That is why we have BOT.  Much simpler and cheaper.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Aug 2009)

George's favorite gun, circa 1994  I still piss myself when I recall that afternoon on the range ;D


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Aug 2009)

The Flex MAG 58 MG on armoured veh's (Aust), has the coax type gas reg, which is very much user friendly. it would be nice if this was incorperated on all guns, but this would be costly.

There already is a Picatinny rail on the feed cover, and one can adapt the C2 sight to the reciever.

The US manufacured M240B, has a barrel shroud and a different type flash suppressor.

However, the US bipod differes from the standard FN MG, and in my opinion is inferior.

I find all bipods weak and too light for the gun, Australia has incorperated a 'bipod heavy duty', but this is now being removed from the system through attrition. We replace bipods often.

My 2 cents.

Pics- standard Aust Mag 58, US M240B, and the Aust 'heavy duty' MAG 58


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2009)

A rail for a laser really isn't needed for the gun either in the light role or the SF role.

Things to get:

An integrated sight unit which can input GPS data to allow for quick and easy indirect fire calculations. If this is not possible then some sort of ballistic calculator.

Replacing the SF kit with something similar made of Titanium or composite materials. It will cost a fortune, but the reduction in weight will be well worth it.

A barrel made of ceramic composite materials which can sustain fire longer before being changed. If it is lighter than the current barrel so much the better. (NB, ceramic composite materials do exist which can take high heat and shock without breaking. Experimental car engines and some high performance turbine engines use these materials already.)

The "old" three position gas regulator, although I can do without the "split collar".

The "teaser belt" holder.

Increase the size of the barrel lock so changing barrels is faster and easier (especially when doing a hot barrel change)


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> George's favorite gun, circa 1994  I still piss myself when I recall that afternoon on the range ;D



Really freaked out the Doctors, Nurses and Med A's.  ;D   But that was a C-9.  You were off to the left with the C-6s.  I still have no idea where that 12" blade went from the screwdriver.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (12 Aug 2009)

Why not add rails to the C6? 
 If there is anyone I would want to be able to see where he is shooting, its usually the man with the most firepower.  and;  we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.

If it is going to increase the versatility, and not sacrifice anything in the in-direct role, we should go for it.

There are several uses for optical sights/AN/Peq=2 on GPMG's.  

The U.S Army has rails on the M240 and they are used frequently.  Almost every U.S M240 I have seen has had some sort of optics on it.  The troops had a fair amount of lee-way with the optics on their weapons, and if 90% of the troops mounted optics on the 240's, they just might be on to something.  

Keep in mind these guys were Infantry and Engineers using it in the light role, dismounted.

At night I think the PEQ-2 and MNVG mounted directly on the MG could be quite advantageous in a defensive.




I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the hydraulic buffer system in the butt-stock assembly.  That thing  would increase reliability and reduce wear and tear on the receivers.

Cheers


----------



## dangerboy (12 Aug 2009)

Jimmy P. On said:
			
		

> Why not add rails to the C6?
> If there is anyone I would want to be able to see where he is shooting, its usually the man with the most firepower.  and;  we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.



I have to disagree, shooting the C6 while wearing a headset and or goggles usually means you are in a vehicle.  Unless you have a stabilization system you will not be able to get a sight picture using optics while the vehicle is on the move. (LAV/Coyote gunners try aiming with the STAB turned off).


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

Jimmy P. On said:
			
		

> Why not add rails to the C6?
> If there is anyone I would want to be able to see where he is shooting, its usually the man with the most firepower.  and;  we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.



And it would be easier to look through optical sights with helmet, headset and goggles?

I have to agree with dangerboy.  Your sights are only to put you in the general area for your initial burst.  From then on, it is observe your Trace and BOT.  Night Sights are useless as soon as that first Trace goes down range.

Trace.  BOT.  Gunner's Determination.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (12 Aug 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I have to disagree, shooting the C6 while wearing a headset and or goggles usually means you are in a vehicle.  Unless you have a stabilization system you will not be able to get a sight picture using optics while the vehicle is on the move. (LAV/Coyote gunners try aiming with the STAB turned off).



Very true, but you aren't always only shooting on the move.  Stationary shooting should also be considered.




			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And it would be easier to look through optical sights with helmet, headset and goggles?



Yes, as it "lifts" your head off of the butt, and allows more clearance between your face and the weapon.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Night Sights are useless as soon as that first Trace goes down range.



Not night sights as it tritium, Peq-2 as in I/R as in this thing.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/PEQ-2

I agree that there are other ways out there to kill people with this weapon. Very Very effectively, Im just opting on the side of versatility and options.

If its such a bad idea, why is the entire U.S Army on board?  I can't think of another organization with more combat experience since the Mongol hoards, 


Food for thought.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Aug 2009)

Let's go back to this:



			
				Jimmy P. On said:
			
		

> we all know how hard it is to get a sight picture on the C6 iron's while wearing a head set and/or goggles.



I asked: 
"And it would be easier to look through optical sights with helmet, headset and goggles?"

Your reply was this:



			
				Jimmy P. On said:
			
		

> Yes, as it "lifts" your head off of the butt, and allows more clearance between your face and the weapon.



You also stated this:



			
				Jimmy P. On said:
			
		

> Very true, but you aren't always only shooting on the move.  Stationary shooting should also be considered.




I forgot to add something, and you seem to have never fired many MGs on a Ground or Flex mount to know about it, so here is the part I forgot to mention to go along with the Helmet, Headset, and goggles; VIBRATION.  You are firing a MG that is not in a stable mount.  It vibrates.  There is not much more chance of you seeing through optical sights vibrating with the gun, while you are wearing all the afore mentioned kit, than through the iron sights.  If you wanted to clamp it down into a 20 mm Cannon mount like the 50 Cal was on the Lynx, then you would have a sniper weapon, but that is not likely to happen.

I really don't know why you would want optical and laser sights on a MG other than to snipe, and there are a lot better weapons out there designed specifically for sniping.



[EDIT to add:]

Not to mention Flash, Smoke and Dust that may obscure the sight picture.  (It's been a while.....How can you tell?)


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (12 Aug 2009)

recceguy said:
			
		

> George's favorite gun, circa 1894  I still piss myself when I recall that afternoon on the range ;D



That was the Gatling wasn't it?


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (12 Aug 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I forgot to add something, and you seem to have never fired many MGs on a Ground or Flex mount to know about it, so here is the part I forgot to mention to go along with the Helmet, Headset, and goggles; VIBRATION.  You are firing a MG that is not in a stable mount.  It vibrates.  There is not much more chance of you seeing through optical sights vibrating with the gun, while you are wearing all the afore mentioned kit, than through the iron sights.  If you wanted to clamp it down into a 20 mm Cannon mount like the 50 Cal was on the Lynx, then you would have a sniper weapon, but that is not likely to happen.


  I'm going to bow out of the "I've fired more machine guns from more things than you"  contest, I WILL lose that one. 

Having said that I have a bit of experience, and I was offering an opinion on versatility. 
You're going all black hat on me!!! 

I agree, it wouldn't be of use to everyone, but if we take a look at the next generation of GPMG coming out, it would seem like there are options out there worth exploring. After all, that's the beauty of a rail system, parts come right off when not required or suitable.

A mounted and dismounted model might be worth looking at (like the M240B vs M240C).  Although that might require 2 different NSN's and then limit part swapping.

Take a look at the Mk48, there are different barrel lengths, hand guards, butt stocks ect.

I ran into a guy at the mat tech shop in BAF.  We were both there getting ammo racks welded into our trucks, and got to talking.  He had this awful spotlight looking thing on the side of the .50(IR Floodlight), as well as a standard EoTech on a riser mount as the main sight.  He was saying its the best thing since sliced bread for VCP's and he was able to track targets much better at night.  After 2 years in Iraq, and 22 months in eastern Afghanistan, I was ready to take his advice.  

I did on our next gun run at the ranges and found it way easier.  
That's just me though, to others with more experience, it might be more of a hindrance.

You are right about flash, and dust, and vibration.  It's like trying to lag a target while flying down the desert surfing on the back of a 7000lb rhino. 

I just think if its a refurbishment we should look at having the most versatility possible, its not like there is a replacement coming anytime soon, and for good reason.  It truly is one of our best weapons, hands down.

As I said earlier "food for thought" not "gospel from the iron fist of the great leader".

http://www.elcan.com/ELCAN_Business_Areas/Sighting_Systems/Products/Day_Sights/SpecterM145.phpl

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Up-to-33M-to-Trijicon-for-M240B-Machine-Gun-Optics-05590/

http://www.trijicon.com/user/parts/products1.cfm?PartID=753

I'd like to hear from some more of the Infantry on this one. Apparently they know a thing or 10 about the pig.

Cheers,
AB

Edited for grammar and spelling, and links


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Really freaked out the Doctors, Nurses and Med A's.  ;D   But that was a C-9.  You were off to the left with the C-6s.  I still have no idea where that 12" blade went from the screwdriver.



OK. Think really hard here George, I know it was traumatic for you :blotto:. However, I was on the far right with the 9s and the two useless Bobs (Sgt & WO type) were to your left with the 72 & 84mm. You had the C-6 in the middle, on the road, under the flagpole and in front of the amb, which turned out to be in an excellent location


----------



## basrah (13 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Replacing the SF kit with something similar made of Titanium or composite materials. It will cost a fortune, but the reduction in weight will be well worth it.



With artillery, CAS, and every other different type of indirect fire, the SF kit is nearing the end of its days. Replacing it is totally pointless, as it does the job it was intended to do just fine. The powers that be really dont care if something is 5 pounds lighter if it costs triple the amount.

I have touched the SF kit twice in my military career (coming up on 8 years) once as an intro before my last tour, and once on the PSWQ course. If there was a major use for it we would be using it frequently.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2009)

I am positive that I was on a C-9 along with you and Another Recce Guy, and the two Bob's and Steve had C-6.  We weren't running a Mixed Range in the PM, although we had done the AT stuff in the morning.  The little Medic had a stoppage, and she performed the drills correctly.  When we opened the cover, she had a double feed and a round up the spout.  Due to the heavy firing, that round cooked off as I was cleaning the face of the bolt.  That is why I have been in the "C-9 is a piece of crap/feed problems" thread a long time ago.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2009)

Some interesting side discussions coming here.

I will have to disagree with some of them, of course  

1. The best way to sight and engage targets with a C6 is your Number 2, or the gun det commander if you have sited multiple guns. These individuals are not affected by flash, blast, dust or vibration (or at least not as much as the Number 1). Why the Americans put optical sights on their GPMG's is unknown to me; unless the LCF is a high priority, optical sights on a  GPMG provide only limited utility under _most_ circumstances.

2. If you have not been using your SF kit, you are losing about 2/3 of the effectiveness of your GPMG. Greater accuracy, doubling the effective range and the ability to engage targets with indirect fire using a map, compass and the C2 dial sight are capabilities that are well worth fighting to keep. A light weight SF kit might encourage more people to go out and learn these skills.

3. Indirect fire that the commander can bring on his own is a very valuable asset, which is why we have a vitriolic thread on exchanging the 60mm mortar for some form of AGL, and others on taking the 81mm away from the Infantry battalions. Yes, a 155 or 500lb bomb has far more "bang", but these assets don't "belong" to the engaged commander and there are additional time delays involved in getting them on target. If I can sweep a hillside from the reverse slope position or hammer a crossroad from a map grid then I have the drop on the enemy, who will have difficulty responding.

BTW, I am not a black hat, but an Infantryman, and for me there is nothing more dangerous than a well sited enemy MG. I just want to return the favour!


----------



## Fusaki (13 Aug 2009)

First off I'll say that I'm far from a C6 SME in the light or SF role.  I'm good to go with the COAX in the LAV turret, but beyond the PSWQ and other flat ranges I havn't been employed as a C6 gunner for any length of time in a real tactical situation.

That said, this is where I'm coming from in my previous comments.

- A good thermal sight would render the SF kit and C2 site obsolete. Why bother to mark and record targets for nighttime when you can just look through the sight and shoot them? It also has the benefit of being lighter then then tripod, more practical on the offensive, and increases effectiveness against targets in places you hadn't anticipated.  Thermal sights are also not washed out by muzzle flash and flares.  Recoil and vibration may still be an issue, but that can be mitigated by upgraded buffer springs and bipod.

- Firing the C6 indirect seems to be to be the answer to the question no one asked.  Like basrah, I've never seen the C6 employed like this and I've never been in a situation where it seemed like it would be useful.  The trajectory is just too flat, and the bullets are just too small to be worth any more than harassing fire.  These are strong arguments against the AGL as an indirect weapon, and I think they're even stronger arguments against the C6 for indirect fire.  What we really want is a light mortar for this sort of thing.

- The big argument I'm seeing against magnified optics is that the C6 GPMG is an area effect weapon.  To that I'd argue that our enemies these days are typically point targets.  My experience has been that the greatest difficulty is not in producing volume of fire, but in locating the bad guys and hitting fleeting targets with first burst hits.  90% of the time, a fleeting target is all we get.  Adjustments from a gun commander or #2 is just not fast enough. This is where a 4x magnified optic or thermal sight would shine.

- I don't want to come off as saying "The Americans have it, so we should too."  I just think that if sights and lasers were a bad idea, then it wouldn't be so common with our allies:

http://tgscom.com/images/sharedimages/GunSourceFrontPage/Images/M240/M240-1.jpg
http://www.worldwide-military.com/Army%20Material/Weapons%20plaatjes/Groot/M240B.jpg
http://www.omnitechpartners.com/images/uns_mounted_colorcorrected_large.jpg
http://www.arcent.army.mil/cflcc_today/2005/february/images/iraqi_election/23.jpg


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2009)

I will jump back in here, this time as a bonafide SME on GPMG in any role: light, medium, coax and flex.
Any thermal sight can be obscured by "stuff", and yes, they can fail.  You don't need to mark and record targets (SF) so long as the kit has been set up for indirect fire.  That setting up takes mere moments, and when I was a Gun Det Comd, it was set up as such in each and every occassion.  It wasn't always needed, but sometimes it was.  As for "why not just look through the sight and shoot them", the answer is obvious: you cannot always see them: thermal or no thermal.  The advantage of setting up for indirect fire, along with the trajectory (and range) of the gun when employed in the SF role, is that you can shoot over hill and dale.
Recoil and vibration are required to have an effective beaten zone; however, you don't want it too large either.  So, in the light role, we agree that there is more widely dispersed beaten zone.  Now, before going further, there is asight (the name fails me) that  can be fitted to the GPMG (light role).  So, there is scope for a sight (pun fully intended!) ;D
It's a shame that you haven't seen the C6 firing indirect.  And if you fully understood what "indirect fire" means, you would acknowledge that there are plenty of times for it.  (You are not alone in mis-interpreting "indirect fire".  First of all, it has nothing to do with trajectory.  Heck, the mortar can be fired in the direct fire role!  "Indirect Fire" essentially means that the weapon operator does not see the target, but rather aims at an aiming point.  A third-location observer sends data and corrections to the firer because he sees the target.  As an example, suppose you are near Telephone 10 here in Gagetown, dug in, gun arcs facing north.  You are on a bit of a reverse slope, and you cannot see Springbok Biv from your position. You are well within GPMG (SF) range, and you have a traversing target on the woods.  Your SF is set up for indirect fire.  The Gun Controller figures out bearing and distance, checks the firing tables, and tells you "Bearing aaaa, Elevation bbbb".  You apply the data to the C2, you sight in on your Aiming Point, level bubbles, etc, and then report "on".  The gun  controller gives you the application of fire and word of command, and away you start blasting in 20 round bursts, traversing right 5 clicks.  You return to your original point of aim and report "on".  As you look up into the night sky after each burst, (but before checking bubbles, etc), you note that the tracers arc over the horizon.  You fail to see them drop in.  Some other dude in the company does see them, however, and corrections are applied.  In other cases, assume that it's night, and you have your requisite targets all set up.  That is classic employment of the GPMG in the indirect role.  This is a different weapon from the mortar, and they complement each other.  Remember, the GPMG rounds still come in on a low trajectory, whereas the CASW chimera is supposed to lob in high angle much like a mortar (different arguments)
I agree with you that targets are often fleeting and there are indeed cases where a sight would come in handy for any weapon.  I'm just not sure if it's feasible (logistically, etc) to have all GPMGs so equipped.

I would argue for the proper use of the GPMG when it's used in the medium role.


----------



## basrah (13 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> And if you fully understood what "indirect fire" means, you would acknowledge that there are plenty of times for it.  (You are not alone in mis-interpreting "indirect fire".  First of all, it has nothing to do with trajectory.



I will assume you are directing this at me, since I am the one who brought up the lack of use for the indirect fire role. Your assumption is wrong, and I am very well versed with what direct and indirect fire is, and how to properly employ it. The fact of the matter is that in the C6 role it is outdated. How many SF kits are currently in use in Afghanistan? A big fat zero. In fact I have been deployed on three tours, to three different countries, and have never seen any sort of MG set up in an indirect role. Wars are no longer fought the way the used to be with static entrenched positions, where wire obstacles funnel troops through to kill zones, or pre-registered targets are set up so they can be engaged at night. It is thinking like this that is keeping out dated training in our battle schools, and keeping out more useful information. 

I still say, the only thing the C6 needs is the old gas regulator, perhaps a stronger bipod, and maybe a more detailed cleaning kit.


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> I will assume you are directing this at me, since I am the one who brought up the lack of use for the indirect fire role. Your assumption is wrong, and I am very well versed with what direct and indirect fire is, and how to properly employ it. The fact of the matter is that in the C6 role it is outdated. How many SF kits are currently in use in Afghanistan? A big fat zero. In fact I have been deployed on three tours, to three different countries, and have never seen any sort of MG set up in an indirect role. Wars are no longer fought the way the used to be with static entrenched positions, where wire obstacles funnel troops through to kill zones, or pre-registered targets are set up so they can be engaged at night. It is thinking like this that is keeping out dated training in our battle schools, and keeping out more useful information.
> 
> I still say, the only thing the C6 needs is the old gas regulator, perhaps a stronger bipod, and maybe a more detailed cleaning kit.


Actually, the "indirect fire" comment was meant, quite neutrally, I might add, for Wonderbread.
As for the SF role and it not being used as such is a failure to use the system properly.  Whether or not the SF kit has been used is moot in terms of arguing that it is outdated.  I can think of a thousand and one instances in which the employment of the GPMG as an MMG would serve its purpose much better than as an LMG.  If these were classified means, I could relate to you, in detail, many cases in which a GPMG properly set up would have enabled those dudes behind the gun to fire at the bad guys.  The fact that there was no GPMG set up properly as an MMG really blows me away.
The artillery use pre-registered targets, and on my tour the 60s were set up by legacy Advanced Mortarman qualified WOs and NCOs to great effect, again, with pre-registered targets.  Why take that capability away from the GPMG?
Now, I'll open the floor to you.  Exactly what dated training do we have in our battle schools, and with what would you replace it?  
(NB: I'm not being snot nosed or anything here. I would honestly like to see what people, yourself, others, would rather see taught on DP 1 Infantry as an example.)


----------



## Jammer (13 Aug 2009)

What!!!!
No  C-6 SF kits in Afghanistan eh?
I'm sure I saw one at my Strong Point, along with a dismounted .50 AND and 60mm mortar, tripod and all.
I pretty sure my eyes weren't f@#$ed up because...oh yeah I SIGNED FOR IT!!!!
(got to use it a few times too).
What is your tour experience then, cuz it sure as hell ain't where I was, otherwise you would know better than to spout off about situations in which you apparently have had no exposure to.


----------



## JimmyPeeOn (13 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 1). Why the Americans put optical sights on their GPMG's is unknown to me; unless the LCF is a high priority, optical sights on a  GPMG provide only limited utility under _most_ circumstances.



These guys were hauling up and down the mountains, daily.  For distances longer than our BFT.
 Sometimes in excess of 48 hour patrol ops.  I'm certain if they didn't feel it was useful, it would be left behind. The guys were trying to save weight every way possible, and for damn good reason. LCF was not a factor, I assure you.



			
				Wonderbread said:
			
		

> - I don't want to come off as saying "The Americans have it, so we should too."  I just think that if sights and lasers were a bad idea, then it wouldn't be so common with our allies:



Ditto, but its just where my experience lies, and is the closest comparison to an " upgraded" C6 that I can think of.  I see it as being a good idea for dismounted, and light vehicle use.

How would this negatively affect it in other roles?


----------



## Nfld Sapper (13 Aug 2009)

From my limited use of the C-6 GPMG I would like to see a return to the old gas regulator and for training maybe a better suited BFA, one that does not need to have the falsh eliminator removed.


My  :2c: worth.


----------



## basrah (13 Aug 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> What!!!!
> No  C-6 SF kits in Afghanistan eh?
> I'm sure I saw one at my Strong Point, along with a dismounted .50 AND and 60mm mortar, tripod and all.
> I pretty sure my eyes weren't f@#$ed up because...oh yeah I SIGNED FOR IT!!!!
> ...



My tour experience? SFOR, OIF and Archer 0108. As for where I was on the last tour, well, every PSS in Panjwai and Zhari, with most of my time spent at Mushan.


I didnt know they had all those weapons set up in KAF, congrats on signing for them.


----------



## Jammer (13 Aug 2009)

Strong Point Gundy Ghar and Lakokhel...maybe you've heard of them?


----------



## Jammer (13 Aug 2009)

Classy PM basrah.


----------



## NavyShooter (13 Aug 2009)

I'll step out of my lane for a sec and put in .02 (or less....it is a recession!)

I'm a sailor, so my exposure to the C-6 has been relatively limited, however, one thing that I think might be needed is a better aircraft mount for the Sea King.  

I recall seeing them bungeed into place with a jury-rigged brass bag.

Things may have changed since the last time I saw this rig setup (been 3-4 years since the fly-boys were on a ship with me) so this issue might be a non-issue.

I'll just toss out that while it is primarily an "Army" weapon, they're in use by the other services, so don't forget to ask around when you decide to change an inservice weapons system.

I mean, ya never know when we'll need to borrow some more 40mm Bofors guns from the Gagetown Museum.....(or some such thing)

NS


----------



## zipperhead_cop (13 Aug 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Strong Point Gundy Ghar and Lakokhel...maybe you've heard of them?



Lakokhel?  That all-inclusive resort?  Pfft!!   :



(that is just kidding, btw.  You guys had a hell of a go over there  )


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

Jammer said:
			
		

> Strong Point Gundy Ghar and Lakokhel...maybe you've heard of them?



Just talked to my friend who I worked with in Mushan. He spent 4 months in Lakokhel before coming to us and he clarified the C6 in SF role there. There was a C6, mounted on a tripod, simply because it was easier to 'swing around and engage targets wherever they popped up.' They used the tripod simply because it was there and was easier than picking the gun up and moving it. There were never pre-designated targets registered to the gun, and there was never a C2 sight mounted to it.

I hardly classify this as using the C6 in the SF role, or as indirect fire. 

Ill talk to a few friends at work tomorrow about GG and see what the deal was there.


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I'm a sailor, so my exposure to the C-6 has been relatively limited, however, one thing that I think might be needed is a better aircraft mount for the Sea King.
> 
> I recall seeing them bungeed into place with a jury-rigged brass bag.
> 
> ...



So were these door guns? I have only ever been on one Brit Sea King, and it did have a GPMG as the door gun, but there was a mount for it.

I find it shocking that they would simply bungee it in there without a proper mount! I hope they have fixed this.


----------



## aesop081 (14 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> So were these door guns?



Yes and there is a proper mount.

http://www.airforceimagery.forces.gc.ca/netpub/server.np?find&catalog=casimages&template=detail2_e.np&field=itemid&op=matches&value=8732&site=casimages


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

I just want to jump back in here for a moment and hopefully end the "my tour was xxx" and so forth.  This isn't about tours, who's done what, etc.

(First of all, for basrah, Op ARCHER "is the deployment of about 12 senior CF members in Kabul with the Combined Security Transition Command – Afghanistan (CSTC-A), a U.S.-led multinational organization that provides mentors and trainers to help Afghanistan’s Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Interior organize, train, equip, employ and support the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police."
If you were on TF 1-08 (BG or OMLT or PRT), then you were part of Op ATHENA, but that's neither here nor there).

Now, the argument of "it wasn't using properly, therefore the proper way to use it" is a fallacious argument.  I know of at least two specific cases where a GPMG set for firing using map and firing table would have been appropriate.  There are more, I'm certain of it.  

Here's the thing.  In every case where there were contacts within about 2 km from any position with GPMG, in most cases (not all), use of the GPMG in this way would have worked.  Let me give a hypothetical.

Imagine that there is a high feature somewhere in Darfur.  It overlooks a plain that stretches for kilometres in all directions.  On that plain is a network of roads that the CF as part of Op DEUTERONOMY, uses for supplying its OPs, checkpoints, etc.  On top of that high feature is a platoon or so of soldiers who monitor the ceasefire between the Sudanese Army and the Rebels of Darfur.  The Rebels are mounting an insurgency, and IEDs have become a threat.

WO Jack Stone, a tough as nails fellow, is the platoon warrant officer.  Lt Hymie Newguy, is the platoon commander, barely seven months out of the Infantry School.  Looking around their AOO (Area of Operations) on the map, WO Stone points out that there are five identified "hotspots" where insurgents like to place IEDs every few days.  They do so at night, and recently there have been cases in which the supporting artillery battery has been unable to fire their missions due to higher priority targets being engaged.  All five are within two kilometres or so of the COP (Combat Out Post).  The platoon commander talks about setting up ambushes along the hotspots.  The Warrant has a better idea.

"Sir, we due to us being out here on our own, we have two GPMGs with SF kits.  I can set them up such that they both can engage any of the five hotspots."

"Why, that's crazy?  How can you do that?"

"Let me tell you," begins the Warrant, whose brother is Vince from Sham WOW.  "I can have them set up and use those five targets as recorded targets.  If we see someone down there doing 'stuff', and if we are cleared to engage, then I can have fire on them instantly, without having to resort to calling in a fire mission."

"That's great, Warrant, but what if someone finds a new place to set them up?  Surely we can't engage them unless we see them!"

"That's where you're wrong.  All I need is the grid of the bad guys, and I can engage them as well."

So, after explaining the methods, the good warrant, along with Sgt Tony Rock, set the guns up and dry record them.

That night, as Lt Newguy worried, some insurgents were seen setting up IEDs at Grid 123456 (how convenient!).  As it turned out, that grid was not visible from the outpost due to some intervening terrain.  (A goat herder saw them, reported it, and it was verified by an un-armed UAV overhead).  After some quick calculations, WO Stone deduced that the trajectory of the bullets would clear the intervening terrain.  The guns were laid on a bearing and elevation, and using the live feed from the UAV to apply corrections, the guns engaged.  One quick adjustment was needed, and soon the three insurgents were struck down in a hail of gun fire.

"Wow, warrant, that was awesome," said Lt Newguy.


Anyway, the proper employment of the GMPG with SF kit is but one tool in the tool box.  People may have been using rocks as hammers over there, and sometimes that's necessary; however, that doesn't mean that we don't need hammers.  The GPMG with SF is but one hammer, and it's a crying shame that it's not being used to full potential.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Aug 2009)

Amen to that MR.

Using a GPMG in the direct fire role to engage (fleeting) point targets is possible, but hardly addresses the potential of the gun. For that matter, IMO, the best way to engage a fleeting point target would be a sniper or platoon marksman, who can move and act much quicker than a gunner weighted down with the 11 KG GPMG and lord knows what else.

Marking and recording targets is a "must" in any defended locality, and I am astonished to hear that this isn't being done at FOBs or COPs (or maybe we're just messing with the minds of unfriendly anonymous readers for OPSEC reasons...).

Our friend WO Stone would also know that setting up cut offs in Urban Ops can be done quickly and effectively using an SF kit, and the gun crew can be more than a kilometer away from the building they are isolating, something that you should think about when making the approach march with the assault group; the bad guys have a lot less notice of you getting in position than if the GPMG has to come within 800m of the position. Terrain will dictate.

Dividing urban terrain into sectors and using GPMG fire down streches of arterial rioads is also more effective when the guns can engage out to 1800m.

Lets face it, the real reason many people don't understand how to use the GPMG in the SF role isn't because it is a bad or outdated idea, it is because we have developed bad habits, are lazy in training and have not properly absorbed the lessons of the war (much less "war"). I would hope WO's out there will dust off the pams and put this back into the training program (and this includes the CSS and other arms and services.)

.05 (due to the recession)


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

If it was niether here nor there, and bringing up tours had nothing to do with the discussion, then why bother pointing out what role and name Op Archer was? Was that your attempt at pretending not to care, but being smug and condecending at the same time? Well played. In the 3VP lines, there are large murals of photos, with the unit that participated written under the OP name. Ours says OP Archer, so thats what I go by. I couldnt care less what the name is. 

As for the SF kit, you can bring up any make believe situation you like, but the fact is that it is not being used. Perhaps you should, in all your infinite knowledge, start telling people overseas how to properly engage the targets they are shooting at... who knows, you could be the missing link to winning the war on terror in Afghanistan! 

The kit is no longer used because with all the additional, modern weapons we have, and ways of calling in fire, and unit mobility, it is no longer the most viable solution to an enemy threat. 

Feel free to keep coming up with pretend stories about roads and high features to try and prove a point, Ill just keep going from real operational experience.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> If it was niether here nor there, and bringing up tours had nothing to do with the discussion, then why bother pointing out what role and name Op Archer was? Was that your attempt at pretending not to care, but being smug and condecending at the same time? Well played. In the 3VP lines, there are large murals of photos, with the unit that participated written under the OP name. Ours says OP Archer, so thats what I go by. I couldnt care less what the name is.
> 
> As for the SF kit, you can bring up any make believe situation you like, but the fact is that it is not being used. Perhaps you should, in all your infinite knowledge, start telling people overseas how to properly engage the targets they are shooting at... who knows, you could be the missing link to winning the war on terror in Afghanistan!
> 
> ...


Part of my pointing out what the name of the operation was that you were on was about the first rule of writing: accuracy.
3VP was never part of Op Archer.  Why not just put is as part of Op OVERLORD?  
Have a look again at my "made up" situation.  It may resemble a situation (place) in Zharey.  Western Zharey.  South of Howz-e Medad, west of Lakokhel, and north of Mushan.  Just maybe a bit similar is all I'm saying.
I'm telling you, and yes, put your helmet on because here it comes, that I do have the training and I do have the experience (some of which pre-dates your enrolment, thank you very much).
I don't care for your self-proclaimed expertise on the matter, however, you opinion DOES matter.  I ask you though: was there not at least ONE occasion in which the SF kit could have been used because air/arty/lasers/satellites/Death Stars weren't available?  There were several on my tour.

Is the SF kit the be-all/end-all?  By no means!  But throw it out because some 3 VP para-corporal doesn't like it?  Bullocks!
Get your PLQ then your 3A then we can talk.


----------



## helpup (14 Aug 2009)

What doesnt help is taking a 5-6 week long MG Crse and condensing it to the currrent PSWQ.  In that the C6 in the SF role is taught and passed in a fraction of the time as it use to be.  Gone are the in depth lessons that use to be mandatory for the SF kit.  

I dont know if I should laugh or cry on some of the posts that rely on " we did not use it there " therefor it must be usless.


----------



## Fusaki (14 Aug 2009)

> It's a shame that you haven't seen the C6 firing indirect.  And if you fully understood what "indirect fire" means, you would acknowledge that there are plenty of times for it.  (You are not alone in mis-interpreting "indirect fire".



To clarify, I've got the book-learning required to shoot the C6 indirect and we're on the same page with the terminology.  I did my IPSWQ, passed the PO Check, got the qual, etc.  What I don't have is experience as a C6 gunner beyond the course material, flat ranges, and odd tasks here and there.  Also, I shouldn't have mentioned the CASW - you're right, thats a different argument.

I understand that you _can_ shoot the C6 indirect - even though the bullets fly on a relatively flat trajectory.  What I'm saying is that because of it's flat trajectory, the C6 is not a very effective indirect weapon.  In real life, the badguys just don't do things out in the open.  They look for wadis, grape rows, ditches, ect.  Unless WO Stone managed to catch the bad guys in the first burst (which by that distance would be a fairly large and therefore unsaturated beaten area), they'd be diving for cover and the 7.62 would pass harmlessly overhead.  If I were WO Stone I'd be recommending that the young Lt employ the 60mm mortar - a weapon that drops some high-angle hell to get those hard to reach places.  Because of it's steep trajectory, you _need_ overhead protection to protect from it.  Because of the C6's flat trajectory, a ditch is good enough.

I understand that things cost money, and it's just not possible to buy every bell and whistle for every weapons system.  What I'm saying is that the money is better spent on optimizing the C6 for direct fire by adding optics and lasers instead of clinging to the indirect capability.  While thermal viewers _can_ be obscured by various things, they don't require you to mark and record targets prior to contact.  IMHO the tradeoff is well worth it.  *Keep the tripod for the defensive if you want - It'll tighten the beaten zone and increase effective range.  But there's no reason why in 2009 our most effective weapons systems shouldn't be able to see in the dark.*

Thucydides, PM inbound.

On a side note, my barracks box had "Op Athena" spray painted on it when I went to Kabul in '05, then they told me to spraypaint "Op Archer" when I went to Kandahar in '06. Both tours with a rifle coy.  What gives? I'm not being snarky, just curious.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

Wonderbread said:
			
		

> To clarify, I've got the book-learning required to shoot the C6 indirect and we're on the same page with the terminology.  I did my IPSWQ, passed the PO Check, got the qual, etc.  What I don't have is experience as a C6 gunner beyond the course material, flat ranges, and odd tasks here and there.  Also, I shouldn't have mentioned the CASW - you're right, thats a different argument.
> 
> I understand that you _can_ shoot the C6 indirect - even though the bullets fly on a relatively flat trajectory.  What I'm saying is that because of it's flat trajectory, the C6 is not a very effective indirect weapon.  In real life, the badguys just don't do things out in the open.  They look for wadis, grape rows, ditches, ect.  Unless WO Stone managed to catch the bad guys in the first burst (which by that distance would be a fairly large and therefore unsaturated beaten area), they'd be diving for cover and the 7.62 would pass harmlessly overhead.  If I were WO Stone I'd be recommending that the young Lt employ the 60mm mortar - a weapon that drops some high-angle hell to get those hard to reach places.  Because of it's steep trajectory, you _need_ overhead protection to protect from it.  Because of the C6's flat trajectory, a ditch is good enough.
> 
> ...


You make some very good points.  (The reason I brought up "indirect fire does not always mean high angle" wasn't meant to slight you or anyone else.  I just find that not many people realise that, is all)
(Op ARCHER was the first part of 1 VP's tour in Kandahar.  It "transferred" to ATHENA on 01 Aug 06 when you stopped being part of OEF and began to be part of ISAF.)
I understand that the GMPG in SF role, especially indirect, will not always hit.  Having said that, imagine the situation you mentioned.  First burst misses, but forces them to ground.  That's when the 60 can hit them.  The one ability that the GPMG has is that it could keep firing (especially in pairs) to keep them there, and who knows, maybe buy time for the A-10 fleets to come in, or M-777 gunners to end mission on other targets, or whatever.
As for night sight capability, I would argue that a rail not be put on the thing.  I'm serious when I say this: it would only involve DLR, and they could mess up the proverbial circle.  Having said that, a night sight capability for it, light or SF role, is already available, if i'm not mistaken.  I'll have to get back to you on that one.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> *What doesnt help is taking a 5-6 week long MG Crse and condensing it to the currrent PSWQ.  * In that the C6 in the SF role is taught and passed in a fraction of the time as it use to be.  Gone are the in depth lessons that use to be mandatory for the SF kit.
> 
> I dont know if I should laugh or cry on some of the posts that rely on " we did not use it there " therefor it must be usless.


I couldn't agree more.  The basic MG course was 5 weeks (or so), and boy, did we ever fire a crap load.  Then on the SAIC, we fired even more.
GPMG with SF, used to record targets, indirect (sorry, the term is now "using map and firing tables"), whatever, is one hell of a potential we seem to be throwing away.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Aug 2009)

helpup said:
			
		

> I dont know if I should laugh or cry on some of the posts that rely on " we did not use it there " therefor it must be usless.



By that logic:  We haven't done an airborne insertion in Afghanistan.  Therefore, we should disband the jump companies.


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> Part of my pointing out what the name of the operation was that you were on was about the first rule of writing: accuracy.
> 3VP was never part of Op Archer.  Why not just put is as part of Op OVERLORD?
> Have a look again at my "made up" situation.  It may resemble a situation (place) in Zharey.  Western Zharey.  South of Howz-e Medad, west of Lakokhel, and north of Mushan.  Just maybe a bit similar is all I'm saying.
> I'm telling you, and yes, put your helmet on because here it comes, that I do have the training and I do have the experience (some of which pre-dates your enrolment, thank you very much).
> ...



Like I said, I couldnt care less about the name of the OP. Why dont you call the CO or RSM here and have them repaint the writing on the walls so it has the proper name. I guess the problem is that we really dont care what the name is, because that is the least important part of it. Speaking of accuracy, how do you know what my enrolment date is? Granted, Im not a 42 year old MCpl, but I have more than my fair share of operational experience, and a Mod 6 and SA course arent going to change my opinions on the usage of these weapons. 

Considering that the people who decided not to use these SF kits were far above my paygrade, perhaps they are on to something there. It seems to me that courses and TI are what make a soldier understand the theory of MG fire. I wonder why they chose  not to use these weapons.

Did I ever see a time when the C6 would have been better fitted in the SF role? I am being completely honest here when I say a big no. If it had, we would have used it, because the kits were all there, collecting dust. We did use the tripod, but never for the indirect role. We had a great artillery crew backing us up, a mortar pit with pre designated targets, and a few other nice things that for OPSEC Im not going to mention. A C6 in the SF role really wasnt worth the time, and it was never even brought up.

As for dapterson, there have been plenty of airmobile ops in Afghanistan, and that is part of being in para coy. Also, the US have done several para drops, one of which was large scale. A cookie to the first who can tell me where that drop was.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Aug 2009)

Are you talking about the drop by one of the Ranger battalions to sieze Kandahar Airfield in October 2001?


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Are you talking about the drop by one of the Ranger battalions to sieze Kandahar Airfield in October 2001?



Yes indeed! On 20 October 2001, 200 Rangers from the 75th and a number of special ops pers made a night time drop into the kandahar airfield. 

Im willing to bet they didnt jump in any SF kits either....


----------



## Jammer (14 Aug 2009)

..so call the 75th Rangers and ask them, I'm sure they would value your opinion.
I like the reference to me though, you can't seem to let that one go.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> Like I said, I couldnt care less about the name of the OP. Why dont you call the CO or RSM here and have them repaint the writing on the walls so it has the proper name. I guess the problem is that we really dont care what the name is, because that is the least important part of it. Speaking of accuracy, how do you know what my enrolment date is? Granted, Im not a 42 year old MCpl, but I have more than my fair share of operational experience, and a Mod 6 and SA course arent going to change my opinions on the usage of these weapons.
> 
> Considering that the people who decided not to use these SF kits were far above my paygrade, perhaps they are on to something there. It seems to me that courses and TI are what make a soldier understand the theory of MG fire. I wonder why they chose  not to use these weapons.
> 
> ...


OK, FYI, Airmobile Ops is one of the tasks expected of the *infantry*.  Period.  N Coy of 3 RCR (a mech infantry company, by the way) conducted air assaults this past spring in Afghanistan.  dapaterson mentiond Airbone ops.  FYI: there is a difference.  The question: how many has CANADA done in Afghanistan?  None.  Should we get rid of that capability? By your argument, a big fat *YES*.

Now, I've seen your profile  (and you've probably seen mine), and it was from there that I deduced (a) that you are a Cpl and (b) that you don't have 3A or PLQ (Mod 6).  FYI, 3A will teach you things about stuff.  If you knew the subject material, then you'd be done with it and ask for an equivalency. 

Now I will surrender to you, since you obviously have more _relevant_ experience than I.  So: no SF kits.  Basrah said so.
[/exit]


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> Yes indeed! On 20 October 2001, 200 Rangers from the 75th and a number of special ops pers made a night time drop into the kandahar airfield.
> 
> *Im willing to bet they didnt jump in any SF kits either....*


They didn't bring LAVs with them either.  So fucking what?  Besides, they use a variant of the M2 tripod with their M-240s (M192 is the latest variant).


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

I never said we should get rid of the SF kit completely. I said that to spend millions on new ones is pointless. Big difference.

War changes. For all we know there may be a front that opens up where we will use the kit, but for Afghanistan it really doesnt have a big enough potential to validate spending money on new ones.

As for not jumping in LAVs.... well, untill we come up with something like a BMD that can be dropped, I would be shocked to see them dropping a LAV. The difference is that SF kits can be dropped in.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> I never said we should get rid of the SF kit completely. I said that to spend millions on new ones is pointless. Big difference.


I agree with you here.  100%.


			
				basrah said:
			
		

> War changes. For all we know there may be a front that opens up where we will use the kit, but for Afghanistan it really doesnt have a big enough potential to validate spending money on new ones.



Again, I agree.  We do disagree, however, on whether or not recorded targets for the SF kits could be used over there.  I say we agree to disagree on that.


			
				basrah said:
			
		

> As for not jumping in LAVs.... well, untill we come up with something like a BMD that can be dropped, I would be shocked to see them dropping a LAV. The difference is that SF kits can be dropped in.


True; however, the US Rangers (et al) don't use SF kits at all.  They use a variant of the M2 tripod.  Whether or not they brought them in, I don't know.  If they brought the .50, you /know/ they brought them in.

My point is this: whatever the US took with them on 20 Oct 2001 is irrelevant.  They have their kit, we have ours.  Some is virtually the same, some are light-years apart.  If comparisons are to be made, then we must make them relevant, that's all.
:cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2009)

basrah said:
			
		

> Like I said, I couldnt care less about the name of the OP. Why dont you call the CO or RSM here and have them repaint the writing on the walls so it has the proper name. I guess the problem is that we really dont care what the name is, because that is the least important part of it. Speaking of accuracy, how do you know what my enrolment date is? Granted, Im not a 42 year old MCpl, but I have more than my fair share of operational experience, and a Mod 6 and SA course arent going to change my opinions on the usage of these weapons.



I think it's about time you pulled in your horns and got on with discussing the technical merits of the thread question. Either leave the other be, or take it to PMs.

That goes for the rest, forget the ops, stops and para drops. Put the dicks away and go back and read the thread question(s) in the first post and stick to the evolving discussion pertaining to that.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## basrah (14 Aug 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> If comparisons are to be made, then we must make them relevant, that's all.
> :cheers:



I can work with that. I'll do my best to make relivant comparisons that fit with the topic at hand.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2009)

Having received a number of PM's on the subject and looking at the direction the thread is taking, I would first of all say: take a breather. Using the SF kit has a time and place, we just don't seem to agree on where that is.

Much of the argument against using the SF kit seems to center on the two factors: speed of target engagements and the mass of the SF kit. Obviously spinning dials and leveling the bubble is longer than swinging the gun around and laying by eye, but the down side is laying by eye is notoriously inaccurate and limits the effective range of the gun by 2/3 according to the new firing tables. 

The compromise solution may actually lie in the past, I recall reading about trials of a then new sight called CLASS in the late 1980's or early 1990's. CLASS as described was a day/night sight with a built in laser rangefinder and pre programmed ballistic tables. The gunner attached CLASS to the weapon, set the ballistic computer to the correct weapon then looked through the sight. Once the laser rangefinder did its work, the graticle was adjusted to reflect the correct point of aim and the gunner relaid the weapon. The target audience was actually the Carl-G and first round hits were possible at ranges of 800-1000m if I recall correctly, but ballistic tables were included for GPMG, HMG and the Mk 19 automatic grenade launcher, so the sight could be used for a multiplicity of weapons.

A modern version incorporating thermal imaging would allow for faster target identification, and placement on an SF kit would allow for engagements out to the maximum range. The use of a dial sight to engage reverse slopes and other indirect targets should still be retained. As a BTW, I am still of the opinion that engaging fleeting point targets is _not_ the job of the gunner, a sniper or platoon marksman can probably engage the targets faster and more reliably (as well as with less chance of revealing the position). The MGs can and should be used to create beaten zones that limit the enemy's ability to move and can drive them into KZ's that other weapons (like mortars) can engage.

Why do the higher powers not use the SF kits? I would suggest that since they haven't taken the 5 week MG course they probably are not aware of the full possibilities that the SF kit offers, and there is probably a level of laziness involved as well ("why take the SF kit on this EX, it's heavy and we probably won't use it anyway...") that limits people's exposure to the kit and the full range of possibilities.


----------



## Dissident (15 Aug 2009)

I remember reading on this sites years ago that machine gun indirect fire skills were in danger of getting lost. I guess we are here now?

My opinion is that the SF kit and indirect MG fire is a combo that must be maintained or even further this capability.

The CLASS sight sounds interesting, any other info on this?


----------



## dangerboy (15 Aug 2009)

Dissident said:
			
		

> I remember reading on this sites years ago that machine gun indirect fire skills were in danger of getting lost. I guess we are here now?



I fear we are losing it very fast, one of the consequences of shorting the Basic Machine gun course and moving it onto the IPSWQ.  On the IPSWQ you have 2 x periods theory. While the Shooting program pam does not even outline indirect shoots.


----------



## R031button (15 Aug 2009)

I'm bring this up a little late here, but can somebody explain to me why a laser would be wasted on the C6? I mean sure if will get obscured by smoke and what not, but frankly, so do your eyes. Being able to use your NVG's with the C6 would be valuable in any sort of light infantry patrolling / advance to contact situation.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2009)

R031button said:
			
		

> I'm bring this up a little late here, but can somebody explain to me why a laser would be wasted on the C6? I mean sure if will get obscured by smoke and what not, but frankly, so do your eyes. Being able to use your NVG's with the C6 would be valuable in any sort of light infantry patrolling / advance to contact situation.



Since the GPMG is an area weapon, the engagement of point targets should be left to the riflemen, particularly any designated marksmen or snipers attached to you. As well, the GPMG is much larger than a rifle and requires a few moments to set up even in the light role. By that point the #2 or det commander should be pointing out your target area(s).

A Laser rangefinder used by the det commander or built into a sight like the CLASS is useful, but a laser pointer is more important for the rifleman.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2009)

Dissident said:
			
		

> The CLASS sight sounds interesting, any other info on this?



http://pubs.drdc.gc.ca/PDFS/zbb58/p507582.pdf

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Rangefinding+with+Eye-safe+Light-a070367447


> CDC - Control Data Corporation ) Computerized LASer Sight (Class) can improve the accuracy of the M40 or of lighter weapons such as the shoulder-fired Carl-Gustaf. Class uses an eye-safe laser rangefinder with a range of up to 4000 metres, and a ballistic computer able to store data for up to ten ammunition types, plus a Gen III image intensification sight. Canadian army trials showed that soldiers using Carl-Gustafs fitted with the Class sight were able to achieve a 73 per cent first-round hit probability, and engage targets at 800 metres or more.



Oddly enough, there seems to be nothing else, and no internet archived copies of the Canadian Infantry Journal (which had an article about the CLASS sight).


----------



## R031button (22 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since the GPMG is an area weapon, the engagement of point targets should be left to the riflemen, particularly any designated marksmen or snipers attached to you. As well, the GPMG is much larger than a rifle and requires a few moments to set up even in the light role. By that point the #2 or det commander should be pointing out your target area(s).
> 
> A Laser rangefinder used by the det commander or built into a sight like the CLASS is useful, but a laser pointer is more important for the rifleman.



Noted, but I would argue that a laser pointer, ie PAQ 4 / PEQ 2, would substantially improve target acquisition at night. I understand that it's an area weapon, but I als know that the C6 gunner is wearing an NVG, and that aiming down the sight with an NVG is a supreme pain, if it's even that useful. Why make the det / gun commander do extra work when you can have the C6 on target in the first or second burst, we are already moving in that direction for the LMG, I fail to see why we aren't going that way with the GPMG. Honestly, compared to the rest of the ammo and kit, a PAQ 4 with a rail mount isn't that much more.


----------



## vonGarvin (23 Aug 2009)

For the GPMG (light role), perhaps a laser pointer would work.  Let's not forget that the GPMG is, when dismounted, an LMG.  If you could mount a laser on it without making doing the drills prohibitive, then why not?


----------



## KevinB (25 Aug 2009)

Lasers are a force multplier - however most is not all in the CF do not get enough experience with working with them to make a valid determination of their effectiveness.

 IR (Dim) Tracer is a much more effective nighttime means of engaging the enemy, as tracer has a nasty point of indicating where round do come FROM as well as where they are going.

 If the soldier is able at night (where with STANO items the Western Armies are able to operate much more effectively than our foes) to engage without warning and without major corrections - that is a bonus.

Add a suppressor and your MG is a nightime killing tool without equal.


 Ti receiver -cuts out a huge amount of weight 
 RAS system and top rail cover to add accessories
 Better gas plus/regulator system 
 Shorter Barrel for Complex Terrain Operations
Suppressor
Belt Bag
Ti bipod - more lightwight replacements

The US Military has gone to magnified optics on the M240 to help gunners aim in counter insurgency warfare.  Dispersed positions don't always allow for a AG or Wpn Det Cdr to aid in target detection and identification


----------



## helpup (8 Sep 2009)

Midnight Rambler said:
			
		

> N Coy of 3 RCR (a mech infantry company, by the way) conducted air assaults this past spring in Afghanistan.
> [/exit]



Point to note in accuracy.  N Coy since 3 RCR stood back up has been light Inf with a leaning towards role of being the SME's on Heli Op's.  They were Mech'd up for the tour. ( plus and minus of that is for a differant thread)

Not sure if someone has already pointed that out as I am still reading this


----------



## helpup (8 Sep 2009)

I think a earlier post hit the nail on the head.  The IPSW Crse came out of the need to streamline Trg and since the 50 cal at that time was expected to be removed from the System.  It was decided to condense the MG Crse into a IPSW as part of the DP package.  This was done with the noblest intents.  However as was pointed out earlier we are not experiencing a severe case of skills fade with the ability to emply these MG's to their full capability.  The C6 and SF kit are still versitile and could use upgrades but before we think about doing this, I feel we need to bring back a more comprehensive MG crse.  Use the students on that Crse to make suggestions to the Staff on what changes would be required.  Vet this with the pleathora of overseas experience we have.  Cross check with the Navy and Airforce for thier requirements.  Come up with a plan and follow it through.

Or do what we have been doing.  Use the kit we have to the best of our abilities ( the books for Indirect role, or advance tables for C6 & 50 are out there) aknowledge that there is skills fade and work as best as possible to correct it.  Outside of getting my Pl Mech'd up I plan to go over intensivly with the Pl how to fully employ the C6.  If we get over there and the SF kit does not leave a FOB/Strong point so be it.  But better to know how to do something and not need it.  Then find out you could do something but didnt know how.


----------



## Pointer (17 Sep 2009)

A C79 would be nice, methinks.  I don't think it would really take anything away from the gun, particularly if you left the iron sights on. 

But really, what the C6 needs is an M203 and side-mounted shotgun for close-range engagements.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Sep 2009)

Pointer said:
			
		

> But really, what the C6 needs is an M203 and side-mounted shotgun for close-range engagements.



 Sorry, but....

op:

OWDU
Armourer and Iraq Vet


----------



## Arsenal (17 Sep 2009)

Heat shield for dismount... The use of optics should be up to the gunner.

But seriously instead of bullets it should shoot freakin lasers.


----------



## Loachman (17 Sep 2009)

Quick-detachable water jacket for dealing with human-wave-type assaults.

And those neat little metal wheels for hand-towing it around with a full jacket.

I don't know why those went out of fashion.


----------



## Loachman (17 Sep 2009)

Overwatch Downunder said:
			
		

> Sorry, but....



You've been had, mate.

Better compare the lengths of your legs. One might be a little longer, now.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Sep 2009)

To bring this back online, the "upgrade" in the MMG role for the C6 should be (in the short to mid term) solely based on training.  We have an outstanding publication on the C6, but we don't train or practice it well.

For the other roles, well, I'm not sure.

An optical sight may not be worth it for a few reasons.  First of all, DLR would be involved, so forget that option.  Second of all, if the sight magically appeared on the Light Role C6 over night, I'm not sure then that the weapon would be employed in its proper role of "direct fire area suppression" (or words to that effect).  Let us not forget that there are "around" 7 light machine guns in every platoon (6 x C9 LMG and a minimum of 1 x C6 LMG).  One more sight, for all the trouble to get it mounted (involve DLR, alter the training publications, get it into theatre, into the field units, into the training system, etc), would probably not be worth it.


----------



## 1feral1 (17 Sep 2009)

Loachman said:
			
		

> You've been had, mate.
> 
> Better compare the lengths of your legs. One might be a little longer, now.


 

Cheers,

Wes


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2009)

The Rise, fall and rebirth of the Emma Gee waas an outstanding example of military fiction used to teach training lessons, here is the link which includes the entire piece (you may have read part 2; using HMG's against a Soviet mechanized attack). 

Using GPMG's and HMG's in the indirect role is discussed in some detail, I would suggest anyone who is teaching machine guns either on course or as unit refresher should take a read:  http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/emmagees.pdf


----------



## NavyShooter (26 Oct 2009)

I'm now on page 14....dangit, gotta go pick up a kiddy though.  (Halloween party.)

A VERY good read, thank-you Thucydides.

NS


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Oct 2009)

It was mandatory reading for me and my fellow candidates on Small Arms' Instructor Course serial 9403 (A).  Very interesting read.


----------



## dangerboy (27 Oct 2009)

Interesting reading; just wondering what did the Advanced Machine Gunners course cover? Also when we stopped running the course did they move the lectures over to other courses or did they just stop teaching them (much like the anti-aircraft mount lectures for the .50).


----------



## COBRA-6 (27 Oct 2009)

Kev already brought it up but FNH is already producing the M240 E6/Ti, which is 3.5lbs lighter. Not a huge difference but when you're lugging it around every bit helps. http://www.fnhusa.com/mil/products/firearms/model.asp?fid=FNF015&gid=FNG008&mid=FNM0139

If an even lighter 7.62LMG is desired then FN also makes several 7.62 vesions of the Minimi (C9). Obviously less capable of sustained fire than the 240/C6, but could be usefull for some applications.   http://www.fnherstal.com/index.php?id=306


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (27 Oct 2009)

I read that article in 1992. It came in handy on ITC 2.

I am not an infantryman, but I did see some opportunities to employ the C6 in the indirect role when I was overseas. There are lots of higher level enablers out there, but they aren't always available. I think that the Canadian Army has a tradition of squeezing every ounce of capability out of a weapon, and I think that is a good thing.


----------



## vonGarvin (27 Oct 2009)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> Interesting reading; just wondering what did the Advanced Machine Gunners course cover? Also when we stopped running the course did they move the lectures over to other courses or did they just stop teaching them (much like the anti-aircraft mount lectures for the .50).


The advanced machine gunner course evolved into the Small Arms' Instructor course.  The course is no longer skill at arms specific, and now includes range work (from level 1 to level 5: collective field firing).  This _may_ change in the future; however, the skills that the fictional Sgt West received on his course are still delivered.  Perhaps not to the same depth, but the info is there.


----------



## Danjanou (27 Oct 2009)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> It was mandatory reading for me and my fellow candidates on Small Arms' Instructor Course serial 9403 (A).  Very interesting read.



Mandatory (and great) reading for me on my MG course (1981) and my QL6B (Pl WO) course in 1984 too. (God I'm old)

I just reread it  and think it still has some validity in today's  low intensity counter insurgency ops.


----------



## Fusaki (27 Oct 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Rise, fall and rebirth of the Emma Gee waas an outstanding example of military fiction used to teach training lessons, here is the link which includes the entire piece (you may have read part 2; using HMG's against a Soviet mechanized attack).
> 
> Using GPMG's and HMG's in the indirect role is discussed in some detail, I would suggest anyone who is teaching machine guns either on course or as unit refresher should take a read:  http://www.2ndbn5thmar.com/CoTTP/emmagees.pdf



I just finished Part 1.

It's starting to put a lot of what's been said in this thread into context for me.  

I'm humbled.  Thanks for the link.


----------



## COBRA-6 (29 Oct 2009)

The article was a great read, thanks for posting it. 

Now think of what MGs are capable of with modern ammo like SLAP and HEIAP!

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/slap.htm
http://www.nammo.com/templates/Product.aspx?id=204


----------

