Light Support Weapons & Infantry Automatic Rifles

[a_majoor]

Get back to basics and forget the technology.

Indeed. If we focused more on the basic skill sets we would wring much more performance from the equipment we do have. As noted, time/space and resources do limit what we can do. On the plus side, if the soldier is well grounded in the basics, then upgrading kit becomed far more effective (since the soldier can get much closer to the maximum performance available from the weapon. A poor shot given a 6.5mm LSAT isn't going to transform into a good shot because of the new weapon...)

 

[KevinB]

Effectiveness is, in my opinion, the ability to suppress or kill the enemy, and we need to train because their are still important things to train for to achieve this effect.  Having riflemen pinging off a head in a trench from 300m is not one of those (although we should still teach the basics of marksmanship).  The right training is on section/platoon manoeuvre - moving the team to gain a position of advantage against the enemy.  Gaining a position of advantage does not mean riflemen running around and banging off rounds at trenches, it means using the terrain to get the crew-served weapons in a position to suppress.

IF they have them

Look at a dismounted section.  Heck look at a dismounted Platoon.

No precision fire capability currently.
1-2 C-6's
No 60mm Mortar currently from my understanding.
84mm CarlG

Iron sights - well they are fine in good conditions if you and the target are not moving.
  PID - magnified optics really help
  Lower Light/Weather effects - and a illuminated aiming marker really helps.

NATO for the most part will not go back to 7.62mm (but some Armies are going back to 7.62mm LMG's at the section/squad level).

The further your riflemen can sucessfully engage - the longer you can contiune to hide your support weapons (who are pretty attractive targets after all).
   

 

[daftandbarmy]

IF they have them

Look at a dismounted section.  Heck look at a dismounted Platoon.

No precision fire capability currently.
1-2 C-6's
No 60mm Mortar currently from my understanding. 84mm CarlG

Iron sights - well they are fine in good conditions if you and the target are not moving.
  PID - magnified optics really help
  Lower Light/Weather effects - and a illuminated aiming marker really helps.

NATO for the most part will not go back to 7.62mm (but some Armies are going back to 7.62mm LMG's at the section/squad level).

The further your riflemen can sucessfully engage - the longer you can contiune to hide your support weapons (who are pretty attractive targets after all).
 

Without an integral 60mm MOR, we are basically screwed in the dismounted role IMHO at Coy level and below, regardless of all the fancy direct fire stuff you can field.

 

[KevinB]

Well I'm not sure that the 60mm could not be replaced by another system in the sections.

Something like the Milkor 6 barrel Grenade Launcher or the RVN era China Lake launcher, but using a medium velocity system.
  KAC build a High Vel LW system that was man fireable for a program several years back - however its scarier than freefalling in pitch black with no altimeter or AAD...

However until the good idea fairy comes around sprinkling R&D pixie dust - the only system to offer that is the 60mm.

I do like direct precision fire - as I've seen and employed it to great effect (even though Infanteer feels its useless  ) 

Quite frankly I've seen the 60mm round land near (inside 5m) someone in Iraq and the guy walked away with nary a scratch (there was a tape and BigRed if he's still around here can verify). So I dont think its the end all be all -- frankly I dont think anything short of a nuclear strike is a guarantee --
  I'm also less than jazzed about automatic weapons that many, as folks way to often go cyclic beyond their ability to get effective results - and while they are nice and noisy and give everyone a warm fuzzy that lead is going 'that a way'.  Perhaps because the majority of my time in Iraq and Afghan was small team work - that did not have the option of using a hammer, I feel that many folks who where not so constrained dont understand how effective it can be.
  Secondly I think the Canadian Forces recent love affair with firepower is going the wrong way, at least in the manner that they are viewing the section/squad organic capabilities.

I think IF the CF had been in a much more urban environment with ROE limited employment of CAS and other supporting fires, that the Lessons Learned would be polar opposites to the lessons folks have gained.

Despite all the efforts of the US Army and USMC to bring firepower to bear in Anbar province during the initial Sunni revolt, the majority of the effective work was done by small SOF elements and Marine Reconnaisance delivery close range (and mid range) small arms fires.

Dont get me wrong - I'll JDAM a house in a heartbeat if it guarantees no one needs to risk themselves to kill the occupants - but I also understand that the hammer only works on nails, and hammering a screw when it called for a screwdrive is counterproductive and usually ruins the screw and the material you where trying to screw.

 

[a_majoor]

Once again the issue seems to be how do we get that sort of fire on target. I could point to weird devices like the ARPAD-600 which was man portable and could fire a HV grenade over 500m to take out machine guns, "technicals" and was even suggested as an answer to low flying helicopters (would probably scare the crap out of the pilot anyway). Precision fire, good terminal effects but low ROF and would probably be limited to one/section. You still have the critical moments where you are trying to suppress the enemy while you are moving your (insert weapon or weapons system here) into position, pick up the target and begin to engage.

Now I think we can agree there is NO single weapons system that will do the job, so I will vote for improved marksmanship training (both on Known Distance ranges and in Field Firing ranges), backed up with a more generous helping of long range/hard hitting weapons right down to the section level. A C-6/section to replace the two C-9 gunners seems to be a logical and fairly simple fix, since we already train troops on it and it is in the system.

To compliment this, I think we do need a much expanded weapons det, including mortars, anti armour weapons and DF firepower; all of which must be compact and man portable.

 

[R031button]

we do need a much expanded weapons det, including mortars, anti armour weapons and DF firepower; all of which must be compact and man portable.

Indeed, I look at the C 16 and all I can think of is "where are we going to put this in the HQ lav?"

 

[KevinB]

Indeed, I look at the C 16 and all I can think of is "where are we going to put this in the HQ lav?"

Drag it thru the streets.


Seriously I'd mount it on the vehicle.

 

[Infanteer]

I do like direct precision fire - as I've seen and employed it to great effect (even though Infanteer feels its useless  )

Hey, I never said I had anything against precision fires, just depending on the context.  A sniper or marksman?  Yep.  A rifle section taking effective enemy fire.  Probably not.  I can't find it, but I had a pretty bada** picture of my DM and C6 team on a high feature covering my lead section heading through a grapefield.

As for all your other points, agree.

 

[a_majoor]

Quote from: Thucydides on Yesterday at 16:56:35

we do need a much expanded weapons det, including mortars, anti armour weapons and DF firepower; all of which must be compact and man portable.

Indeed, I look at the C 16 and all I can think of is "where are we going to put this in the HQ lav?"

This is actually edging into another argument altogether, that being the composition of the unit. A larger weapons det might imply the infantry sections get smaller (assuming the number of PY's isn't incresed to reflect the expanded weapons det, or a need to keep the number of vehicles per platoon fixed at four). the Company organization might/should have to change to reflect the changes at section and platoon level, and Battalions would be rejigged as well. There are lots of threads on that topic, so I'll leave it at that.

 

[R031button]

Drag it thru the streets.


Seriously I'd mount it on the vehicle.

I tend to agree, given that we have all these LAV RWS kicking around, maybe it's not a bad idea to issue that to the platoon HQ element, with the C16 mounted to the RWS, with enough space on the inside to accommodate the associated EIS. Then again you're loosing a 25mm cannon to gain what advantage really?

I agree with Thucydides, the army seems to have bought this with no real though to how it will interface with the organization of Companies and Platoons. Between the C6 team , weapons det commander, Platoon Commander, and Signaler,  you have two seats in the LAV, the C 16 has a crew of three from what has been passed down, where do they sit ? Where do they come from? And if they do cram in there where does their shit go?

 

[a_majoor]

I must be really behind in my reading, it looks like Koreans have gotten the jump on everyone by deploying the K-11 rifle/grenade launcher combination. This weapon looks and operates a lot like the OIWS was supposed to in the United States, but unlike the cancelled OIWS, it is actually in service.

The South Koreans seem to have become quite adept at high tech weaponry. I have read and posted about their new tank, their new IFV (which is mostly made out of composite materials and much lighter than the M-2) and followed their progress on cruise and ballistic missile technology (which has reached a point where hyper accurate cruise missiles could reach targets in China and Japan. the Koreans are also developing a blue water navy which can deploy these weapons farther afield).

 

[KevinB]

No just they have no realized what a complete disaster the system is.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Here could be a interesting solution to the problem of a 'universal' round to do one job. Why not just issue two rifles that complete different jobs at the squad level. I would recommend something like maybe for sections having 2-3 C1's (or some other gun that shoots 7.62 Nato) as a longer range/ deal with cover weapon and the rest having the current C7's and C9's. This way you could maximize for different terrain and conditions on the battlefield. I understand logisitically and from a training perspective it would add a lot of work, time and money to even make this possible, but it could be something to look at. 

 

[Dissident]

Some reading for EL17: http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA512331

 

[a_majoor]

Interesting read. The section on optics alone is well worth the time to download and peruse this document.

WRT more effective ammunition, if we are going to go to a new round/calibre we might as well go the whole 9 yards and look at entirely new weapons concepts like LSAT so we get a weapon that is lightweight and powerful. Concepts like LSAT can also reduce or eliminate various failure modes (although we have to ensure they don't have new and entirely different failure modes that soldiers are unable to rectify in the field). I only name LSAT as it is a developed concept that seems almost production ready, both for rifles and LMG/GPMG calibres. Any other contenders?

Of course one could also argue for devices that fire explosive rounds like the 12 gauge "Frag-12" or the XM-25 as a replacement or supplement to traditional rifles and support weapons; getting showered by a hail of explosive rounds would probably be deadly and demoralizing enough to stop all but the most determined soldiers from continuing their mission. The key here would be to create a system that is man portable, effective at long range (500m+) and robust and affordable enough to be issued in large numbers. Range is an issue with the Frag-12 and affordability an issue with the XM-25.

 

[KevinB]

As a GUN manufacturer - I strong recommend optics and training.

The US Army recently pushed 385 Mk6 1-6x Leupold scopes to a Brigade prior to deployment as a test of the common squad optic.


LSAT to me is viable is we look to an intermediate 7mm round. 

 

[NavyShooter]

I attended a brief a couple of weeks ago, subject matter was UNCLASS, but Kevin, you'd be happy.

There's R&D people drinking from the CT Kool-aid, working towards, for the first time since the Ross Rifle, a Made in Canada service rifle. 

I like the sounds of most of what they're working towards, but some of the concepts were, well...a long-ways off to say the least.

For those who like a history lesson, apparently, the EM-2 is worth learning from as well.

NS

 

[McG]

There's R&D people drinking from the CT Kool-aid …

We may be programming the up an coming decision makers toward this.  I understand there is an Army Journal article on CT ammo that has been required reading on the last couple LFTSP & ATWO serials.

 

[KevinB]

Regarding CTA (Case Telescope Ammo), the biggest point to know is the largest NATO armies (or at least the most active) are also looking longingly at this.

 

[Illegio]

Interesting read. The section on optics alone is well worth the time to download and peruse this document.

WRT more effective ammunition, if we are going to go to a new round/calibre we might as well go the whole 9 yards and look at entirely new weapons concepts like LSAT so we get a weapon that is lightweight and powerful. Concepts like LSAT can also reduce or eliminate various failure modes (although we have to ensure they don't have new and entirely different failure modes that soldiers are unable to rectify in the field). I only name LSAT as it is a developed concept that seems almost production ready, both for rifles and LMG/GPMG calibres. Any other contenders?

Of course one could also argue for devices that fire explosive rounds like the 12 gauge "Frag-12" or the XM-25 as a replacement or supplement to traditional rifles and support weapons; getting showered by a hail of explosive rounds would probably be deadly and demoralizing enough to stop all but the most determined soldiers from continuing their mission. The key here would be to create a system that is man portable, effective at long range (500m+) and robust and affordable enough to be issued in large numbers. Range is an issue with the Frag-12 and affordability an issue with the XM-25.

While Canada was not a signatory to the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, I expect that Frag-12 ammo still runs counter to the spirit of the Law of Armed Conflict. Even the .50 Raufoss created quite a stir, despite the fact that it was unlikely to explode within anyone unless they were wearing plates or somesuch. I doubt the Canadian government will be willing to entertain a political hot potato like that.

I expect Kevin can speak more to this than I can, but I am curious about the performance (and legality) of the 62gr. Mk 318 Mod 0 SOST and the 77gr. Mk 262 Mod 0/1 ammo... They would seem, on the face of it, to be the ideal interim solution until the next big "leap" in small arms arrives. All the colloquial information I've heard about the Mk. 262 in particular makes it sound like it's the cat's ass, although it is supposed to be quite hard on the rifles as it is quite a "hot" round.