# Blind leading the blind (now with limited guidance)



## Cpl.Banks (10 Mar 2005)

How big is the Magasine in the new MGS? Are we talking less than thirty rounds?
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

I've read that it's anywhere from 13 to as many as 25. less than 30 for sure.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (10 Mar 2005)

The MGS has a 18 round magazine!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WHAT?! thats pretty much useless, it becomes useless without its gun! Oh well at least we are keep 3 sqd's of Leo's...With our quote unquote big budget boost why don't we get some new tanks? maybe a M1 here or a few challengers there or even get more Leo2's from germany and get the newest turret? my thoughts....
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cpl.Banks (10 Mar 2005)

Thsi definatly limits its use, if its 13 well then might as well throw rocks at them after, especially if its supposed to acompany inf coy's it should have a secondary weapon, even a 50cal.mg would do but something that can give a little support to the Pbi...
UBIQUE!!!!!!!!!


----------



## ArmyRick (10 Mar 2005)

It has a co-axial MG as do most AFVs...


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

the powers-that-be have decided that canada no longer needs to field a tank force... so that's why they didn't buy more of them  :'(


----------



## LordOsborne (10 Mar 2005)

i'm wondering about co-axials, by the way. after the positive experiences the Israeli tank force had with the Centurion's .50 cal ranging machine gun, why didn't this feature carry over into future designs? reliance on technlogy is one reason, but having an RMG as a backup device makes sense. any answers?


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (10 Mar 2005)

Ranging MGs had their uses but a laser range finder linked to a computer is simply the way to go.  The LRF on the C2 (and C1 for that matter) was very reliable in my experience.  Failing that you can estimate the range and apply the corrections.  There are several degraded modes of fire available if FCS components are down and they are designed to get you out of the fight that you are in.  If you are in close and cannot disengage then just go to "Battle engagements" and trust the drill.  

Cheers,

2B


----------



## LordOsborne (11 Mar 2005)

do you use your C6 co-ax for ranging at all?


----------



## TCBF (11 Mar 2005)

Only against troops in the open.

Tom


----------



## LordOsborne (11 Mar 2005)

that's what i figured. thanks


----------



## ZipperHead (11 Mar 2005)

In this day and age, I'm not sure that I would want to be firing anything less than the main armament at something that could shoot back and kill me. A ranging burst with a MG would give away your position, and if the other guy got lucky, he would hit you well before you went through all the procedures inherent in calculating how far the MG rds were hitting, if at all. 

There are other methods available that are passive (as opposed to active, which the laser is.... we have laser warning detectors, and I'm sure any worthy Banana Republic army does too. When I taught gunnery, I told guys to think about aiming away from a target, but at the same approx range before lasing.... but if you are doing a quick engagement, lase for center of visible mass, and once the gunner reports range, if it seems close enough for gov't work, give executive to fire, and then make corrections (if neccesary)). Anyway, there are optical methods for determining range, which use the mil scale (1 mil at 1000meters equals 1 meter). So, if you knew that a vehicle was 2.5 meters wide, and it is 2.5 mils wide, you know it is at 1000m, and so on.

Al


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> do you use your C6 co-ax for ranging at all?



Ranging?????   

:

What planet are you from?

EDIT: Just looked at the profile, MSN info and pers website. Need I say more.


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2005)

Wesley H. Allen said:
			
		

> Ranging?????
> 
> :
> 
> What planet are you from?



it was an innocent question! i mean, say your laser rangefinder was disabled and your optical rangefinder was damaged, and you don't want to waste main ammunition by firing and observing hits and misses... is the co-ax the ultimate last resort?


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Mar 2005)

As much as I encourage younger pers on this great website and helping out/assisiting where I can, I think you should keep your critiques and opinions to to yourself when it comes to evaluating wpns and kit. I am not slinging shyte at ya mate,  but I have since read some of your other posts and you are in way too much over your head. Text books and websites cannot offer you the experience in the real world.

Hopfully you'll take heed to what I have said.


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2005)

Mr. Allen, yes, i hear you loud and clear. i'll stick to reading in this thread instead of posting


----------



## 1feral1 (12 Mar 2005)

Good move Osborne. Lets hope you keep your word.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Mar 2005)

Having Crew Commanded on both Centurion and Leopards I'll step in here.   The .50 Ranging gun on the Centurion was used with a solenoid that only allowed a three round burst.   It was slaved to the optical sights (the No. 30 sight was very similar to the Cougar sight) and the gunner used a technique of firing at a series of graduated "Dots".   As the trajectory of the .50 Cal was similar to that of Sabot at the same ranges, it was an ideal choice before the development of lasers.   There were also "Dots" corresponding to ranges for HESH/SMK BE/HEAT; as well as a scale of Dots for the Co-ax.   The .50 Cal Ranging Gun fired three round bursts of Tracer.   When a three round burst of Tracer hit the Target, the corresponding Dot was the correct range and applied to the Sevice Ammo scale to be fired.   

It was not used as a co-ax.   There was a .30 Cal GPMG (later converted to 7.62 mm) mounted beside the .50 that was used as a Co-ax.   

You do not use a Co-ax as a Ranging Gun.   It is far to inaccurate.

If a Range Finder 'goes down' then the CC must switch to another 'known technique' or use "Estimated Techniques".   He can use a map.   He could use his eyeball and estimate.   He could use a previous shoot or a range card.   He could use corrections from another tank.   There are many ways to carry on.   He could use a "Battle Technique" if firing Sabot at a close range.   Further out he can use "BOT".   

Coyote gunnery follows the same principals and techniques.   The .50 Cal Ranging Gun sounds like a "Good" burst from a Coyote......"Who's that knocking at my door?"


----------



## LordOsborne (12 Mar 2005)

George Wallace, thank you for sharing your expertise and experiences.  

cheers,
Pat


----------



## Zipper (13 Mar 2005)

Cpl.Banks(Cdt.) said:
			
		

> Oh well at least we are keep 3 sqd's of Leo's...With our quote unquote big budget boost why don't we get some new tanks?



What is this? Have the powers that be changed their minds? Are they keeping us in the tank business after the budget? Or is this "keep" idea just a different meaning for mothballing?

Just a clarifier...


----------



## McG (13 Mar 2005)

Zipper,
See subj title.  It will explain any comments that don't mesh with what you know to be true.


----------



## Cpl.Banks (13 Mar 2005)

The MGS weighs a huge amout, if you read the PDF on page 8 you will see the american stryker variant weighs 30 000lbs combat ready level 1! level 3 will have it top out at juts over 60 000lbs!!!(wit th RGP extra armour) The c-130 can bearly carry it at combat level 1, seeing as we dont have many other heavy airlift options this is discouraging. The MGS will have a top speed of 66mph, so around 100km/h but its turing lenght needed is 60 ft! And then it has wheels...on roads its all good but when we got off road, into boggy grounds, sand etc...a tracked vehicle would be better...so much for the advantage of mobility and speed...I just think we should retain our tanks or get new ones if maintaining the Leo is expensive, why not go with a M1? or even a challenger or heck why not stay with a tried and true platform Leo2?! my thoughts...
UBIQUE!!!!!


----------



## LordOsborne (13 Mar 2005)

we're not fully restricted to CC-130's when it comes to heavy airlifting. we've leased the AN-124 in the past, and this has no issues at all about lifting an MGS, let alone a full-weight MBT. even if the CF (for some reason) doesn't get a heavy-lift aircraft, be it a leased fleet of C-17s or fully-owned IL-76s, we can always call on the AN-124s to get stuff shipped around. it's inconveniant and time-consuming, though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2005)

LordOsborne said:
			
		

> we're not fully restricted to CC-130's when it comes to heavy airlifting. we've leased the AN-124 in the past, and this has no issues at all about lifting an MGS, let alone a full-weight MBT. even if the CF (for some reason) doesn't get a heavy-lift aircraft, be it a leased fleet of C-17s or fully-owned IL-76s, we can always call on the AN-124s to get stuff shipped around. it's inconveniant and time-consuming, though.



No we can't. They almost didn't get them for the DART. It's a civvie company with many clients. If we're moving all our MGS and accoutrements, what do you think the Yanks'll be doing? I doubt they'll have any to spare at the time. This robbing Peter to pay Paul and depending on others is what has put us in such dire straights already.


----------



## LordOsborne (14 Mar 2005)

I hear you recceguy. we really shouldn't be reliant on a civvie charter company to haul our gear. I remember what happened when that cargo vessel held our stuff hostage by refusing to dock at port. sadly, public opinion isn't at the point where the government is strongly pressured to purchase heavy lifters ???
in a perfect world, we'd have a mixed transport fleet that could take us anywhere, anytime.


----------



## Zipper (14 Mar 2005)

All the LAV III's are to wide for the Herc anyway. We need the ability to haul our vehicles around no matter what. The C-130J won't do it. Maybe they'll come up with another airframe called the 130K that is 20 or more cm wider in order to take them, but until then its rent or lease.

However here is a good idea for this problem.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/mp-modpropintro.htm

Something to think about.


----------



## Colin2 (13 May 2005)

The IDF does have a .50cal mounted over the 120mm, which they use for sniping. This is in addition to the co-axial. Certainly useful for limited Urban engagements.


George, I though all your experience was with RAM's and M4E8's or was that Geoff?


----------



## beltfeedPaul (27 Jul 2005)

There really should be a cadet and OCDT filter on this site, the only "ranging" shot I ever fired was a spotter trace round out of a 106. We could estimate range back in those days, we ate our carrots!


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jul 2005)

Quote,
_There really should be a cadet and OCDT filter on this site,_

...or a filter that stops people from taking blind potshots 4 months later at a poster who was man enough to admit his mistake, ....oh wait we have..........

We don't randomly take shots at groups of people here "belt", I'm sure you can find internet tough guy sites for that,
 welcome to army.ca.


----------



## beltfeedPaul (27 Jul 2005)

Dopey officer cadets have always been fair game for ridicule, or at least they used to be, but then, **** and women were not allowed in my army, so   I must be a dinosaur..................







Modified by Slim for innapropriate words.
(I hate to be so PC but if the media saw that it would be all over the front page of something or other and the fluffy crowd would be up in arms about it.)
Sorry

Slim
STAFF


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (27 Jul 2005)

Wow, 
you must REALLY be a dino if you were before women in the military.......Hmmmm....


----------



## beltfeedPaul (27 Jul 2005)

In the combat arms at least


----------

