Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[boredtoon]

Reference the above by @boredtoon. His unit has firing tables and uses them yearly

Not quite, Tables are held at brigade. The unit has SF Kits and C2 sights. We for sure use the SF kits and C2 for famil every year (Mark and lay). But without the tables, we can't do the famil on map and table every year, except for theory lessons.

Interesting - where are you getting the firing tables - as at least by 1988 they have been removed.

Not sure how they were re-acquired. But I'm pretty sure it was a case of "we were told to get rid of these, but we're just going to put them in the basement instead".

 

[PrairieFella]

Not quite, Tables are held at brigade. The unit has SF Kits and C2 sights. We for sure use the SF kits and C2 for famil every year (Mark and lay). But without the tables, we can't do the famil on map and table every year, except for theory lessons.

How often do you crack out the tables from Bde?

Not sure how they were re-acquired. But I'm pretty sure it was a case of "we were told to get rid of these, but we're just going to put them in the basement instead".

As is tradition in the Reserves. We're like cash-strapped hoarders, we throw nothing out because it might have some value in 25 years (which is the next time we'll get some hand-me-downs)

 

[boredtoon]

How often do you crack out the tables from Bde?

Never, except to run IBMG. There's not a lot of them, and they are held exclusively as course resources. The Reg Force inf bns may have better luck getting some for training.

 

[KevinB]

Never, except to run IBMG. There's not a lot of them, and they are held exclusively as course resources. The Reg Force Inf bns may have better luck getting some for training.

Someone should scan them and upload them to the DWAN.

Now admittedly these days one can simply cheat - using one's phone and a chrono (Magnetospeed or the new Garmin )
- big fan of the Garmin BTW

Xero® C1 Pro Chronograph

www.garmin.com

Once you have the Avg MV - you just drop the data into the Applied Ballistics App - and boom, you have a firing table.

 

[Kirkhill]

Knowing the MO well - they probably thought that was stupid and stashed some photocopies in the Unit Pam library haha. Turns out they were correct. I can see plunging fire and area denial for GPMGs will become far more useful again with the proliferation of section level drones.

I'd be curious if something similar can be done on RWS systems. I know the Aussies did some trials on that in the past.

I often wondered about 25mm indirect fire from the LAVs. I was told that they would scatter all over the place but I thought that was the whole point of a beaten zone.

 

[PrairieFella]

I often wondered about 25mm indirect fire from the LAVs. I was told that they would scatter all over the place but I thought that was the whole point of a beaten zone.

Personally, I wouldn't advise it. It's heavy, HE is relatively expensive compared to a bullet and the elevation on the M242 probably wouldn't be able to do it anyways. At that point, you're getting into HE mortar or AGLS territory.

 

[Kirkhill]

Personally, I wouldn't advise it. It's heavy, HE is relatively expensive compared to a bullet and the elevation of on the M242 probably wouldn't be able to do it anyways. At that point, you're getting into HE mortar or AGLS territory.

My thinking was based on WW2 reports of the Rhine Crossing when the Bofors LAA regiments joined the Vickers MGs in the fire plan to suppress the Germans on the opposite bank. George Blackburn covered it.

Canadian artillery units joined in the barrage, including their 17-pounder antitank guns, and the Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa Machine Gun Regiment, with their powerful Vickers machine guns, chattered with their two-mile range. British and Canadian gunners hammered predesignated ground targets, which included German bunkers dug in on the riverbank, with a massive volume of fire. The 4th Canadian Light Anti-Aircraft Regiment alone fired 13,896 rounds

Operation Plunder: Crossing the Rhine

During the Allied plan for crossing the Rhine, codenamed Operation Plunder, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery's meticulous planning paid off.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

 

[FJAG]

The G5 howitzer, which was based on Gerald Bull's GC-45.

South Korea also developed their own 155mm, the KH179, which is still in production.

KH179 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The G5 is a heavy beast. I've never really looked at the KH179. Just reading Wikipedia it looks like a contemporary of, and at about the same weight and capability as, the M198.

 

[KevinB]

The G5 is a heavy beast. I've never really looked at the KH179. Just reading Wikipedia it looks like a contemporary of, and at about the same weight and capability as, the M198.

I am pretty sure the KH179 was a licensed copy of the M198.

The G5 is a 70's design that offers nothing in this day and age, both those would be massive step backwards from the M777.




The M777 is the preeminent Light Weight 155 Towed Howitzer.
It makes sense to have the M777 for ones Airborne, Airmobile, Light Artillery forces.

My thinking was based on WW2 reports of the Rhine Crossing when the Bofors LAA regiments joined the Vickers MGs in the fire plan to suppress the Germans on the opposite bank. George Blackburn covered it.

Operation Plunder: Crossing the Rhine

During the Allied plan for crossing the Rhine, codenamed Operation Plunder, Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery's meticulous planning paid off.

warfarehistorynetwork.com

I really question anyone who thinks the .303British round from the Vickers is going to be very effective at 3,200m
Sure the bullet can get there with a greater than 145mill elevation requirement and a 12 second time of flight - losing more than 90% of its muzzle energy upon arrival. You are needing to use a slew of ammo from a slew of guns. Not an efficient use at all.

 

[Kirkhill]

I really question anyone who thinks the .303British round from the Vickers is going to be very effective at 3,200m
Sure the bullet can get there with a greater than 145mill elevation requirement and a 12 second time of flight - losing more than 90% of its muzzle energy upon arrival. You are needing to use a slew of ammo from a slew of guns. Not an efficient use at all.

Well some folks thought enough of the practice to include in SOPs up until the 1960s.

 

[KevinB]

Well some folks thought enough of the practice to include in SOPs up until the 1960s.

The issue to me is efficiency.
1) Is it practical to have a few dozen MG's spitting lead at trucks per hour rate, when a Mortar Platoon or .50 MG Group could delivery more effective results with less of a logistical burden
2) It died off in the 60's as most Armies it was realized it was ineffective and inefficient. Enemy forces where in Vehicles - and outside of the PLA in Korea, no one was doing human wave attacks.

I was involved in some MG testing last year, and the beaten zone at extreme ranges even when mounted on stabilized mounts is probably better called an "occasionally abused" zone rather than a beaten zone.
When Probability of Hit against a platoon in the prone drops under 1% / belt you are in the area where you should be using explosives - the 40mm HV Mk19 and C16 GMG's offer significantly better effects at ranges up to 2,500m than .50 and smaller MG's.

 

[Maxman1]

My unit has been tasked to run an IBMG in the fall, and I've already started putting the planning together for it as Training Coy CSM. Booking ranges in Gagetown and finding enough guns for candidates to use are critical factors. (We cannot do SF role in Aldershot, nor any other range that I'm aware of in Nova Scotia.)

Notably, 2 candidates per gun/SF Kit for the classroom stuff, 1500+ rds per student, and 10 training days.

If there's an empty seat, I might jump on, but I am not the priority to attend - I'll put every Cpl and Pte(T) on first before I take one of their spots.

My BMG had about 20 C6s, and by the end 8 worked.

I had one where the cocking handle flew off in the middle of a shoot, so I shoved a spent case on it for the rest of the shoot, then looked for the handle afterwards.

 

[Maxman1]

The G5 is a heavy beast. I've never really looked at the KH179. Just reading Wikipedia it looks like a contemporary of, and at about the same weight and capability as, the M198.

I am pretty sure the KH179 was a licensed copy of the M198.

The G5 is a 70's design that offers nothing in this day and age, both those would be massive step backwards from the M777.




The M777 is the preeminent Light Weight 155 Towed Howitzer.
It makes sense to have the M777 for ones Airborne, Airmobile, Light Artillery forces.

As far as I can tell, the KH179 was developed separately from the M198 and is unrelated to it.

My line of thought is the KH179 might be good to backfill our artillery shortages while still being usable operationally, not just as a training system, while the M777 is unavailable.

 

[Fabius]

The issue to me is efficiency.
1) Is it practical to have a few dozen MG's spitting lead at trucks per hour rate, when a Mortar Platoon or .50 MG Group could delivery more effective results with less of a logistical burden
2) It died off in the 60's as most Armies it was realized it was ineffective and inefficient. Enemy forces where in Vehicles - and outside of the PLA in Korea, no one was doing human wave attacks.

I was involved in some MG testing last year, and the beaten zone at extreme ranges even when mounted on stabilized mounts is probably better called an "occasionally abused" zone rather than a beaten zone.
When Probability of Hit against a platoon in the prone drops under 1% / belt you are in the area where you should be using explosives - the 40mm HV Mk19 and C16 GMG's offer significantly better effects at ranges up to 2,500m than .50 and smaller MG's.

Agreed, as cool as C6 indirect fire is, it’s actual utility for current forces is marginal to zero.

Having seen a fair bit of GPMG use this year,I have been mulling over a few thoughts.

First, given the fact that the C6 now has a pic rail on the feed cover, should we in fact be employing a day optic to enable better target identification at range?

Second, given the availability of thermal weapon sights, how useful is the C2 sight? Is there still a need to prerecord data to enable firing on tgts at night?

Third, the SF tripod is highly useful regardless of the rest of the SF kit. The ability to set up a solid firing position in either the high or low mount allows the use of ground that otherwise would be impossible to marginal in the light role. However for the Canadian infantry the SF kit is almost always only used in the defensive, it’s rare to see it employed in an offensive role in a fire base. I suspect that a modern SF tripod that’s lighter could be useful to encourage use in the offensive. The US Army seems to employ their M240B tripod much more so in the offensive.

 

[KevinB]

As far as I can tell, the KH179 was developed separately from the M198 and is unrelated to it.

Very little in Korea at that time didn’t have a US sponsor.

My line of thought is the KH179 might be good to backfill our artillery shortages while still being usable operationally, not just as a training system, while the M777 is unavailable.

You can pull the 777 with a Hummer. The 179 like the 198 requires a giant truck, and in poor conditions requires gun crews to double up to move them or come out of action.

The 777 isn’t unavailable, the line is being re-opened. By the time the CA could get around to cutting a PO, it would probably be closed up again though.

 

[KevinB]

Agreed, as cool as C6 indirect fire is, it’s actual utility for current forces is marginal to zero.

Having seen a fair bit of GPMG use this year,I have been mulling over a few thoughts.

First, given the fact that the C6 now has a pic rail on the feed cover, should we in fact be employing a day optic to enable better target identification at range?

The C6 had a rail option back from the old NV side rail. I mounted a day sight on it in the 90’s.
But Yes I am 100% on using a LPVO on the C6.

Second, given the availability of thermal weapon sights, how useful is the C2 sight? Is there still a need to prerecord data to enable firing on tgts at night?

Very. While NOD’s and other VAS are great, pre-recording targets allows one to lay on them regardless of vision/weather conditions.
Multi-spectral smoke, explosions etc tend to cause issues - and if you have a FPF being able to lay on it without seeing the target is a huge bonus.

Third, the SF tripod is highly useful regardless of the rest of the SF kit. The ability to set up a solid firing position in either the high or low mount allows the use of ground that otherwise would be impossible to marginal in the light role. However for the Canadian infantry the SF kit is almost always only used in the defensive, it’s rare to see it employed in an offensive role in a fire base. I suspect that a modern SF tripod that’s lighter could be useful to encourage use in the offensive. The US Army seems to employ their M240B tripod much more so in the offensive.

The M192 tripod just needs a C2 mount or a DFC unit and it would be great.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Agreed, as cool as C6 indirect fire is, it’s actual utility for current forces is marginal to zero.

Having seen a fair bit of GPMG use this year,I have been mulling over a few thoughts.

First, given the fact that the C6 now has a pic rail on the feed cover, should we in fact be employing a day optic to enable better target identification at range?

Second, given the availability of thermal weapon sights, how useful is the C2 sight? Is there still a need to prerecord data to enable firing on tgts at night?

Third, the SF tripod is highly useful regardless of the rest of the SF kit. The ability to set up a solid firing position in either the high or low mount allows the use of ground that otherwise would be impossible to marginal in the light role. However for the Canadian infantry the SF kit is almost always only used in the defensive, it’s rare to see it employed in an offensive role in a fire base. I suspect that a modern SF tripod that’s lighter could be useful to encourage use in the offensive. The US Army seems to employ their M240B tripod much more so in the offensive.

Where MGs are concerned more is always better, but the game changer is concentration and coordination.

What we really need is a Machine Gun Platoon reintroduced to the Order of Battle, with C6s, 50 cal and maybe even the C16. Call it a 'Direct Fire Platoon' and make it part of Cbt Sp Coy. And because Machine Gunners 'got rhythm', they make a great Drums Platoon as well

A MG platoon can be a battle winner, as aptly described in the book 'Excursion to Hell' and read here by cheerful Jocko

 

[Seyek]

Never, except to run IBMG. There's not a lot of them, and they are held exclusively as course resources. The Reg Force inf bns may have better luck getting some for training.

Re; C6 firing tables - they're in the pam, after the lessons on firing with a map and firing table. I'm not aware of them ever not being in there but I've only used it since 2008 so I don't know what happened in the 90s and 2000s. We covered it in 2011 on my IPSW, though I think it may have been removed in WDM? The ones I helped teach we always taught and demonstrated it anyways.

We print + laminate them along with range cards to issue with the guns.

 

[Kirkhill]

Where MGs are concerned more is always better, but the game changer is concentration and coordination.

What we really need is a Machine Gun Platoon reintroduced to the Order of Battle, with C6s, 50 cal and maybe even the C16. Call it a 'Direct Fire Platoon' and make it part of Cbt Sp Coy. And because Machine Gunners 'got rhythm', they make a great Drums Platoon as well

A MG platoon can be a battle winner, as aptly described in the book 'Excursion to Hell' and read here by cheerful Jocko

Given the move towards the 30 x 113 round for RWS/VSHORAD applications its too bad there isn't a self-powered version. Otherwise one or two sections (AD/C-UAS?) in the platoon could benefit from having some sort of very light vehicle.

There used to be the ASP-30. I don't think anything much came of that.

Boeing ASP-30

The ASP Automatic Cannon (ASP short for "Automatic Self-Powered"), also known as the ASP-30 Combat Support Weapon, was an American 30mm autocannon developed as a crew-served and vehicle-mounted weapon intended for use against enemy APCs and infantry vehicles, as well as ground fire suppression...

guns.fandom.com