Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[vonGarvin]

No other platoon-level rapid-firing weapon engages with CE projectiles out to the same range band.

You lost all credibility with this sentence.  To illustrate, the M 242 fires at rates of either single shot, 100 or 200 rounds per minute.  One of the munition types is HEI-T.  It fires out to 2400 m, longer range than the HK by ~900m (effective range of 1500m, max range of 2200 m).

At the Coy level range band, the M203s will not contribute and the one solitary platoon mortar will at best harass. 

You lose more credibility here.  You talk of the coy level range band and then talk about the platoon mortar.  You cannot pick your range bands willy nilly, and then alter them to fit your uninformed argument.  (If it's coy ranges, then there are four mortars, FYI.  And they would provide only the initial fire whilst others are called to join the fight.) 

In your rush to be theatrical...

That was not necessary.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

I am not an infantryman.

Having said that (and some would offer that I should have stopped there) I have been following this disucssion with interest.  I think that we should try to avoid getting too wrapped up in "platoon" vs "company" weapons.  I see the point, but I think that exclusively focusing on one level can be problematic. 

I served on exchange with a USMC infantry battalion for a couple of exercises.  This was pretty much a pure infantry battalion with only a smattering of vehicles.  I was attached to the Weapons Company that had a Mortar Platoon (81mm), an AT Platoon (Dragon IIRC) and a Heavy Guns Platoon.  The Heavy Guns had 4 x 50 cal and 4 x Mk 19.  Each was mounted on an HMMVW.  They could be chopped out in mixed pairs to the four rifle companies or used as a platoon to support battalion fights.  I should note that the rifle companies had a mortar squad with 2 or 3 60mm mortars that were company commander weapons.

A battalion attack could thus bring quite a bit of firepower.  One thing that the Mk19s could do was fire a little longer than the mortars leading up to an assault (like tanks in a firebase when the arty lifts).  It was also simpler to shift the fire around (no radio chatter).  The 50s could work on "harder" targets such as buildings, vehicles or wood bunkers.  I liked the concept.  The Heavy Guns used their HMMVW to get their weapons to their firing location and would then dismount, although they could fire mounted and did so when employed as ersatz recon.  I was part of one evolution that involved taking them in by helicopter and humping them across mountains for two days (with mules for the first day).

Now, a LAV battalion conducting an attack can get very similar effects as the heavy guns platoon with the 25mm cannons.  It means some infantry are left out of the fight or go in without their LAVs if LAVs are used in the firebase.  In my operational experience I found my infantry colleagues full of praise for their 60mm mortars and I was not terribly impressed with the drive to replace the 60mm with the CASW.  I don't see it as an either/or.  I would place an AGL after 60mm mortars (and indeed 81mm mortars) in a LAV battalion in terms of priority, but still see a place for the AGL concept (but bear in mind that I am an armoured guy).

I do note, however, that the prospect of having infantry companies mounted on TAPV is coming into view.  I think that a company or battalion of TAPV might find AGLs and 50 cals very useful, since you won't have 25mm cannons.  One option would be to have the section vehicles (a section will go on more than one vehicle) mount a mix of 50 cal and AGL, giving the section/platoon/company a mix of complementary systems.  I offer that a TAPV battalion or company could benefit from a dedicated platoon or section whose only job was to bring their 50s and AGLs into firebase positions and fire dismounted with a plentiful ammo supply and more training.  We couldn't call them Heavy Guns.  Maybe Pipes and Drums?

Anyhoo.

 

[SeanNewman]

...but bear in mind that I am an armoured guy...

Now I'm confused for an entirely different reason.  I always get jacked up by black hatters when I called them Armoured.

 

[McG]

You lost all credibility with this sentence.  To illustrate, the M 242 fires at rates of either single shot, 100 or 200 rounds per minute.  One of the munition types is HEI-T. 

My appologies.  I meant to indicate that No other dismountable platoon-level rapid-firing weapon engages with CE projectiles out to the same range band.  However, if you want to declare "lost all credibility" and ignore the meat of the argument, then fill your boots.

You lose more credibility here.  You talk of the coy level range band and then talk about the platoon mortar. 

No.  The company range band comes from the big hitting platoon level weapons - C6, AGL, 60 mm mortar.  When we are doing dispersed operations and a platoon is out by itself, it still needs these weapons to influence out into what is traditionally that company range band.

That was not necessary.

It was an honest assesment on the technique of your argument.

 

[vonGarvin]

Forget it.  The AGLS is the best thing since sliced bread.  I submit.

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Now I'm confused for an entirely different reason.  I always get jacked up by black hatters when I called them Armoured.

Am I now a "person of armour?"

 

[vonGarvin]

I do note, however, that the prospect of having infantry companies mounted on TAPV is coming into view.  I think that a company or battalion of TAPV might find AGLs and 50 cals very useful, since you won't have 25mm cannons.  One option would be to have the section vehicles (a section will go on more than one vehicle) mount a mix of 50 cal and AGL, giving the section/platoon/company a mix of complementary systems.  I offer that a TAPV battalion or company could benefit from a dedicated platoon or section whose only job was to bring their 50s and AGLs into firebase positions and fire dismounted with a plentiful ammo supply and more training.  We couldn't call them Heavy Guns.  Maybe Pipes and Drums?

Anyhoo.

I'm not an infantryman either: I'm an infantry officer ;D


In the case of a TAPV, then employing an AGLS/.50 mix (as required, and as conducted in the past) makes sense, IF the primary role is to have them mounted in lieu of something else.

AGLS in a mech infantry platoon with LAV APCs is, as I stated in my previous post, the best thing since sliced bread.  Bring more AGLS.

 

[SeanNewman]

...  Bring more AGLS.

Je vous presente: Metal Storm.

Also conveniently man portable.

 

[Infanteer]

As usual, I agree with everything T2B has to say (We've gotta quit meeting like this).

In the case of a TAPV, then employing an AGLS/.50 mix (as required, and as conducted in the past) makes sense, IF the primary role is to have them mounted in lieu of something else.

The latest design for Reg Force Infantry Battalions I've seen is 9 battalions each consisting of 2 LAV companies and a "Non-LAV" Company.  This will likely be TAPV or something else - but that something else will, I'm sure, not have an M242 Bushmaster on it.  Anyways, "Non-LAV" infantry has been a reality for sometime with today's OMLT and PRT Force Protection Companies - dressed up Infantry organizations without LAVs (either not having them or leaving them behind); in essence, Infantry that have been running for years without a LAV turret.

Bring on the sliced bread indeed.

 

[vonGarvin]

The force employment structure for infantry battalions is four companies (2013 model), three in LAVs, and reservists relegated to "force protection".  I can't recall the vehicles for the fourth coy, but TAPV does jump to mind.

Force generation model is as you put it: three coys, all identically structured, with 1 or 2 in LAV, the other in....Interim Combat Boots.....

 

[daftandbarmy]

Forget it.  The AGLS is the best thing since sliced bread.  I submit.

Not until they fit it with a bayonet  (you know it makes sense :nod

 

[vonGarvin]

Not until they fit it with a bayonet  (you know it makes sense :nod

Hell, they may as well have. 


I for one am sick and tired of getting terminal ballistics "lessons" and bullshit on this from non-infantry people.  Especially this little gem:

Since we state that we want broad spectrum of overlapping capabilities with diverging limitations, there should be at least two types of weapons capable of hitting that enemy via different means.  An AGL with the airburst capability gives us this.  Where detonation range is automatically varied & the weapon slewed across the target area, an equal size beaten zone can be saturated with a higher rate of smaller fragmentary projectiles.  There will be higher frag casualties and greater suppression/fixing achieved.Of course, range is also a component of capability and when you look at what can reach-out to influence in the company range-band, those six M203 fall out of the equation.

Ok , since when did you get involved in Infantry Weapons procurement?  Why the “we”?  Tell you what, leave the killing to us, the armour and the artillery, and just breach for us, ok?  Don’t worry, if we use you as infantry, we’ll let you lug the AGLS around: you can have it.  But right now, we have in the infantry platoon a “broad spectrum of overlapping capabilities with blah blah blah”.  An AGL that is too heavy to carry adds nothing of value.  I couldn’t care less if it slices, dices and makes julienne fries, if you can’t lug it around, it may as well be a paperweight.

 

[dapaterson]

Now I'm confused for an entirely different reason.  I always get jacked up by black hatters when I called them Armoured.

I think you're just getting mixed up about black hats.

 

[vonGarvin]

T2B is in the navy?

 

[vonGarvin]

I was wrong.  The AGLS is definitely man-portable as seen in this photo:

 

[Michael OLeary]

I was wrong.  The AGLS is definitely man-portable as seen in this photo:

And there's a job for you in that platoon too.  Ballast.    ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

I don't know if I've told this story, if I have my apologies.

In 1979, we humped .50 cals with ammo 3 km and back, total about 6 km. It was not fun.

 

[vonGarvin]

And there's a job for you in that platoon too.  Ballast.    ;D

Isn't "Know your subordinates and employ them within the limitations of their capabilities" a principle of leadership?  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

I see the debate going two ways:

Infanteer - pro
Techno - con

SO, you two being of much larger and younger brain than I, where would you employ this, who would be issued with it etc.

The debate isn't so much "pro" or "con", rather if the proposed issue and employment of the weapon makes any sense as currently envisioned. As a dismounted platoon/coy level weapon I woud have to say "nay". If the box is opened up and the AGL is mounted on patrol vehicles or issued out to Service Battalions to defend supply points (or whatever the acronym of the day is), then I'm all for this.

 

[vonGarvin]

Thucydides makes the point.  To put things into perspective, some info on the MK 40mm GL: (aka "C16 AGLS")
Gun, tripod and holder for ammo container: 48.3 kg
1 x Ammo container with 32 cartridges: 20.2 kg
So, for a LAV 3 APC equipped platoon, it offers no value added.  Simply because it cannot be brought into battle effectively by dismounted troops.  Yes, there are exceptions to every rule, such as "what if I'm dropped off on a defensive position" or "what if it's loaded to a FOB", etc.  To illustrate an AGLS with four boxes of ammo for a total of 128 rounds (2 to 3 minutes of sustained fire), that's 129.1 kg. 

What burns me is that "they" think that this replaces the 60mm.
In the light role, it weighs 7.7kg
With bipod, it weighs 23.4 kg.


To get 3 minutes of fire, normal rate (8 rounds per minute) is a total of 24 rounds.  I can't find the mass of the C110, but similar rounds are around 2 kg.  It comes in packs of four, and I'll assume 1.5 kg for packaging.  So, rounding up, four bombs @ 2 kg each = 8 kg + 1.5 kg = 9.5 kg.  So, 38 kg.
(Someone, PLEASE check my math!)

So, with bipod and 24 rounds, that's  61.4 kg to get three minutes of fire vs 129.1 kg to get the same time of fire.

If you go light role, it's a mere 45.7 kg, although the trade off is less range (~800 m). 

Getting even more practicable, a soldier could get a four-pack of roughly 10 kg, vice a box at roughly 20 kg, to man pack.

So, if people have been wondering why I may seem irate, hopefully the mass of the system makes it impracticable for use by a LAV 3 APC equipped platoon (not needed given the current family of weapons systems) and if that LAV 3 APC is tasked away, then good luck getting that thing around the battlefield under fire.  It's a hunk of junk if it's going to Incany Platoons, which it is, so it's a hunk of junk.
So, instead of just bitching about it, a solution: get a modern 60mm mortar that has better range. 
Easy-peasy.