# No more Carl G?



## Sh0rtbUs (4 Apr 2004)

I‘ve just been informed by my Sgt. that for our SQ which starts this Tuesday, we will not be trained on the Carl G or M72. The reason is they are phasing them out, and replacing them with the Eryx. Anyone else here anything more on this?

I was looking foreward to firing a rocket launcher...


----------



## AlphaCharlie (4 Apr 2004)

teh qué?

The Carl G is such a sexy AT weapon... plus it‘s range of 2000m doesnt hurt (Eryx is like 600m effective I think?)

anyhoo, that sucks. my SQ starts in the summer.

Did they phase out .50 cals for infantry training, or was that a myth?


----------



## willy (4 Apr 2004)

The effective range of the Carl Gustav is not 2000m.  I believe that it is 5 or 600m for a stationary target, 400m for a moving target, but that‘s from memory.  Maybe someone in the infantry could correct me if I‘m wrong.


----------



## Korus (4 Apr 2004)

On my SQ last summer, we where informed that our serial would be the last time the Carl G would be taught on an SQ course, and that it would instead be moved to Infantry QL3, and such.. Maybe someone more in the know can confirm?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Apr 2004)

Can‘t remember what the range is but def not 2000m.  I have actually heard that they are phasing out the Eyrx and going with a fire and forget type platform.  But all that is speculation and a far way away.


----------



## portcullisguy (4 Apr 2004)

Carl G was on the SQ last summer, I can‘t see why they would phase it out.  Mind you, I have also heard that they will phase out the 60mm mortar as well, because the M203 GL is now in service (and by the way, quite fun to fire!)


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Apr 2004)

http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/lf/English/2_0_40.asp?uSubSection=40&uSection=2 
Report says 700m Karl G

FFV 551 HEAT - weight 3.2kg, range 700m
FFV 502 HEDP - weight 3.3kg, range 500m
TP 552 weight 3.2kg, range 700m (this is a non explosive round used for training)


----------



## Phillman (4 Apr 2004)

Last I heard Carl G and grenades were not going to be part of SQ anymore. Something about moving it to BIQ.


----------



## Jeff Boomhouwer (4 Apr 2004)

The mighty green hotdog being phased out? How am I going to keep my toilet paper dry in the field? The 50 is not being taught to us toons anymore. I was the last gun course to learn it. That was back in 98 or 99‘ I believe. The 203 is fun to shoot but know were near as effective as the 60 mm mortar. Thats somethging that should be taught. Just imagine having your very own mini arty battery at your disposal.


----------



## Jason Bourne (4 Apr 2004)

****it I wanteed a go at that thing    *sigh*


----------



## Da_man (4 Apr 2004)

now way you can hit a soft spot on a tank with a Carl G at 700 meters!


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (4 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Phillman:
> [qb] Last I heard Carl G and grenades were not going to be part of SQ anymore. Something about moving it to BIQ. [/qb]


The rocks that go boom arent being phased out for my particular course....


----------



## kaspacanada (4 Apr 2004)

I don‘t like the idea of phasing out the m-72 esspecially if they are gonna replace it with the ERYX.  I like the idea of running with a small tube hitting me in the back of the head when I am doing section attacks in the firegaurds - it keeps me awake.  No seriously, it could be very handy.  From the looks of it, the ERYX doesn‘t look as easily portable as the M-72.  One soldier can carry several M-72‘s on his/her back and it adds a good punch to a section.


----------



## casey916 (5 Apr 2004)

I doubt they are phasing out the Carl G, as at the infantry school here in Gagetown, they have 4 of them that are equipped with new mods, so why spend research, design and production money on a new mod if you are just going to phase out the weapon anyways?


----------



## Danny (5 Apr 2004)

I just finished my SQ and we were taught all the drills for the 84mm but the day before we were supposed to fire it, they told us that it was being pulled from the course. We were told it had to do with the high cost.


----------



## Cpl. Williamson (5 Apr 2004)

Do not Fret all you youngins going on your Section Member Course the Carl Gustav 84 MM has been Moved to It   :rocket:


----------



## axeman (5 Apr 2004)

Dont worry, as you all know it takes a while for many things to trickle down to the Bn./ Regt. level.Given  some time in unit ,you too will be given the chance to lug this piece of kit around the  training area .


----------



## jbeach95 (6 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by kaspacanada:
> [qb] One soldier can carry several M-72‘s on his/her back and it adds a good punch to a section. [/qb]


The M72 is only effective against soft-skinned vehicles and has little effect against armoured vehicles. I believe the M203 is supposed to replace the M72. It‘s supposed to be just as effective. Also the M203 more portable than the M72 and you can carry more rounds for it.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Apr 2004)

Theres no way an M203 is as effective as an M72.
An M72 isn‘t going to take out a main battle tank but they are still very effective against soft skin vehicles, gun emplacements and other fortifications. Theres also the intimidation factor of a rocket going off.  Anyone can use an M72 vice only someone with the launcher being able to use an m203. Actually since it doesnt make sense i‘m sure they will replace it.


----------



## DJD556 (6 Apr 2004)

The 60mm mortar is not being fased out ... infact the training for it has just started to pick up and the infantry units in the area are getting large amounts of money to train their troops on it.  

The m203 has perhapse more functionality than an m72 because there are different 40mm rounds you can get, but the range and destructive power are still supirior on an m72.

As for faseing out good kit and building mods for things that are being fased out hey ... speak to Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Apr 2004)

Why is the M203 being compared to the M72? 
they would seem to be different beasts altogether. Admittedly the M72 is past it's prime, but I would rather have some AT ability rather then none. It certainly would be enough to take out most AFV's we would come across, except for protected T-72's and up, except for rear shots. Anyone have the armour penetrations of the M72/A3?


----------



## AlphaCharlie (6 Apr 2004)

> Originally posted by Colin P:
> [qb] Anyone have the armour penetrations of the M72/A3? [/qb]


Dnd.ca sais 300mm, other souces say 275mm.... I‘d rekon about 280mm, depending on range.


----------



## Tyler (6 Apr 2004)

> Anyone have the armour penetrations of the M72/A3?


I couldn‘t find my notes, but according to the official army site here, the M72 will penetrate 300mm of ‘armour‘. By ‘armour‘ they probably mean RHA. Off the top of my head, I think it will penetrate a few feet of concrete and about 6 feet of earthworks. Don‘t quote me on that though.

The M-72 has been obsolete for years and has been replaced in the U.S. by other systems. I can‘t see us replacing the Carl G anytime soon.



> FFV 502 HEDP - weight 3.3kg, range 500m


More specifically, from my notes:

Moving hard target: 300m effective range
Bunker, Fortification: 500m
Troops in the open: 1000m


Tyler


----------



## AlphaCharlie (6 Apr 2004)

Are the American TOW missles good for AT work?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (6 Apr 2004)

I know there is a big debate about the future of TOW in the US Army, and they do have a varity of different warheads being designed to expand it‘s use for Anti-material, possibly a HEP round also.


----------



## stukirkpatrick (6 Apr 2004)

We use TOW too, and anti-armour is its primary purpose.  The problem is that its wire guided, meaning you can‘t leave until the missile hits the target, making you quite vulnerable.

An armour expert want to clarify?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Apr 2004)

Can you still not make mobility kills on a tank with the M72?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (7 Apr 2004)

The TOW is also constrained by overhead wires and large bodies of water if I remember correctly. I understand that some of the newer ATGM‘s are going to fibre optic cable to prevent this.


----------



## Tyler (7 Apr 2004)

The TOW (II?) missiles are being phased out in Canada as well, apparently.

I remember hearing that the TUA M-113 will be phased out in favour of giving the ADATS platorm a dual air/ground capacity. As for what missiles it will use, I don‘t know.

As its been said, the TOW is wire guided and INCREDIBLY SLOW. I remember seeing a live one fired on the ranges in Meaford a few years ago. It shot at a sea container about 2 or 3 clicks away and took forever to get there.

Besides, the TOW is a concept out of the early 70‘s. It‘s been updated since then, but better stuff is available.


----------



## fourninerzero (2 Nov 2005)

willy said:
			
		

> The effective range of the Carl Gustav is not 2000m.   I believe that it is 5 or 600m for a stationary target, 400m for a moving target, but that's from memory.   Maybe someone in the infantry could correct me if I'm wrong.



The effective range is 400m on a stationary target, and 300 on a moving target with HEAT-T ammo. with RAP ammo, its 700m for both moving and stationary targets


----------



## BKells (2 Nov 2005)

You just replied to a thread that is 1.5 years old. Great work.


----------



## Kal (2 Nov 2005)

Ah, cut the new guy a break, besides when searching these old topics its easy to forget to check when the last message was sent, sometimes.


----------



## fourninerzero (2 Nov 2005)

so this is an old thread....my bad. i should check the dates more often


----------



## Danjanou (2 Nov 2005)

BKells cut the guy some slack eh. Everyone harps on do a search here and add to an existing thread instead of starting a new one and a guy comes on and does that and you dump on him.

Now as long as this one is re opened. 

Does it make sense to retire old weapons such as the 84mm and/or M-72? At present I' d say no.Unlike the C7/C9 replacing the C1/C2  we don't have something newer and shinier in the pipeline and probably won't for a while. The shopping list of dew kit is pretty long already and is this a priority? 

We might as well hang onto what we do have at least for now especially when it does the job. Don't equate old with ineffective. Besides as pointed out dry TP is essential to good morale in the boonies.


----------



## redleafjumper (2 Nov 2005)

Perhaps in the rush to divest ourselves of heavy armour, the powers that be decided that there didn't need to be these portable AT rockets in the sections.  The Carl G is a good piece of kit and adds some serious punch.  It is spurious to compare the M203 grenade with the M72 as they are intended for completely different purposes.  What is the current status of the M-72 and the Carl G MAW?


----------



## Infanteer (2 Nov 2005)

I got a nice pamphlet on the Carl G at AUSA and picked one of their new ones up; pretty skookum.  They have a wide range of ammunition available for the thing and the tech said they are designing a FAE round (or was it a thermobaric; can't remember) for the thing that will make it a good urban assault weapon.


----------



## Blue Max (2 Nov 2005)

Question: Does the Carl G still use a .22 cal round to sight in the main projectile, or has a laser ranging sight ( perhaps passive night viewing or thermal )   been added?


----------



## KevinB (2 Nov 2005)

CarlG never had a spotting round -- the 106 did- the Brit Law80 did...

Thermobaric is FAE for all practical purposes


----------



## Infanteer (2 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Thermobaric is FAE for all practical purposes



Both are _blast_ weapons - thermobaric is one-stage while the FAE is essentially a two-stage weapon.  This is what I remember from reading about them.  But you're correct in the sense that they'll kill hadji in the same way.


----------



## brin11 (2 Nov 2005)

At the weapons school this summer the info was that the 84mm isn't going anywhere fast.


----------



## QuIcKeR (2 Nov 2005)

I went on my SQ this summer in dundurn and we got to fire the Carl G. 2 times. it was a good time


----------



## geo (2 Nov 2005)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Question: Does the Carl G still use a .22 cal round to sight in the main projectile, or has a laser ranging sight ( perhaps passive night viewing or thermal )    been added?


The 106mm RR had a 50cal spotting rifle mounted above... pull to fire the 50 and push to fire the main gun..... (orgasm at the memories )
There were tests to upgrade the 106, they looked at a new mount - ditch the wheelbarow mount AND replacing the spotting rifle with a laser rangefinder... in the end - they chose to leave em all in warstock.......... sigh!

There is a sub calibre kit for the Carl Gustav... not meant for sighting or rangefinding


----------



## Grizzly (3 Nov 2005)

What is the rationale behind wanting to retire the Carl G? Isn't it better suited for use on the offensive than the ERYX? Not to mention cheaper to use against bunkers and low value targets. Also, with the ALAAWS eventually coming into service, isn't ERYX on the chopping block too? It seems like there is a lot of confusion about the future of CF's direct fire capabilities at the moment, and which weapon systems will be retained.

On a tangent to the Carl G, what ever happened to the CLASS sights? Are they still in use?


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2005)

THEY ARE NOT GETTING RID OF THE CARL GUSTAV!!!!

Anymore rumor-mongering and I'll nuke this thread.


----------



## Grizzly (3 Nov 2005)

Seen. It was the first I had heard about it, and it sounded kind of bogus. Thanks for the straight up answer Infanteer.


----------



## 2Charlie (6 Nov 2005)

Ouch,

The Carl G did and does in fact have a sub calibre insert for training.

http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/GetFile.aspx?pathtype=ProductFiles&filetype=Files&id=2642

And if we must,  so does the M-72.  :

And yes I have had the opportunity to fire both.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2005)

geo said:
			
		

> The 106mm RR had a 50cal spotting rifle mounted above... pull to fire the 50 and push to fire the main gun..... (orgasm at the memories )
> There were tests to upgrade the 106, they looked at a new mount - ditch the wheelbarow mount AND replacing the spotting rifle with a laser rangefinder... in the end - they chose to leave em all in warstock.......... sigh!



The CLASS sight was trialed for the 106mm and Carl G. This was an attempt to integrate day/night optics with a laser range finder and a ballistic computer. According to an old Infantry Journal article (sorry, I no longer have it and there seems to be no link), the CLASS allowed for phenominal first round hit probability and increased effective engagement ranges (up to about 1000m stationary for a Carl-G).

Since this was the early 1990s, I think, there would have been issues with the reliability and cost, but it certainly would be worth redoing with today's technology. Since most of the reasons for missing a target have to do with misjudging the ranges (especially long range engagements), the existing range of ammunition can soldier on for years to come if coupled to a new sight. 

Of course carrying a lightweight Carl Gustave M-3 wouldn't hurt either.


----------



## Steve031 (8 Nov 2005)

Having just completed my reserve SQ and BIQ this summer, I was faced with an interesting situation.  Neither course contained training on how to use the Carl G, but it was an integral part of BIQ (ie. tank hunting, ambush etc.).  As far as I know, as of right now, there is no course for the reserves that teaches the Carl G.  Yet it remains, and will remain it seems, part of every infantry platoon.  Is the necessary training going to be provided at a unit level now, or is it going to be reintroduced to a course?


----------



## Douke (9 Nov 2005)

Finished my reserve BIQ this summer. We were not shown at any point how to use the Carl Gustav, how to use the M72 or any anti-tank warfare basics. Fortunatly, it was corrected at unit level. For what I have heard during my course, it would be the Eryx being phased out in favor of a broader use of the ADATS and not the Carl Gustav that would remain the cheapest way to get a good firework in the field.

Disclaimer : That is 1st and 2nd hand info from this summer courses on BFC Valcartier andis subject to change as often as the CF change their minds on the matter of direct fire capability, or every week or two in civvy terms.

Douke


----------



## SteveB (10 Nov 2005)

I participated in some CLASS sight work in the mid-90s.  It was a development of CDC in Ottawa.  It was a pretty cool piece of kit that included a laser range finder, rate gyros to judge how quickly a target was moving and a ballistic computer with several selectable ammo natures.  The sight used 2 revolving prisms to bend the incoming image so the user merely laid the sight on target and followed the directions.

The downside was size an durability.  The unit I used was certainly not infantry proof and I wonder now at its ability to withstand the repeated shock of firing the 84.  It was possible to mount the CLASS on a variety of weapons such as a AGL, the 25 mm chain gun (the US navy has a pintle mounted version) and a few other platforms. (Maybe the 106)

Also, the CG had 2 rifle caliber training inserts.  The earlier version used a 6.5 mm round and the later one was 7.62 mm.  There may have been a .22 LR but I don't remember it.

All comments in favour of the M3 version I second.  I used it on a few exs and what a massive difference in the load for the gunner.  Why we haven't replaced all the stock is beyond me.

Steve


----------



## GO!!! (10 Nov 2005)

The M3 is not a bad piece of kit, it just has some durability issues, especially in regards to some of the plastic and foam parts cracking when exposed to very low temps and (ahem) exceedingly high rates of fire (19rounds/min) >


----------



## Infanteer (10 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> (ahem) exceedingly high rates of fire (19rounds/min) >



What, are you trying to take down a castle or something?  Props to your number 2 for working the venturi locks like that....


----------



## GO!!! (10 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What, are you trying to take down a castle or something?   Props to your number 2 for working the venturi locks like that....



No, it was more one of those "You don't have the parts to fire all of these rounds at fig 11's on the Pl defensive so we can get out of here and hit supper before it closes at 1800"

I had a headache for days...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2005)

3.157 seconds a round, for 19 rounds. Pretty amazing for a two man crew. Hit anything?


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Nov 2005)

Yup, the mess hall at 1755 hours.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Nov 2005)

Please......


----------



## teddy49 (11 Nov 2005)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Yup, the mess hall at 1755 hours.....


 :rofl: :rocket:


----------



## GO!!! (11 Nov 2005)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 3.157 seconds a round, for 19 rounds. Pretty amazing for a two man crew. Hit anything?



There you go, bringin' me down with details.

If you must know, the Ivans at 25 and 50 and 100m paid dearly. Beyond that, about 50%. :-[

I only wish we had taped it, just to prove it can be done (not that it is particularly effective to do so though)

We thought about it later and concluded that for a short - range ambush this might not be a bad drill, but otherwise, just bragging rights.


----------



## Hmm donuts! (13 Nov 2005)

Last I heard we're not phasing out the 84, rumour of possible phasing out of the M72 (stupid idea) and around 2007 we'll start recieving the Javelin (not the surface to air) or the spike. The reason you reservists don't get taught on your sq or biq is the time frame.


----------



## Douke (13 Nov 2005)

Reservists SQ had Carl G on the program last year, and it has not shortened since there, but I guess they thought it wasn't essential for reservists courses and could easily be done at unit level (and I would tend to agree).

As for the M72, I heard they delayed it's phasing out after the guys in Afghanistan found it was one of the best way to clear a cave (anyone more informed then me could confirm this ? It's really Arab phone information).

Douke


----------



## GO!!! (13 Nov 2005)

We made extensive use of M72s in A'stan in 2002, they are excellent peices of kit, and we stated so.

M72s have also made regular range appearances since then, so I assume that we will continue to use them, due to the pitiful performance of the Eryx and the cost of the 84mm round.


----------



## Hmm donuts! (13 Nov 2005)

Definitly true on the M72, how much do the 84 rounds go for?


----------



## GO!!! (13 Nov 2005)

I remember having this conversation with someone who knew..

84mm
cement head - 600$
HEAT - 900$
HEDP - 1200$ 

M72 
400$

All prices "ish"

Plus, it is light, waterproof, disposable, and everybody in the section/platoon can carry one!

So we should trade it for the Javelin (firing post 70 000$ and missile 60 000$) Which means I will never, ever, even come close to firing one. Another great call by DLR. The bad guys are driving toyotas, so we buy a tank buster, but 20 years ago, when the bad guys were in tanks, we bought the M72....


----------



## KevinB (13 Nov 2005)

Careful dude - DLR will axe you off the christmas list too...  


 Actually US Javelin is pretty impressive - I got a chance to speak with (okay listen too) a 18B that whacked a Tank in OIF (Iraqi tank) while the Det Ops WO read him the instructions on how to use it...

 Fills a niche -- but not at the expense of the 84 and M72 (which should be replaced by AT-4 anyway).

The 72 has no setup for attaching a NV aimer unlike the AT-4 and 84 (and the AT-4 is a 84mm system - with so much more "oomph" than the 66mm HEAT M72 warhead)

Eryx is a fricken bad joke -- I cleared in to the RCR BSL in Jun94 to teach and had to put up with a long winded blather on Erxy by the CO -- he had just come from being PMO Eryx -- he made it sound like the heat --- unfortunately when I got issued the damn things it was a POS (which I blame entriely upon the RCR   ).


----------



## MG34 (13 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> Careful dude - DLR will axe you off the christmas list too...
> 
> 
> Actually US Javelin is pretty impressive - I got a chance to speak with (okay listen too) a 18B that whacked a Tank in OIF (Iraqi tank) while the Det Ops WO read him the instructions on how to use it...
> ...



I have no problem with the Eryx provided it is used properly,the main problem is that most simply lack the skills to use it  The AT4 is no great piece of work either,too heavy for what it can deliver and is one shot only,at least with an NM-72 you can carry more than one. The Dragon is the hottest thing out there with a confirmed kill on a stationary tgt at 5km,but there is still a place for the Carl G,as long as the purse strings are loosened a bit and the newer rounds are purchased for it such as the FFV 751 Tandem warhead round, the FFV 545 Illum, FFV HE441B VT fused round which can be set for airburst or point detonating and has an 1100m range.


----------



## Unknown Factor (14 Nov 2005)

From what I hear (and indicators I've seen) the Javelin is probably going to replace the Eryx, 84mm and M72 are not currently being looked at for replacement considering light deployments are on the rise and both systems are a popular choice not only for our Army but others as well.  AT-4 is actually not as great as it is knocked up to be, most guys in the states would rather leave it a home.  Ranger Bns have more use for the 84mm than the AT-4 as well as more round choices, plus at the end of the day a platoon can carry more 84mm than AT-4's.  As for 50 cal. CTC is in the process of re-writing the pam (making the drills and lessons more streamlined and updated for the quick change barrels) and sooner than later we may be seeing the likes of a Mk19.  But in the end the reality may just be that it's all rumor and we have no money to do any of it.  But of the interm AT-4's are more expensive than 84mm and M72 so unlikely that they will replace any time soon.


----------



## KevinB (14 Nov 2005)

MG34 I both agree and disagree with you at the same time.
 I've carried 6 M72's on me at once - however myself and the 3 others firing had to suffer the displeasure of LCol Vida for not hitting out tgt he had indicated.  Secondly it lacks a good punch and while good on some bunkers it is awkward to use in low light (hence my like ofthe AT-4)
Dragon is dead - the thing sucks.  They have RFI'd the Javelin due to Dragon issues - but the Dragon was in service way before Eryx - why did Eryx not have at least some of the capabilties (range)
 Besides your a Royal I know you have a regimental affinity for the Eryx (and white rocks and drill  ;D -- PM inbound BTW)

 Never mistake taking a CarlG for a AT-4 or vice veras.  The 4 and the M72 are individual Anti Armour systems - disposable...
The US had AT-4's strapped to their Hummers in Afghan - and in talking with their QRF guys - it worked as a good anti vehicle setup in some situations.  
  
 Rangers are using the 84's to open buidling for raids or take out buidlings -- this is a good use - and something the munitions can be tailored for - a shaped charge Anti-Armour warhead from a M72 or 84mm is only punching a small hole - useless for that role.  However if you want to ambush a convoy driving down a road -- a bunch fo AT-4's is a good choice -- unless you got the Flash working your Carl G.

And AT-4's travel better -- we found we had to tape down the arming levers on our M72's or they got all f'd up (and the body too) in short time of being 'bounced' around a vehicle.


-


----------



## GO!!! (14 Nov 2005)

My choice is still the M72.

I feel that for a tradeoff in low light, you can have 10 in a section. Even if 20% malfunction due to being banged around, and 20% miss, you still have 6 rounds. The same cannot be said for the 84mm, even if the flash (thank you, thank you) is working the venturi.

The Eryx is a sad joke, it can't be fired through wire, the missiles in their packaging are too big, and not practical for anything but a static defence. The simulators are not at all similar to the real missile, the flight time is too long, the range is too short, and requires the exposure of the gunner, the missiles are not durable enough for light applications, the batteries freeze in the winter.....you get the idea.

The AT 4 would be an improvement, but my love of the M72 is partly based in it's affordability and thus availability for trg. I've only ever seen one Eryx missile fired, it went about 15 feet and tangled the gunner and #2 up in the wire, then ground detonated - way to go DLR.
All that for the low price of every man in a platoon having an M72. 

I'll take volume and availability over 2 high tech "omnikill" missiles anyday.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (14 Nov 2005)

The M72A5 can be purchased with a rail attachment, infact Raufoss makes a reflex sight that can be attached there.  After having looked at one, it looks like a pretty standard rail that any sight can be mounted on.  Of course with decent night optics you would have to remove it after firing or face the wrath of the CQ.

Eryx is not the greatest missile, but having seen seen several hundred go down range, it is not that unreliable.  Yes it does have a shorter range than Carl G, but you can fire it from an enclosure.  The time of flight to max range is (I believe) 3.9 or 4.9 seconds, this makes it one of the fastest missiles out there.  Outside packaging should be removed, I know they have been carried out of the logistical pack on deployment, just kept int the foil to keep the dust off.  Someone did muff the design for stowage on the LAV III by the way, but it came in after the Eryx.  No wire guided missile can be fired through wire reliably, heck I've seen TOW from TUA get grounded in wire and they're pretty damn high.
There are definately better missiles out there now, *but at the time it was bought*, the only downside (other that the Mirabel fiasco) was the short range.  Of course it was procured when we were facing the Soviet hordes and fighting from village to village in Germany so 600 metres would be ok.

Oh, and Eryx entered development prior to 1989, entered service in 1994.  Javelin Joint Venture started development in 1989 and Javelin entered service in 1996 so Eryx did come before.

It seems to me that there wasn't a clear place in the org chart designed for the Eryx.  I've seen it issued at the section level, while Carl Gs are held at the platoon, but there weren't enough section members qualified on it so it was dead weight in the LAV.  It was bought as a shiney piece of kit.  I just think the Army was shocked, getting something new in the early 90s and not having to give anything up...

The AT4 is a great piece of kit, but it much heavier than a 66 and much expensive.  I would think that it would be a good idea to skip the AT4 and go right to the MBT-LAW.  It is not guided, it is predictive, you track the target for a bit, and launch and it adjusts the flight to where the target should be.  It can be top attack, or direct fire, and for all the bells and whistles it features, it is is relatively cheap.  There is a variety of warheads available for the M72 that I've mentioned in another post and some newer ones including a thermobaric warhead and a fuze that can sense a hard target and detonate outside to allow penetration, or a soft target that where the rocket will penetrate and then function.

I would say keep the 66mm (with a rail to make Kevin happy), replace it with MBT-LAW when we can afford it, and replace all the Carl Gs with lightweight carbon fibre version and field a full range of ammo for it.

Oh, and Javelin rocks...but it still wont replace Carl G unless we get a them one for one.  USMC use Javelin but still have a spot for SMAW.


----------



## Unknown Factor (14 Nov 2005)

There is no reason why that Carl G could not be configured with a day/night sight, in fact I do remember a time when the 'Eryx contract' was actually the replacement for the Carl G right up until they found out that it had a shorter range.  The misconceptions that many have towards the 84 is that it is not accurate or can't be fired at night.  Both false, accuracy is due to firer and not firing at night, there is in fact a mount for the kite sight for the 84 and I do remember firing them at night in that config.  As for the dedate over M72 and AT4, at the end of the day when every man can carry an M72 there is no debate, the capabilities of the AT can be filled by 84 or Javelin.  84 is potentially the most flexable wpn system of the three - ammo improvements over the years have created newer rounds - such as Illum, Anti-pers, bunker buster to name a few, and why couldn't you develop a thermo version.  Remember at the end of the day it is flexability of a wpn system in Canada we don't have the lux for tailoring our wpn sytems around missions.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> There is no reason why that Carl G could not be configured with a day/night sight, in fact I do remember a time when the 'Eryx contract' was actually the replacement for the Carl G right up until they found out that it had a shorter range.   The misconceptions that many have towards the 84 is that it is not accurate or can't be fired at night.



I don't think that ever came up, the 84mm already has a functional night vision capability.

The 84mm is a very accurate weapon in the hands of a well trained and experienced gunner. With the dearth of ammo we seem to experience though, experienced gunners can be in short supply. The theory behind systems like the Javelin (so I'm told) is that the gunner will be able to have a high probability of a first round hit, due to the high technology that that system contains, whereas it takes some practice to hit tgts at 700m with an 84mm HEAT round. 

The fact of the matter is, that the 84 is heavy, you can only have one, with a very limited amount of ammo, and it takes practice to use. I know that there are newer and better rounds out there, but that is immaterial, since our military is loathe to buy anything that could hurt someone. There are also new variants of the M72, including variants that are thermobaric, have NV capability, filled with anti-pers projectiles etc. I still think we are better off with 24-30 M72 variants in a platoon, than 6 rounds for the 84mm.

Also, when one considers that the majority of the vehicle targets canadians will encounter in the next 5 years will be of the Toyota persuasion, and not the tank/APC, would it not be better to use a smaller, cheaper, more numerous weapon? Collateral damage and the ability to fire in confined spaces is also a concern here. I'm not saying to deep six the 84 right out of the inventory, just concentrate on a different system for the present conditions and operations.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (15 Nov 2005)

Quote from GO!!!,
_Also, when one considers that the majority of the vehicle targets canadians will encounter in the next 5 years will be of the Toyota persuasion, and not the tank/APC, would it not be better to use a smaller, cheaper, more numerous weapon? Collateral damage and the ability to fire in confined spaces is also a concern here. I'm not saying to deep six the 84 right out of the inventory, just concentrate on a different system for the present conditions and operations._

Agree with everything exept "5 years". I think one could say with the world dynamics now, soft-skinned vehicles will be the norm for a lot longer than that.


----------



## Douke (15 Nov 2005)

Definitly agree with GO!'s point of view. The very few high armored threats that will be encountered in today's context can be dealt with by assault choppers (granted we don't have any, even though we should, but we are usually fighting togheter with our NATO allies who possess them)  or any other heavy fire option. 

Infantry is also much more flexible if every soldier can cary his own soft vehicle stopper/ cave clearer etc. Imagine losing the Carl G in an encounter in wich it is needed (operators KIA, an unlikely but yet possible firing problem), you are left without any heavy fire capability. Also, once the Carl G is spotted, they know where the heat will come from. Much harder if you have 30 different positions of potential rocket fire.

Finally, if we concentrated on the M72, I am pretty sure we could improve the concept to make it more reliable.

Of course that is my theorical point of view, anyone more experienced sees flaws in that logic?


----------



## KevinB (15 Nov 2005)

I dont think anyone is saying dump the Carl G for M72's -- they are an augmentation to each other. The G has a night capable sight - albiet ideally the thermal projected image ballistic computer one that was trialed/demo'd several years ago would be neat (it does range and wind deflection for you - just put the dot on the tgt you want to go bye bye too)

The one issue I will point out to is the Afghan AMF - whoes loyalty depends upon the $ you pay them and the "what have you dont for me lately" concept.  They still have armour, driving around the provinces outside of Kabul you will see their tanks...

 When your the one in the toyota the idea of having a backstop of the Javelin is a nice idea...


----------



## Unknown Factor (15 Nov 2005)

KevinB said:
			
		

> The G has a night capable sight - albiet ideally the thermal projected image ballistic computer one that was trialed/demo'd several years ago would be neat (it does range and wind deflection for you - just put the dot on the tgt you want to go bye bye too)



I remember when this was done, as I recall the system worked great, problem was size and weight.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also, when one considers that the majority of the vehicle targets canadians will encounter in the next 5 years will be of the Toyota persuasion, and not the tank/APC, would it not be better to use a smaller, cheaper, more numerous weapon? Collateral damage and the ability to fire in confined spaces is also a concern here. I'm not saying to deep six the 84 right out of the inventory, just concentrate on a different system for the present conditions and operations.



Yes and the Ranger's in 'Mog' thought they'd be gone for 30 mins, you start tailoring everything to one mission and you'll soon find the mission is dictating your tactics, how you pack and how you fight.  What are you going to do when T-55's start rolling out of a warlords compound firing at you?



			
				Douke said:
			
		

> Also, once the Carl G is spotted, they know where the heat will come from.



I'm sure we don't have to start a tread on Fire and Movement


----------



## GO!!! (16 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> Yes and the Ranger's in 'Mog' thought they'd be gone for 30 mins, you start tailoring everything to one mission and you'll soon find the mission is dictating your tactics, how you pack and how you fight.   What are you going to do when T-55's start rolling out of a warlords compound firing at you?



All the bad guys in Mogadishu were in cars and pickups, and the Rangers had a kit list, which included water, the rear ballistic plate and NVGs. They simply neglected to follow it - and their CoC did'nt check.

No one is suggesting "tailoring" anything to one mission. Afghanistan will be somewhere we are going to be occupied with for at least the next ten years. We can train to fight there, and meet the current threats in a reasonable manner with the weapons available without damaging your ability to fight off the T-55 driving Russians as they swarm through the Fulda Gap.

Also, your T-55 argument is excellent! The standard T55 has frontal armour of 200mm ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm ) and an M72 can penetrate 300mm+ ( http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/M72.html  ) 

So, in your example, I would pull out my M72, fire a single well placed round at the turret ring of the offending tank, which would ignite the ammunition stored in the ready rack, and watch the fireworks. The 84 team and the warrant would arrive a few minutes later, as I finished posing with my victims. If hell froze over and I missed, every other man in the platoon could follow up with a round. 

Does that answer your question satisfactorily?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> With the dearth of ammo we seem to experience though, experienced gunners can be in short supply.



This from the guy who fired off 19 rounds at rapid rate at nothing.... ^-^


----------



## armyvern (16 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The 84 team and the warrant would arrive a few minutes later, as I finished posing with my victims.



Uhmmm GO!!! posing is OK but I hope your not having the passersby snap any photos!!   8)


----------



## Infanteer (16 Nov 2005)

As well, what's with this "Take the tank from the front" shit?  We see Iraqi Insurgents nailing Abrams and Bradleys with RPGs and they are hitting them from the back and the side and from close ranges.  If a Light Infantry force was attacked by tanks in a complex environment, I'd expect us to be sending rounds up the pipe from the back or from a top down shot, no?


----------



## GO!!! (16 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> As well, what's with this "Take the tank from the front" crap?   We see Iraqi Insurgents nailing Abrams and Bradleys with RPGs and they are hitting them from the back and the side and from close ranges.   If a Light Infantry force was attacked by tanks in a complex environment, I'd expect us to be sending rounds up the pipe from the back or from a top down shot, no?



Well, yes, ideally you can always take the armour with a nice round popped into their backside, or even better, into the top of the turret, but such opportunities seem rare for us, the good guys. This is the theory behind the top attack missiles like the TOW Charlie (?) and the javelin (at least some of th variants) because the thickest armour is on the forward facing surfaces, and the thinnest faces up and to the rear.The bad guys seem to pull it off though! 

The Chechens have proven extremely adept at this, in addition to using molotov cocktails on tanks from the roofs of buildings,  then shooting the crew when they try to escape.


----------



## Unknown Factor (16 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Also, your T-55 argument is excellent! The standard T55 has frontal armour of 200mm... Does that answer your question satisfactorily?



The point is not how much frontal armour a T-55 has but the fact that an M-72 cannot fire accuratly beyond 300m, in others words who cares how poor the tank is it can still hit you with it's main gun and with its armour protect it's coaxle before you hit it with your platoons worth of M-72's or did they not teach you that in basic?


----------



## GO!!! (17 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> The point is not how much frontal armour a T-55 has but the fact that an M-72 cannot fire accuratly beyond 300m, in others words who cares how poor the tank is it can still hit you with it's main gun and with its armour protect it's coaxle before you hit it with your platoons worth of M-72's or did they not teach you that in basic?



The average engagement in Urban terrain is 70m.

The accuracy of the M72 depends largely on the skill of the operator (as with the 84mm) The difference is that we can afford to practice with the M72.

A C7 is not accurate in battlefield conditions beyond 400m either, hence something I was taught about "close with and destroy..."

If the tank can get us with the co-ax before we can fire an M72, there is no hope that the 84 team will be able to load, ready, acquire, standby and fire in a shorter time period. 

As I said in the beginning, the 84 still has a use, and should be kept, just not for use in the current mission context.

The M72 is not taught in basic, nor are tank hunting skills, but I'm sure you knew that.


----------



## Glorified Ape (17 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I got a nice pamphlet on the Carl G at AUSA and picked one of their new ones up; pretty skookum.  They have a wide range of ammunition available for the thing and the tech said they are designing a FAE round (or was it a thermobaric; can't remember) for the thing that will make it a good urban assault weapon.



Is there a thermobaric round for the M72? I seem to recall reading an article stating that the Marines had had spectacular success with thermobaric SMAW rounds in Iraq, though it seems there were problems with collateral damage. They discussed the development of a thermobaric warhead for another AT weapon, but I can't recall if it was the M72 or not.


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Nov 2005)

Yes there's a thermobaric round (or at least enhanced blast) and also a version that can be fired from enclosed spaces.


----------



## Sh0rtbUs (17 Nov 2005)

AmmoTech90 said:
			
		

> Yes there's a thermobaric round (or at least enhanced blast) and also a version that can be fired from enclosed spaces.



http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36543/post-297049;topicseen#msg297049


----------



## AmmoTech90 (17 Nov 2005)

Sh0rtbUs said:
			
		

> http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36543/post-297049;topicseen#msg297049



Yep same manufacturer.  I was talking about the M72, Talley Defence makes a NE (Novel Explosive) round for that too.  The FFE (Fire From Enclosure) is also for the M72 from Talley.  I don't think anyone has marketed an enclosed Carl G round althoug in principle something along the lines of a countermass like you have in the AT4 would work.


----------



## Unknown Factor (17 Nov 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The average engagement in Urban terrain is 70m.
> 
> The accuracy of the M72 depends largely on the skill of the operator (as with the 84mm) The difference is that we can afford to practice with the M72.
> 
> ...



So by your sumation - we'll only fight in urban enviroments, at distances of less than 70m, and based on that you will base your wpns load and capabilities? - Assumptions! 
Close with and destroy the enemy with what? your platoon is desimated because you didn't have a stand off weapons to at least disable the tank! you are estimating your plan on 'will' alone at this point and your arguement is based on pride not tactics.  Might want to get on a PSWQ before you make estimates and if you do have the course already - stay away from support wpns!


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> So by your sumation - we'll only fight in urban enviroments, at distances of less than 70m, and based on that you will base your wpns load and capabilities? - Assumptions!
> Close with and destroy the enemy with what? your platoon is desimated because you didn't have a stand off weapons to at least disable the tank! you are estimating your plan on 'will' alone at this point and your arguement is based on pride not tactics.   Might want to get on a PSWQ before you make estimates and if you do have the course already - stay away from support wpns!



Why are we discussing the Carl G in stand-off role?  The arguement is that it is suitable for close combat in complex terrain, which is most likely going to be where the Infantry will be fighting.  Arguing that it is no good because it can't take a tank at 2000 meters is a red herring; it's like arguing that the C7 is no good because you can't drop an enemy at 1200 meters.

If the enemy has taken to the field and is deploying more conventional fighting formations then I'm not concerned with what the Infantry can do - the US Army will get them with M1's or an AH-64 because we've pretty much left the heavy combat game altogether.  This was observed in the US "March Up" to Baghdad.


----------



## GO!!! (17 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> So by your sumation - we'll only fight in urban enviroments, at distances of less than 70m, and based on that you will base your wpns load and capabilities? - Assumptions!
> Close with and destroy the enemy with what? your platoon is desimated because you didn't have a stand off weapons to at least disable the tank! you are estimating your plan on 'will' alone at this point and your arguement is based on pride not tactics.   Might want to get on a PSWQ before you make estimates and if you do have the course already - stay away from support wpns!



No, I quite clearly stated that the *average* urban engagement is 70m. 

I also quite clearly stated that the M72 is as accurate as the operator, and that it is better to have thirty of anything than three.

I've already told you that an M72 can *destroy* certain tanks, that also includes certain APCs and civilian pattern vehicles. Additionally, a number of M72s will disable nearly anything that moves, getting mobility kills, rendering the optics inoperable etc.

I am not "estimating" anything yet, as I don't have a mission.

I'll clue you in to a few realities too, old timer. We are no longer training to fight the russians. The battlefield is no longer the fulda gap. Communism is dead, and so is the cold war. Give it up.

The new wars we are fighting will be based in complex terrain, where you, and your precious LAV will not be able to fight effectively. "Complex" refers to mountains, jungles, swamps, and even built up areas. All of these are extremely difficult for armour (wheeled or tracked) and thus, are operated in on foot. As such, we must learn to fight an enemy who will probably not use tanks. He will probably be in a civvie pattern vehicle. There will be civilians around that we are not permitted to kill - even by accident. As a result, we must be trained and equipped for more than the motor rifle division sending waves of ivans at us. That means EVERY man needs the ability to stop a vehicle - soonest. Not when the wpns det comes down off of the hill, gets a frag order and tries to find your tank. 

The M72 is not ideal, but it is realistic, and very do-able in the current context. We may encounter tanks, but the truth is, if you encounter even a half - assed tank unit when you are light, you lose. Your 84 team might get one round off. Then they die, but half of the guys might get M72s off, at least giving us a chance.

Finally, what is your solution? A problem without a solution is just a bitch, and you've been doing alot of it. What would you have us do? I expect this to be a comprehensible, accomplishable solution that we can do right now, not some "when the xxxx shows up" solution. I've noticed a pattern in some of your other posts that you like to complain alot, without ever offering a solution. So lets hear it?


----------



## Unknown Factor (17 Nov 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> If the enemy has taken to the field and is deploying more conventional fighting formations then I'm not concerned with what the Infantry can do - the US Army will get them with M1's or an AH-64 because we've pretty much left the heavy combat game altogether.   This was observed in the US "March Up" to Baghdad.



I've completely left 'conventional fighting' I'd keep everything you've got and hope that the Javelin would be at least accessable in Coy Wpn Platoon.   But to limit you weapons based on statistics would be a poor estimation for a leader to make.


----------



## Infanteer (17 Nov 2005)

Unknown Factor said:
			
		

> I've completely left 'conventional fighting' I'd keep everything you've got and hope that the Javelin would be at least accessable in Coy Wpn Platoon.



Sounds like a good idea to me.


----------



## George Wallace (28 Nov 2005)

Being a Cadet....they probalby were pulling you leg.  ;D


----------



## geo (28 Nov 2005)

not sure but I think it sucked the brains outa that one.........
cleaning your sinuses?... yeah
suck out your lungs & vacuum formed?.... not!!
methinks they figured they had a fish on a string and were playing with ya

If you want to blow things up... you should drop in on 2 Field Engineer Reg't
you'll learn how to build things, dismantle things, make em, break em AND twist & bend em... and the best part is that they pay you to do this!!!! Isn't life great 

Have no personal knowledge on 2FER but being a Sapper is a good thing

Don't make any rash decisions, drop on in for a visit and info session.
ask questions, lots of questions, talk to some of the members ... and if you like what you see & hear... c'mon down 

CHIMO!


----------



## gunfxr (4 Dec 2005)

as far as I Know
M-72 Replacement program is on-going with a very low priority however updadted versions are being purchased, as the M-72 is treated as ammo not a weapon it is a tricky and complex process to replace.

Karl G staying for a long time due to it's range and versitility, newer ammo is on the board as well as a sight upgrade and an update of the sub cal going from the 6.5 x 55mm swedish mauser to a 7.62mm NATO  round

TOW is staying for a long time however an update/upgrade program is underway (we spent way too much money on the TUA turret for us to get rid of it) the ground mount is currently on the way out (next week it will be staying so don't hold your breath)

Eryx is staying for now with an examination to upgrade to the Fire Controll System on going at a low priority

ADATS is ramping up as they are now in the super duper comic book hero direct fire regement (for now)

there is a project to unify the sights on many system but this may just be a study.

the M203 is replacing the 60mm mortar on some levels the rest of the 60mm s will be replaces when the Company Level Area Suppression Weapon/System( read automatic grenade launcher) is brougt and fielded. 

Of cours this is all subject to whim and operational requirement. so relying on plans is futile. as for the original question most of the Karl G training is happening at unit level due to the ease of use of the 84mm and the lack of time on the courses for weapons training.

these are all unofficial and just what I have heard and/or read please feel free to corect me if you have better/ truer info.


----------



## zishka (4 Jan 2006)

Its my understanding the Brits are testing out SAAB's ( the guys whom make our beloved Carl G) new" NLAW"
 http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/ShowProduct.aspx?ProductId=640

 it could be the next replacement if the money is spent ( yeah right!) but I'd be guessing it'll be in the works in the not to distant future regardless. as for the ERYX , we  tested it out back in the mid 90's and from what I heard of the price tag ( as compared to Javelin and Carl-G) was enough to choke a horse. Another thing the Eryx was a general pain in the ass to lug around and was a finiky creature, could be different now but I doubt it.

 Its too bad about the reserves being denied training on the Carl G or any phasing out of the poor mans arty ( the 60mm). mortars are the life support of any Coy in a bad way.


----------



## geo (5 Jan 2006)

thought the 60 was being kept for Smoke and Illumination?


----------

