Canadian modular assault rifle project, a C7 replacement?

[Fabius]

We could, however it would likely be harder than you would expect.
We would likely want to use Colt Canada, but it’s been 30 plus years since they have built a C9. The C9 A2 program was a refit not a build program.
Due to the transition path from Diamaco to CZ Group, the TDP and IP stuff means that it would likely experience some of the same problems as the C6 build program.

 

[Halifax Tar]

But again it depends on what one wants from a LMG.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I’d like to add:
Eryx replaced by nothing. It was a wet bag of poo any way, but…

M2 CarlG was replaced (at least in the LIB’s) ages ago by the M3, it should easily be replaced by the M4.

C9: the issue replacing the C9 are multi fold. No nation has effectively replaced it.

Brits have put the 7.62mm L7A2 (C6/M240) back into the section

USMC went a different route with the M27 IAR and M38 DMR (Hk416 variants) but retained the M249 in a Coy Arms room to be issued at the Coy Commanders discretion.

Denmark went with the M60E6 for 7.62mm at the section/squad level.

Germany has the MG4 which has some neat features but is basically a heavier M249/C9

SOCOM has fielded the KAC LAMG in small numbers which is a fantastic assault machine gun but doesn’t offer any real sort of sustained fire capability (it’s light and super controllable, but you can’t put it in a tripod to record targets (something Canada doesn’t do with the C9 anyway)

Biggest issue is the confusion/conflict of what a section/squad LMG is supposed to do.
Admittedly SOCOM is having the same issue with their 6.5Creedmore AMG or LWMG program. Some want a LW Assault MG, others want a LW GPMG and can’t agree on the trade offs between weight and support fire applications.

Edit I believe CANSOF bought some of the Israeli NEGEV’s. But also have the 7.62mm MINIMI (which is really just a FN Herstal made Mk48).

"Cough" MG34 "Cough"

Many people used to dealing with big bears have gone away from shotguns to lever action 45/70's You get about 6" more penetration with the same weight of bullet traveling at a higher velocity.

 

[markppcli]

With any change to the C9, beyond simply buying new ones which other have spoken to the problems of, is that it would likely require a rethink of how we work at section and platoon level. Which is fine, but it becomes a more complex question than what’s the best LMG - and instead becomes how does the section / platoon fight and how do we best support that. We’ve been married to two LMGs in a symmetrical section since the 1950s, rightly or wrongly there’s institutional bias there.

 

[RangerRay]

 

[Eaglelord17]

With any change to the C9, beyond simply buying new ones which other have spoken to the problems of, is that it would likely require a rethink of how we work at section and platoon level. Which is fine, but it becomes a more complex question than what’s the best LMG - and instead becomes how does the section / platoon fight and how do we best support that. We’ve been married to two LMGs in a symmetrical section since the 1950s, rightly or wrongly there’s institutional bias there.

I am curious as to how the USMC IAR M27 experiment is going. Potential C7/C9 replacement there.

 

[Maxman1]

 

[PrairieFella]

With any change to the C9, beyond simply buying new ones which other have spoken to the problems of, is that it would likely require a rethink of how we work at section and platoon level. Which is fine, but it becomes a more complex question than what’s the best LMG - and instead becomes how does the section / platoon fight and how do we best support that. We’ve been married to two LMGs in a symmetrical section since the 1950s, rightly or wrongly there’s institutional bias there.

Whats your personal opinion on the of the section?

 

[KevinB]

I am curious as to how the USMC IAR M27 experiment is going. Potential C7/C9 replacement there.

Stupid concept.
Belt fed guns give a volume of fire that magazine fed systems can’t.
The IAR briefs well and can be gamed for demonstration purposes, but in combat situations, the belt fed LMG at the small unit level has a very strong role.
The USMC’s own combat data showed that the IAR (or any mag fed system) doesn’t do well with moving targets at shifting ranges (like enemy maneuvering).

My personal belief is that individual shoulder fired weapons are only useful in semi auto, and the bipod support belt fed LMG offers a usefully platform for automatic fire.

 

[KevinB]

Whats your personal opinion on the of the section?

The question is what does the Section need to be in the foreseeable future.
I'd recommend picking up a copy of Jack Watling's "The Arms of the Future" it offers some fairly solid observations of the need for change, and what present day and future requirements are for "Combined Arms Forces".

It is clear the average Infantry Section/Squad needs to change, but the degree of change depends on what the foreseen role of the Section is.

Probably better for a topic split.

 

[Fabius]

Probably better for a topic split

Numerous threads to energize if people are interested. Also lots of thoughts and ideas.


Ie. Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

Or

Thread 'Infantry of Tomorrow'

6 Dec 2004

There are a lot of threads with different ideas about how technology, organization, education etc. will change the nature of the Infantry. The best one to start is probably "Thinking about the Section Attack" http://army.ca/forums/threads/18270.120.html, but "Combat team of Tomorrow" is also relevant http://army.ca/forums/threads/22245.0.html.

I will throw out the first idea: make the dismounted Infantry section 9 men strong, split into 3 X 3 man groups. Two assault groups will be equipped with automatic rifles and 1X M203, while the third "support" group will have the C 9s and rocket...

• a_majoor
• Replies: 404
• Forum: Infantry

 

[ueo]

It's also relatively low-footprint.

Want an easy way to spend a bunch of defence money? Establish skeet ranges all over the place, and also fund a) unit weapons training as a a priority item, and b) additional service weapon firing on existing rifle ranges. Start treating it in a manner similar to the theory with PT: deliver both focused trade/role training and a low-barrier-to-entry opportunity for members to engage in additional practice on their own time.

All fighter bases had this option until early 70's when computers started to take over targeting.

 

[KevinB]

Numerous threads to energize if people are interested. Also lots of thoughts and ideas.


Ie. Ricks Napkin Challenge- The Infantry Section and Platoon

Or

Thread 'Infantry of Tomorrow'

6 Dec 2004

There are a lot of threads with different ideas about how technology, organization, education etc. will change the nature of the Infantry. The best one to start is probably "Thinking about the Section Attack" http://army.ca/forums/threads/18270.120.html, but "Combat team of Tomorrow" is also relevant http://army.ca/forums/threads/22245.0.html.

I will throw out the first idea: make the dismounted Infantry section 9 men strong, split into 3 X 3 man groups. Two assault groups will be equipped with automatic rifles and 1X M203, while the third "support" group will have the C 9s and rocket...

• a_majoor
• Replies: 404
• Forum: Infantry

I'll make a new thread, as I think the other ones are all OBE, but currently really need to be headed to the airport - once through security I'll try to remember to bang something out on my iPhone.

 

[Halifax Tar]

It's also relatively low-footprint.

Want an easy way to spend a bunch of defence money? Establish skeet ranges all over the place, and also fund a) unit weapons training as a a priority item, and b) additional service weapon firing on existing rifle ranges. Start treating it in a manner similar to the theory with PT: deliver both focused trade/role training and a low-barrier-to-entry opportunity for members to engage in additional practice on their own time.

Tim Thurley: Canada's civilian gun culture should be part of our defence plan

An armed and trained citizenry, and a thriving weapons industry, are essential parts of any national defence strategy.

www.readtheline.ca

 

[Infanteer]

With any change to the C9, beyond simply buying new ones which other have spoken to the problems of, is that it would likely require a rethink of how we work at section and platoon level. Which is fine, but it becomes a more complex question than what’s the best LMG - and instead becomes how does the section / platoon fight and how do we best support that. We’ve been married to two LMGs in a symmetrical section since the 1950s, rightly or wrongly there’s institutional bias there.

Not quite - we had asymmetrical sections until the arrival of the C7/C9 family in the 1980s. Before, it was asymmetric sections with an assault and support group.

The Canadian Infantry Section Attack Part One

 

[FJAG]

Tim Thurley: Canada's civilian gun culture should be part of our defence plan

An armed and trained citizenry, and a thriving weapons industry, are essential parts of any national defence strategy.

www.readtheline.ca

The DCRA was a great feeder system for the Militia in the pre WW1 and after days. We pay too little attention to things like well controlled and moderately funded and supported civilian organizations like rifle associations, cadet movements to help grow reserves and subsequently regulars.

Not quite - we had asymmetrical sections until the arrival of the C7/C9 family in the 1980s. Before, it was asymmetric sections with an assault and support group.

The Canadian Infantry Section Attack Part One

Yup. Like these - the top right one is where some of us old buggers came in :

 

[markppcli]

Not quite - we had asymmetrical sections until the arrival of the C7/C9 family in the 1980s. Before, it was asymmetric sections with an assault and support group.

The Canadian Infantry Section Attack Part One

Well don’t I feel silly

 

[KevinB]

Not quite - we had asymmetrical sections until the arrival of the C7/C9 family in the 1980s. Before, it was asymmetric sections with an assault and support group.

The Canadian Infantry Section Attack Part One

Even before the the C7 and C9 got fielded, the CA had adopted the Symmetrical Section - with 1 C2 / group.
Even after the fielding of the C7 and C9, some section commanders (and/or Platoon Commanders) put 2 x C9 in a Support Group under the Sec 2 I/C, which worked better with 10 man sections, as you then had a 7 man assault group. The RCR BSL put out a number of different section arrangements in Aide Memoires for the late 80's early 90's and the C9's hopped around a bunch in those. The RSL BSL gave out three different copies during a Pre-Leadership course in 1989 (I wish I had kept them) but it really felt like on the bus, off the bus - and I don't recall if there was any specific fallout for doing drills "wrong" - it was awfully fricken confusing though when falling in for battle as a section member as poor #3 rifleman and #1 LMG gunner often got moved around teams.

Well don’t I feel silly

I wouldn't, I became a Patricia in 1994, and I'd been teaching at the RCR BSL and in Meaford the instructor prep week for ISCC course that September had a number of discussions on the arrangement of the section (the Course WO and Standards WO being the main two in disagreement...). I didn't see any discussion of it post that period.

 

[PrairieFella]

Even before the the C7 and C9 got fielded, the CA had adopted the Symmetrical Section - with 1 C2 / group.
Even after the fielding of the C7 and C9, some section commanders (and/or Platoon Commanders) put 2 x C9 in a Support Group under the Sec 2 I/C, which worked better with 10 man sections, as you then had a 7 man assault group. The RCR BSL put out a number of different section arrangements in Aide Memoires for the late 80's early 90's and the C9's hopped around a bunch in those. The RSL BSL gave out three different copies during a Pre-Leadership course in 1989 (I wish I had kept them) but it really felt like on the bus, off the bus - and I don't recall if there was any specific fallout for doing drills "wrong" - it was awfully fricken confusing though when falling in for battle as a section member as poor #3 rifleman and #1 LMG gunner often got moved around teams.


I wouldn't, I became a Patricia in 1994, and I'd been teaching at the RCR BSL and in Meaford the instructor prep week for ISCC course that September had a number of discussions on the arrangement of the section (the Course WO and Standards WO being the main two in disagreement...). I didn't see any discussion of it post that period.

Semper Gumbi.

The enemy will have a tough time with our drills since every Sgt and Lt has their own opinion how to do things and utilize those ideas haha.