Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[Kirkhill]

Rheinmetall Canada’s director of land systems, Jean-Claude Rollier, said a new tripod has been developed for the Heckler and Koch gun so it can fire at a higher elevation for use in the indirect fire mode that Canada is interested in.

  http://defensenews.com/story.php?F=2694489&C=landwar

Ahem 

New tripod. Higher elevation. Indirect fire.  = Belt Fed 40 mm Automatic Mortar. N'est ce pas?

 

[vonGarvin]

Ahem 

New tripod. Higher elevation. Indirect fire.  = Belt Fed 40 mm Automatic Mortar. N'est ce pas?

If that's the case, and if it get's similar range etc as the 60, then I say "DON'T JUST BUY ONE, BUY A BAZILLION!" ;D

 

[AmmoTech90]

Just a few points...

Regarding payload- 40mm HV (H&K GMG/Mk 19) Average around 30-40 grams of HE.  60mm- 300 grams
Weights- 40mm, belt of 36 around 20-30 kg (this is off the top of my head from working with Marines are few years ago).  60mm- 4 pack around 10 kg (81mm comes in the three packs btw Capt Sensible).
So weight for payload is around the same, just delivered in a different number of rounds.
Range of the H&K GMG is 2400 metres max, 2000 effective.  60mm out ranges it, but only in bipod role.  Handheld, I seem to recall you can only fire it at Charges 0/1/2, this may have changed.

So, neither are packable if you want any sustained fire.  So assuming you have a vehicle to truck around the ammo what are the pros and cons.
60mm pros- More HE per round, better effect on buildings, esp if you fire on delay.  Longer max range.  More versitile ammo (HE/Smk/etc).  You can pack it with a couple of rounds.
60mm cons- Weight of fire not as good for "shock effect".  Slower in the direct fire mode and using ammo to adjust eats up what ammo you do have quickly.  Not that good against armour.

40mm pros- Heavy weight of fire.  Better suppression.  Some (not much) effect against armour.
40mm cons- Packable in the same way a .50 cal is packable (not very).  Shorter range.  Illum and smoke (if available) is not as useful as the 60mm version.

There are some very nice airbursting rounds that use prox fuzing are are can maximize the beaten zone that a is produced rather than sending most of the frag up.  Where these are with regard to in-service suitability I dont know, but the ones I saw were "in development" 18 months ago.  In my experience that means, we've designed, they've worked a couple of times, if some government wants to throw money at us we'll actually get them working reliably...sometime.

The RM are still putting the 51mm to good use along with the 40mm HK GMG.  Different courses for different horses, isn't that how it goes?

 

[vonGarvin]

60mm- 4 pack around 10 kg (81mm comes in the three packs btw Capt Sensible).

I'm showing my 81mm -isms, I suppose  :-[ (Also why I asked people to check my math, INCLUDING adding together four bombs, vice three) ;D


Good post, by the way!  You are correct re: handheld role.  Unfortunately, due to training, very little is taught on employment with bipod HOWEVER I believe that is changing.  I would disagree that you cannot get "shock effect" with 60 IF it were to be employed in groups of four a la the old mortar group of, well, old (please allow myself to introduce.....myself...)
4 mortars at 30 rounds a minute for one minute is 120 rounds, or 36000 grams of HE...ok, I know it doesn't work that way...anyway, the point is that if employed with bipod and grouped in fours, the 60 can put down a significant weight of fire.
I suppose any AGM "teams" could do the same with fewer firers, though...

 

[daftandbarmy]

I served with quite a few (very senior to me at the time) officers in the British Army who went up against Indonesian paratroopers in the Borneo campaign (1948-1960). These operations were primarily focused on dismounted infantry focused recce and fighting patrols conducted in the jungles and mountains, usually well beyond the range of indirect fire support.

They spoke often of the effectiveness of the enemy's 60mm mortars. I recall that the term "F-ing nasty" was used. Apparently, within about 30 seconds of making close contact with an Indo Company, you could count on an extremely accurate stonk with a flurry of HE (delay fuse to penetrate the jungle canopy), followed rapidly by an immediate platoon sized flanking attack of some kind. The recommended counter drill was to either immediately get into line and assault forward in column of platoons, or break contact and set up an ambush well back, supported by your own 2 in MORs, otherwise you'd be plastered by the enfor 60mm.

These experiences always drove home to me the effectiveness of the 60mm.

 

[Armymedic]

Ok then  gents, my bad...try the same senario at the 2000 m range. Max effective rng of the ole Mk19 is roughly 2000m

 

[Infanteer]

The RM are still putting the 51mm to good use along with the 40mm HK GMG.  Different courses for different horses, isn't that how it goes?

That's what I was looking for.  Why have we delved into a comparison between the two (and why are staff guys sizing the two up to get rid of one) when they are two different and complementary weapon systems.  It's like saying "well we have the M203 so lets get rid of the CarlG".

 

[daftandbarmy]

Amen.

 

[TheHead]

I don't know gents, but if you give me a target I can see at 3000-5000 m, I would rather pepper it rapidly with 40 mm grenades thru a sight, then having to waste 2-3 rounds and TOF to hit the tgt, and then have a fire for effect.

I'd love to see you hit a target at 5km away with a 40mm Grenade or Mortar  :

 

[Michael OLeary]

I'd love to see you hit a target at 5km away with a 40mm Grenade or Mortar  :

(Warning: slight hijack) Not with a 60 mm mortar, but with the L16 81mm and Norwegian NM123 HE, 5000 m is within range.

 

[TheHead]

(Warning: slight hijack) Not with a 60 mm mortar, but with the L16 81mm and Norwegian NM123 HE, 5000 m is within range.

Truth to that, but nothing with what a Canadian Infantry Soldier is issued in a Rifle Section. 

 

[a_majoor]

Since these systems are complimentary, then the pin heads who are saying we can get rid of one because we now have the other should get a good sharp rap to the head. If PY's are the problem, then empty out sopme positions at the various headquarters so you can man the mortars.

IF (big assumption here) there is no recourse but tohave only one system, then some sort of breech loading mortar seems to have a better range of effects. Hopefully we won't have to go that route for now.

 

[KevinB]

IF you are tasking a Section to look after a 5km depth - let along whatever frontage -- you've got problems.

It all comes back to the fact is that the 60mm Mortar and 40mm AGL are not a one or the other item.
  Tell Major whatshisface to drop the Eryx if he wants to get rid of a system.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Good post, by the way!  You are correct re: handheld role.  Unfortunately, due to training, very little is taught on employment with bipod HOWEVER I believe that is changing.  I would disagree that you cannot get "shock effect" with 60 IF it were to be employed in groups of four a la the old mortar group of, well, old (please allow myself to introduce.....myself...)

Thanks,

Yes, if you use 4 mortars you can lay down an lot of HE over a big area, probably as large an area as you can with one 40mm GMG, thats why I put it in the con argument.

 

[ArmyRick]

I have a lot of expirience with both 60mm and 81mm mortars (I would love to some day fire the US 120mm mortar 

Anywho here is one thought not being considered

Have you ever seen the effects of the C112 60mm Illumination round? It is damn good.

On the last DP 1 infantry course I instructed, we did a night illum shoot combined with an SQ MG shoot at night. Firing a volley of 60mm ILLUM is impressive.

I agree that 40mm and 60mm is like deciding wether to keep a car or a boat. They both a place and a function.

 

[Armymedic]

I'd love to see you hit a target at 5km away with a 40mm Grenade or Mortar  :

Yep, 5000m is a bit far, even from a mountain top in Afghanistan, for the issued Cdn weapon with regular ammo. There are 60 mm mortars out there that will fire to 5 km.

But would 1st or 2nd round hits with a 60mm mortar out to 3900m shut you up? (that should stir up some debate)

 

[McG]

That's what I was looking for.  Why have we delved into a comparison between the two (and why are staff guys sizing the two up to get rid of one) when they are two different and complementary weapon systems. 

It is a PY thing.  If we buy the CASW, we need to find crews.  I suppose another option would be to shutdown a rifle section in every second Pl, but that certainly would not fly.

However, it could be that the Pl 60 mm mortars are grouped in a Coy Wpns element.  Reduce the number of mortars to 1 or 2, and use the crews for the reduced mortars to fight the CASW.  (3 x CASW: 1 x 60 mm; or 2x CASW: 2 x 60 mm)

We could even buy CASW without any reduction of 60 mm mortar if we only mounted the weapon in existing RWS (such as those on the Nyala, Engr LAV, TLAV, and still-pending LAV RWS).  However, this would mean the CASW is never dismounted. 

An other "zero loss" option would be to train wpns dets on the full use of both 60 mm & CASW.  As part of battle procedure, the appropriate mix of sp wpns would be determined.  The weapons not planed for could remain in the FOB,  at the airhead (KAF for the present Op), or even in Canada.

 

[vonGarvin]

(Warning: slight hijack) Not with a 60 mm mortar, but with the L16 81mm and Norwegian NM123 HE, 5000 m is within range.

(Continuing with slight hijack).  With the L16 81mm and CANADIAN C72A2, 5600 m is within range.

 

[KevinB]

MCG -- with the same issue you bring up-- then just add the damn thing to the PSWQ -- troops then get 9mm Pistol, SAC, Eryx, Mortar, MG, and now GMG.
(I'd make the case iif I was part of DInf or the InfSchool that pistol and SAC should be seperated back into a SACC, Eryx into BIQ, and Mortar, MG and GMG be a PSWQ)

  The weapons dets can never really man the entire complement (even overseas) so adding another tool in the tool box won't hurt.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Regarding the 60mm mortar and its ability to be "man-packed", how often even in a theatre like Afghanistan would troops be out of range of a hypothetical vehicle-mounted 120mm mortar (which obviously would have far greater hitting power and ammunition-carrying capacity)?

I'm just visualizing trading the 60mm mortar for the CASW and something similar to Nemo or AMOS mounted  on newbuild LAV-III chasis with a mix of precision-guided and regular munitions.


Matthew.  ???

P.S.  The ability to utilise Saab/Bofors anti-armour munitions (Strix?) or eventually PGMM with a 120mm mortar in the inventory is also interesting.