Discussion on the C6 Machine Gun

[KevinB]

I'm somewhat familiar with the LAV unit, however I disagree that it is the best way to make Infanteers.  Despite protestations to the contrary, sticking troops in the LAV really does hurt their light skills. 

Teflon - I agree with you that it takes time and experience to use the LAV to its potential, which is why I want to make a dedicated crew trade. 

Wonderbread, a troop should never start with the LMG, and the fact that you think so reinforces my assertion that a LAV unit errodes core Inf skills.  Pte Snuffy gets a C7, Pte with a few years or a young Cpl gets the C9, why waste firepower on inexperience.

 

[Fusaki]

Wonderbread, a troop should never start with the LMG, and the fact that you think so reinforces my assertion that a LAV unit errodes core Inf skills.  Pte Snuffy gets a C7, Pte with a few years or a young Cpl gets the C9, why waste firepower on inexperience.

Certainly not because it's cock, or because "that's what I carried as a new Pte."

In my opinion, the C9 should go to the new guy because of the experience it requires.  As a C9 gunner, your sole job is the application of fire from the best position possible.  Right out of battleschool it gets guys thinking of enfilade and defilade, and how far to stand from the window to cover the street, and thinking about where the majority of the dismounted section's fire needs to be directed.

These are fundamental things that every infanteer needs to be thinking about, and as a C9 gunner a young Pte is given a chance to focus on these before he starts getting tasked to carry the radio, search PWs, or drive a LAV.  It gives the more experienced guys a chance to give the C9 gunner a quick check and say "No dude, cover here, not there" and then move onto other things.

If you put your CPL as a C9 gunner and he gets hit, the PTE who picks up the gun will lack experience at a time and place when he needs it most.  If your new guy PTE gets hit carrying the C9, everyone else can pick it up and be familiar with what needs to be done.

There's a method to my mayhem.

 

[Teflon]

Teflon - I agree with you that it takes time and experience to use the LAV to its potential, which is why I want to make a dedicated crew trade.

I actually use to subscribe to the same line of thought that it should be a dedicated crew trade until I was moved out of mortars and started operating in a LAV section (1st as a section comd dismounting out the back then as a crew comd and LAV Sgt) With the whole section familiar with operating out of a LAV and the majority of them qualified in a crew seat they are far better to operate in conjunction with each other. It would be awesome if we where a big enough military to have units that specialize in only one type, but alas we are not and must settle for having our limited number of infantry units be more general purpose so that may be used to conduct mech or light tasks.

 

[Nfld Sapper]

I give the C-9 to the guy who scores lowest on the PWT Shoot..... then I am fairly certain he could hit something

;D

 

[vonGarvin]

I could not agree more with Infidel-6 re: machine guns and newbies.  When Pte Bloggins shows up to the battalion, he should be given his rifle and told to STFU.  Only when the member demonstrates the requisite skills and experience should that member be made a LMG gunner.
I could not disagree more re: LAV III APC manning. As stated, the LAV III APC is an infantry vehicle.  As an aside, I conducted a standards visit years ago to many infantry units.  I was there on fact-finding on continuation training on the LAV III APC.  One of the battalions (no names, no pack drills), stated that they didn't train much on the LAV III APC, but focused instead on "infantry skills".  My question was, what are infantry skills?  Would that include walking with packs?  Field craft?  Machine gunning?  Digging Trenches?  Musketry?  Battle craft?  The answer is "yes" to all of those, naturally. 
But as stated elsewhere, the LAV III APC section includes ten soldiers, 2 x LMGs, 2 x 40mm Grenade Launchers, 8 rifles, a 7.62mm coax, a 25mm Chain gun, etc and ten soldiers.  More importantly, the skillsets required to fight a section/platoon/coy/combat team that is mechanised is different from fighting  a Light Infantry section/platoon/coy/combat team.  In order for the infantry to fully understand that integral asset that is the LAV III APC, the infantry must use it, fight it, drive it, maintain it and, if necessary, make sweet love to it. 
This, of course, implies the bloody obvious (to me, anyway): we need dedicated Light Infantry units.  As stated elsewhere, "Light Infantry" is not simply leaving the LAV III APC parked; instead, it's a different skillset that must be practised and trained in order to achieve a level of mastery.

 

[SeanNewman]

[/promise to start talking about the C6]

There is nothing saying that you can't have Armour cap badge guys in the section anymore than you can't have a Sigs-badged guy as your radio man.

You don't need 1,000 Infantry guys to make a battle group, so why do you need 8-10 Infantry guys to make a section?

Even if they were organic, so what?  Are platoon medics not organic?  They focus on their job and do what they do best, and they do it better than an Infantry guy could the same way a guy who did nothing but drive or fire the gun would do it better if that's all they did.

The role of the Armour and the focus can still be on tanks, but that doesn't mean they can't do other things, the same way an Infanteer can fill other roles (like Planner for example).

IMO, every time you stick an Infanteer behind a steering wheel you're taking time away from him that he could be ruck sacking or occupying a patrol base.

 

[Fusaki]

I could not agree more with Infidel-6 re: machine guns and newbies.  When Pte Bloggins shows up to the battalion, he should be given his rifle and told to STFU.  Only when the member demonstrates the requisite skills and experience should that member be made a LMG gunner.

How does a guy demonstrate requisite skills without actually doing it?

The only way to get good LMG gunners is to give guys LMGs.  Take young PTEs, give them C9s, and tell them not to STFU, but do just the opposite: ask questions, take initiative, and think about the best way to employ that weapons system.  We're not dropping dudes right out of battleschool into the Panj.  We're giving room in training to learn the trade and to make mistakes, so when they're LAV drivers and Gunners they'll know what the dismounts are doing, and when they're CPLs they'll have the experience to develop the skills of those around them.

By "saving" the LMGs for the CPLs you only ensure that guys get that experience later in their careers.  You end up with PTEs overseas who can't think beyond "follow the ruck in front of you" and who aren't confident in employing the majority of the dismounted section's firepower.  The C9s are too important to save for the more senior guys, who's attention should not only be on themselves and their weapons, but also on the less experienced guys in the section.

 

[vonGarvin]

[/promise to start talking about the C6]

There is nothing saying that you can't have Armour cap badge guys in the section anymore than you can't have a Sigs-badged guy as your radio man.

Platoon and Coy signallers are infantrymen.  The Coy Sig Op is a LCIS tech (or whatever the nom du jour is for jimmies).

You don't need 1,000 Infantry guys to make a battle group, so why do you need 8-10 Infantry guys to make a section?

  I won't dignify that with a response.

Even if they were organic, so what?  Are platoon medics not organic?  They focus on their job and do what they do best, and they do it better than an Infantry guy could the same way a guy who did nothing but drive or fire the gun would do it better if that's all they did.

The term is integral, and no, medics are not integral, or organic, or whatever.  They are attached under a command relationship to the coy, and thence to the platoon.  Their job is that specific that it takes more than an OSS to do it.  And Section drivers do more than "just drive", and gunners do more than "just gun".  Hell, I would no more advocate putting an armoured crewman into a LAV III APC than I would advocate putting an infantryman who has the Turret Operator Course into a Coyote in an Armd Recce Sqn.

The role of the Armour and the focus can still be on tanks, but that doesn't mean they can't do other things, the same way an Infanteer can fill other roles (like Planner for example).

IMO, every time you stick an Infanteer behind a steering wheel you're taking time away from him that he could be ruck sacking or occupying a patrol base.

If your Infanteer (sic) is behind a steering wheel, then the other nine members of his section are in that vehicle, unless they are fighting through the objective.  If they are ruck sacking (which is just a method of walking with kit), then the LAV III APC is parked somewhere else.  If that driver is an armd crewman, then he or she is back with the LAV III APC, and the section is now 7 persons, instead of 10.
And the role of Armour is actually focusing on Armd Recce more than tanks these days.  But as for roles such as Planner, Ops O, etc, those are staff positions that can be filled by anyone with the proper training (eg: the AOC).  If you suggest that just anyone can be an infantryman or an infantry officer, then you are sadly mistaken.

 

[Kirkhill]

TV2, wasn't there some Rockpainting Mortar Guy on these boards a couple of years back that took a position more in line with that of I-6? Or was that Captain Scarlett I was thinking about?

Although I do think the discussion at that time revolved around having a LAV crew section within the Platoon.  Or was it a LAV crew platoon within the Company.

It's so hard to keep track anymore. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

And for those of you who wish to develop a closer relationship with other GPMG lovers there is, of course, the Facebook page:

A general purpose machine gun (GPMG) in concept is a multi-purpose weapon, a machine gun intended to fill the role of either a light machine gun or medium machine gun, while at the same time being man-portable. However, performance in either role may be inferior to a weapon specifically designed for that role. In modern practice, they are air-cooled medium machine guns firing rifle cartridges such as the 7.62x51mm NATO. They are generally operated from a stationary prone position from either a bipod or tripod, or mounted on a vehicle, as they are usually too powerful and heavy to be fired effectively on foot from an unsupported standing position or on the move, although the British Royal Marine Commandos, British Army Parachute Regiment, first line combat battalions such as the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and SAS are known to do this with devastating effect.

The term GPMG (or "Gimpy" in British Army slang), which comes from the Belgian-French name Mitrailleuse d'Appui General or General Purpose Machine guns (GPMG), became popular for describing medium machine guns used in multiple roles. The original Belgian-French term Mitrailleuse a Gaz is also known to be used. The mediums fired rifle caliber ammunition, but had some concessions for more extended firing and more general usage. This generally included both bipod and tripod/pintle mounting options and quick-change barrels. The first medium machine gun used as a GPMG traces back to World War I, where aircooled medium machine guns were used in many different roles, typically with larger magazines on aircraft, tanks, and ships, and in lighter configurations by infantry on bipods or tripods.


http://www.facebook.com/pages/GPMG/110851185611241

 

[SeanNewman]

... I would advocate putting an infantryman who ....If your Infanteer (sic) is behind a steering wheel...

Not C6 related, but I know where you're coming from with the above quote, and the reason I am writing "Infanteer" is that it was straight from Director Infantry's mouth as of last month's Ex Bayonet Infantry Conference. 

He said "Infantryman" and then corrected himself and said that "Infanteer" is now more appropriate (to paraphrase).  One would imagine it's in the same league as "Salesman" or "Spokesman".

 

[vonGarvin]

TV2, wasn't there some Rockpainting Mortar Guy on these boards a couple of years back that took a position more in line with that of I-6? Or was that Captain Scarlett I was thinking about?

Although I do think the discussion at that time revolved around having a LAV crew section within the Platoon.  Or was it a LAV crew platoon within the Company.

It's so hard to keep track anymore. 

It was CaptainMortarRockScarlettViking dude.  ;D Anyway, the idea was to have a platoon in the company that was dedicated LAV crewman, all infantrymen, who could be given "other" roles (eg: fire sp) if the LAVs were to be left back for whatever reason.

 

[vonGarvin]

Not C6 related, but I know where you're coming from with the above quote, and the reason I am writing "Infanteer" is that it was straight from Director Infantry's mouth as of last month's Ex Bayonet Infantry Conference. 

He said "Infantryman" and then corrected himself and said that "Infanteer" is now more appropriate (to paraphrase).  One would imagine it's in the same league as "Salesman" or "Spokesman".

As an aside, "Infanteer" is a very Canadian term.  Not found in other armies or nations, as a matter of fact.  I'm not sure of its origin. 

 

[SeanNewman]

As an aside, "Infanteer" is a very Canadian term.  Not found in other armies or nations, as a matter of fact.  I'm not sure of its origin.

Last I checked, we didn't need another country's permission* to do what we wanted ;-)

*Disclaimer* Does not include service under the UN, NATO, ISAF, NORAD, or English Canada.

 

[MikeL]

Platoon and Coy signallers are infantrymen.  The Coy Sig Op is a LCIS tech (or whatever the nom du jour is for jimmies).

In a Infantry Battalion LCIS Techs don't leave Sigs Pl. Sig Ops are the ones employed in the Rifle Coy HQs.  There is 1x Sig Op MCpl and 2x Pte/Cpl Sig Ops. The OC's dismounted Signaller is a Infantryman, but he isn't the only one in the Coy HQ out humping a radio(Coy Sig Ops do it as well).  Also, in the past Sig Ops have been employed as Platoon Signallers in a Rifle Coy, ie TF 1-08 PRT Force Protection Coy.  Even Sig Ops in BN HQ/Sigs Pl can go out on Ops, etc and hump a radio.  Plus the CO has a Sig Op as his Signaller in 9TAC.

 

[REDinstaller]

And most LCIS techs would only hump a man pack back to the CQ to return it after repair. And now back to our regularly scheduled post.

Has any one else had the Spade grip fall off the E-LAV/TLAV RWS mount when firing the armament?

I had one E-LAV last year in Edm where the screws backed out after a couple thousand rounds. It shouldn't happen, but there it was dangling in the wind.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And most LCIS techs would only hump a man pack back to the CQ to return it after repair. And now back to our regularly scheduled post.

Has any one else had the Spade grip fall off the E-LAV/TLAV RWS mount when firing the armament?

I had one E-LAV last year in Edm where the screws backed out after a couple thousand rounds. It shouldn't happen, but there it was dangling in the wind.

Thread locker, a la Locktite? Should be ok with the blue stuff.

 

[REDinstaller]

You would of thought it would be there in the first place, but the screws are so short that maybe they should have the heads that accommodate lock wire.

 

[a_majoor]

Very interestng thread, although i recognize many of the arguments thrashed about in other threads (especi the mech infantry vs light arguments op

Going to machine guns (and support weapons in general), the primary disadvantage to light infantry has always been manpacking enough firepower and ammunition to do the job and cover contingencies. Current technology makes light infantry far more powerful than ever, and you could possibly push some current ideas to lighten the load even more; Mk 48 GPMG's to replace the C-6, Ultimax 100 LMGs to replace the C-9 and issuing the Javelin ATGM to replace the Carl-G and provide pretty potent DF firpower at the platoon and Coy level.

The only problem with that line of argument is a motor battalion or a Mech Infantry battalion can carry even more firepower and ammunition (even without the Gucci kit) plus lots of additional goodies that even the strongest backs in the light BN would not have access to (things like the ITAS thermal sight, for example). "The Return of the Canadian Mounted Rifles" explicitly calls for a hybrid "motor battalion" to address that problem, and no matter how far in the future we project, that divide will remain (until we all become Starship Troopers).

 

[SeanNewman]

The 50 cals on the horizon that weigh half of what they do now have the potential to being some life back to light Inf.