Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more

[daftandbarmy]

What is AGL?

If I tell you, will you promise not to pinch it from us? Pinky swear?

(Auto-grenade launcher, of course, also known by the boring yet correct designation: C16)

 

[GnyHwy]

All I know is that I can hit targets that are not line of sight, better than most.  Give me the CASW and crap will start blowing up (at a reduced rate, because... it is only 40mm)

 

[GnyHwy]

(Auto-grenade launcher, of course, also known by the boring yet correct designation: C16)

Yes, and I fell silly.  My first thought was "above ground level", but I should have known. 

 

[daftandbarmy]

Yes, and I fell silly.  My first thought was "above ground level", but I should have known.

Just don't go throwing around all your trigonometric and ballistics 'magic words'... make... infantry ....head ....hurt... ugh 

 

[R031button]

trigonometric and ballistics

Just because you can make up fancy words doesn't mean we're impressed

 

[daftandbarmy]

Just because you can make up fancy words doesn't mean we're impressed

Aw c'mon. One of the words has 5 syllables! (I think?)

 

[vonGarvin]

Why does the word "monosyllabic" have so many syllables???

Anyway...

For the C 16, it cannot engage targets using high-angle fire at ranges under ~700 metres (or so) because of limitations on its elevation.


It (currently) cannot engage any targets using indirect fire due to software issues in the sighting system.  (My recommendation to attach a dove-tail mounting bracket to the side of the tripod, so that a C2A1 sightunit could be attached was laughed at...)

 

[GnyHwy]

(My recommendation to attach a dove-tail mounting bracket to the side of the tripod, so that a C2A1 sightunit could be attached was laughed at...)

It's pretty obvious why.  That would increase weight to 151 lbs, from a manageable 150.  :nod:

 

[GnyHwy]

Seriously though.  IOT fire indirect accurately, a digital goniometer, or some sort of slipping scale, or a C2A1 sight like Techno has mentioned is required.  The first two solutions involve mods that Rheinmatell would love to do I am sure $$$$$.  Techno's solution involves a Wpns and EO Tech that we already pay, but are probably unwilling to let do their job.

 

[GAP]

or....use a spotter and walk the rounds in





just saying..... ;D

 

[KevinB]

Having done three CF 'MG" courses I can tell you from the old class (pre C-6) to the IPSWQ the art has indeed been lost.

I honestly felt stupider for taking the IPSWQ  -- all I needed was the Eryx section, but I had to take the entire class in 2002/3.

60mm Mortar was not taught Indirect at all -- and of course the .50 was not part of the class then, so no IDF there either.


In the name of efficiency the CF has wiped out the SME ability of NCO's on systems. 
  Or what we now (for a large part) call SME's would have been bottom 1/3rd Max supervision candidates on Previous dedicated courses.

There is not enough time in the training day to make everyone an expert - I get that.  However you do need some experts - and the Small Arms course or whatever they call the course now for Sgt's is not doing it - and has not for a long time.

Mortar guys (from back when the 81 was owned by the Inf) could be counted on to teach 60 shooters or even MG folks how to use them effectively in the IDF role - if there was not an NCO that had been around back in 'the day'.

anyway just a sad reflection on dying arts.

 

[brihard]

There is not enough time in the training day to make everyone an expert - I get that.  However you do need some experts - and the Small Arms course or whatever they call the course now for Sgt's is not doing it - and has not for a long time.

No, it certainly is not. The coverage of MGs on the DP3A includes refresher training on the C6 SF with C2 sight as part of the advanced weapons lectures, but it's just that. Indirect is touched on as a concept that we all know exists, but the map and compass don't come out once, nor is there a live range for it. Machine gunnery as an art and science is not a part of the course- to those who would argue 'well it's still in there, and you have to do the HMG too', I would say that what is taught is simply being up to speed on handling drills, not the building of intuitive expertise on the systems and the capability they provide.

It sucks. I really like the few times I've gotten to do good stuff with the C6 in the SF role, and we did a tad of indirect on my DP2A, but that's it. I probably won't see it again. I 'get' it, but I won't get to do it, nor to teach it or pass it on to my troops unless things really change. If anything I'd have hoped that the reserves, constrained in our role as light infantry, would have tried to hang on to this...

 

[Kirkhill]

Kevin says that back in bad old days the C2A1 skills were retained by the 81 guys and then disseminated down from there.

The C2A1, IIRC, was common to the 81, 60, HMG and C5. In other words all the battalion support weapons except for AT.

Given that, and assuming that you still have the C2A1s and that they fit on the C6s in SF mode, couldn't the MGs (with C6s, M2HBs and even TV's C16(modified)) cost effectively train in IF skills that could then be transferred up to 60s and 81s at some distant point in the future, if you were all really nice boys and girls and wished very hard.

Then GAP can have an observer over the hill walk his rounds on to target.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Kevin says that back in bad old days the C2A1 skills were retained by the 81 guys and then disseminated down from there.

The C2A1, IIRC, was common to the 81, 60, HMG and C5. In other words all the battalion support weapons except for AT.

The 60 was rarely used with the bipod and baseplate and, doctrinally, was never formally recognized in that role for the Canadian Army. When I was SME Mortars (late 80s), my offer to write up to date drills for the 60 with bipod was refused on those grounds even though some units were starting to experiment with it in that configuration at that time.

The C5 did not have a standard sight mount to accept the C2/C2A1 sight, and neither did the 50 although I believe some side plates for the 50 to allow it were buried in the system.

Until the C6 SF kit came into service, the only weapon that included instruction on the C2 sight was the 81 mm mortar, and for which the sight was issued, and that's why the expertise resided with those who were instructed in its use.

 

[GAP]

Kevin says that back in bad old days the C2A1 skills were retained by the 81 guys and then disseminated down from there.

The C2A1, IIRC, was common to the 81, 60, HMG and C5. In other words all the battalion support weapons except for AT.

Given that, and assuming that you still have the C2A1s and that they fit on the C6s in SF mode, couldn't the MGs (with C6s, M2HBs and even TV's C16(modified)) cost effectively train in IF skills that could then be transferred up to 60s and 81s at some distant point in the future, if you were all really nice boys and girls and wished very hard.

Then GAP can have an observer over the hill walk his rounds on to target. YES!!!  :bowdown:

 

[Kirkhill]

The 60 was rarely used with the bipod and baseplate and, doctrinally, was never formally recognized in that role for the Canadian Army. When I was SME Mortars (late 80s), my offer to write up to date drills for the 60 with bipod was refused on those grounds even though some units were starting to experiment with it in that configuration at that time.

The C5 did not have a standard sight mount to accept the C2/C2A1 sight, and neither did the 50 although I believe some side plates for the 50 to allow it were buried in the system.

Until the C6 SF kit came into service, the only weapon that included instruction on the C2 sight was the 81 mm mortar, and for which the sight was issued, and that's why the expertise resided with those who were instructed in its use.

Memory seems to be hazy these days.  Thanks Michael.

 

[daftandbarmy]

I was impressed with the use of Machine Gun platoons in our Para Bns in the UK. Each Coy had it's own SF capability, but the MG Pl were the experts in that craft who were deployed as a fire base for Bn/Coy level ops. 9 x SF kits firing accurately and continuously in 'indirect support' of your Coy raid, at night, was always impressive.

Because both they and the 81mm MOR Pl used the C2 sight, there was alot of transferability of skills, with the result that, over time, it was common to have SNCOs who'd come up through the ranks of both rifle and SP Coys and could advice from an expert level on the use of C6 SF, 81mm MOR and other Sp Coy weapon systems (and Asslt Pnrs). Officers as well, especially those who'd been Sp Coy Pl Commanders.

That's one of the downsides of dismantling our Sp Coys, of course, we lose the integral expertise required to do this stuff well on our own without a significant ramp up period.

 

[KevinB]

That's one of the downsides of dismantling our Sp Coys, of course, we lose the integral expertise required to do this stuff well on our own without a significant ramp up period.

Exactly.

The Combat Support Coy allowed a higher degree of specialization to the Infantry Soldiers -- when the soldiers came back to Rifle Coy's as Sgt's and WO's they could in part do some cross training in those fields.

I've run C2 sight on the Bipod for the 60mm - it works and especially if you record targets - once you start firing - its all Indirect anyway - as the 'fog of war' obscures your targets.  This was the main reason the C2 on the C6 was useful. 
  I fired C2 on the M-2 years ago (1988?) I thought it was an extremely practical application of the .50, of course back then we still had MG Platoons.

The desire to 'optimize' the Infantry into neat little cookie cutter homogenius entities has destroyed the skills developed over decades in the Infantry.

Admittedly if I'd never come over to the Infantry from the Artillery in '94, I never would have fully understood the application of half the IDF abilities of the systems.
 

Its a crime.



Another point on the C-16 AGL, (I'm still pretty jet lagged from the 12hr time shift I just did so bear with me), its a sealed HV Grenade -- you can't due half charge, its not a 105 casing that you can removed charge bags from, nor can you peal increments like a mortar.
  Would you recommend folks half charge a .50 or other small arms ammo - of course not -- well this is the same type of idea.

The AGL CANNOT replace the mortar -- it augments, heck it does not replace the .50 either, systems have specific range bands - and those range bands have limitations -- a nice graph chart in a PPT does not tell it all.

 

[R031button]

I'm happy to have a new tool in the tool box. I think the C 16 has the potential to be an excellent weapon system. I do not, however, see the logic on any level, fiscally, docturnally, or practically, for it replacing the 60. I can understand how think tank could come up with it as a replacement, but I cannot understand how people let this happen, what a waste of money and time.

 

[ArmyRick]

Well since we are on to government logic of replacing apples with grapefruits (CASW replaces a mortar) than fudge it and lets go all out on this concept! I propose the F35 replace the F18, destroyers and tanks all at once! Hey come on now, doesn't the F35 have the capability to destroy tanks, ships and other aircraft? Therefore it can fill all three roles!!!

I better shut my yap before someone in treasury board sees my "logic" and thinks its a great idea!