Infantry Mortars (From: Pioneers)

[Michael OLeary]

Mike, as per the post, it was for argument/discussion sake and thus paraphrased.  On Monday however, I will be happy to send you the trial results that showed how significantly the CASW outperformed the mortar.

Thank you.  I'd also be interested in seeing the SOR if you have it.

 

[Fusaki]

Wonderbread, why use indirect?  **** the weapon, aim it, and start hammering away with rounds on target in seconds.  I never said indirect, that was you.

If we're talking about direct fire, your point about fleeting targets and first round accuracy is moot.  There's nothing there that the C6 + 60mm combo can't already do.

 

[vonGarvin]

I fully realize that there is a limited spectrum of employment where the mortar is slightly better than the CASW.  However, an objective comparison of the two reveals that in far more scenarios the CASW outperforms the mortar, and in some cases by a gigantic amount.
For example, you guys keep focusing on weight or the fact that if you can hit something with a mortar it has a bigger oomph than the CASW.  For argument's sake, I will grant you that in both of those cases you win.  With weight, say the mortar scores a 70% and the CASW a 60%.  And for shock action rounds, say the mortar gets 80% and the CASW 60% (and that's being ridiculously optimistic, as the CASW can blanket an area with HE).
However, in the (more) examples where the CASW outperforms the mortar, such as precision engagements or moving targets, the CASW beats the mortar by scores like 90% to 10%.

I'll counter with a focus on the parts that I have highlighted
The mortar can effectively engage in high QE-fire (one of the requirements of the SOR): the CASW cannot.  And at the ranges at which it can, the CEP for the CASW approaches that of the mortar.  So, the only variable for accuracy is target location information and gun location information.  They are as accurate as the other, for all intents and purposes (the CASW has a smaller CEP, but more dispersion under adverse atmospheric conditions).  So, the mortar here wins 100% - 0%.  Fail.
For weight of system, the win isn't 80% - 60%, more like 80% - 30 % in favour of the mortar, and that is being generous.  Carrying a 30 kg weapon system for distances up to 10 km is not practicable.
Anyway, enough of "anti-CASW", here are some "Pro-CASW" points.
It is highly effective against point and area targets in direct fire.  Especially fleeting targets.  It is accurate, and the terminal ballistics are very deadly.  In other words, it is awesome (and I'm not being ignorant here).  As a comparison, it should have been compared to the .50 calibre.  And it should never have been considered for high QE-fire.  Some requirements:
Anti APC fire.  I would offer that the CASW would win over the .50, even with its SLAP-T ammo.
Direct area suppression.  Again, the CASW would win over the .50.
Hitting enemy in limited cover.  CASW wins: with airburst, it can engage targets behind walls and the like.

One thing I must make clear, however, is this: A CASW HAS NO PLACE IN A MECHANISED PLATOON.
For all the points listed above, the M242 chain gun is superior, and then some.  A CASW brings nothing to the table that the M 242 cannot.  The 60, however....


One final point.  The assumptions in that document were from 2004: a time when the MGS was coming, like it or not.  Tanks, mortars and artillery were on the way out in the new "three block war".  Afghanistan changed all that, except for the mortar.  In spite of its use, by mechanised platoons when 25mm chain guns were available, the only weapon that could engage was the 60.  A CASW would not have been able to either (unless the target was between 1700 and 2000 metres away).

The comparison between the two is flawed.  Both are great weapons, but neither at the expense of the other.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I think that part of the problem is that some elements are resistant to a strong argument for the 60, because it leads to questions about how readily the 81 was abandoned by the infantry and what benefits might have been lost in doing so.

 

[SeanNewman]

I'll counter with a focus on the parts that I have highlighted

I'll counter with brevity, and your posts are too long to read when I want to relax.

 

[Kirkhill]

...
(Now, having said all of this, a .50 calibre machine gun can do what a CASW can do, in most cases, in the low QE-fire role.  The weights are similar (ammo, tripod, gun, etc).  Given the role of a .50 in a light unit, perhaps a CASW would be better compared to it.)....

Which raises the question of: Whatever happened to this bright idea?

 

[a_majoor]

I'm all for that (especially with the CLASS sight), but the argument isn't with the CASW's effects but rather its portability/mobility. Humping an ASP, a tripod and a few cans of 30mm would be a heroic feat as well. For comparison, an entire 8 man squad was required to carry an M-2 HMG and ammunition when used dismounted during WWII [3 man gun crew and the remainder to carry ammunition and protect the crew on the move and while setting up].

A possible means of getting 40mm effects in a man portable package (something that can be taken from the back of the vehicle along with some 40mm ammunition) is here.

 

[SeanNewman]

To take this conversation off on a huge tangent, I am actually a huge fan of using things like ATVs, Side-by-sides, and dirt bikes in the Army.  Not in a mechanized role as part of the fight, but a light recce platoon using ATVs with trailers for the support weapons / rations / fuel / supplies and dirt bikes for the riflemen seems like such an obvious thing that I can not think of a single real reason not to do it (anyone can find devil's advocate points, I mean genuine cons that would counter how great it would be).

It would make load carriage almost irrelevant if you had 4-6 x ATVs w/ trailers or 4-6 x SBS in a platoon.  Speed and mobility would be the highest you could possibly get (short of airmobile) by ground forces, and it would only be protection that would be less.  But in a situation like Afghanistan you could completely avoid the IED'd roads anyway, and do so in a manner that didn't involve bulldozing farmers' fields so the LAVs could use that route.

One day when I'm CDS...

 

[OldSolduer]

Nope, that's about it for the 81 mm Mortars.  About 15 metres from the track to the firing position.  But the big weight was the bombs.  Oh, they were heavy!!!  :crybaby:

Yeah but they could lay the smack down on a target HIDDEN BEHIND HIGH COVER.

Can the CASW do that? I rather doubt it.
The 60 in the hand held role can.

 

[SeanNewman]

You're fighting last century's war, guys.

"Can a tank take you into battle and give you a kiss when you're feeling down?  No, but a horse can!"

 

[Michael OLeary]

Oddly, no-one likes that argument in the bayonet discussion. 

 

[Fusaki]

Up until today I pretty much had a monopoly on that argument.

Now, I'm the dinosaur!

 

[OldSolduer]

Last century's war?

I'm not doubting the CASW. I think its a great idea IF it's properly employed.

I'm saying there are things the 60mm or equivalent and the 81mm can do that CASW can't.

 

[Michael OLeary]

Up until today I pretty much had a monopoly on that argument.

Now, I'm the dinosaur!

We each in turn become the dinosaur, and then we fade away, recalling the first weapons we learned to use (that's me in the front many years ago):

 

[SeanNewman]

I'm saying there are things the 60mm or equivalent and the 81mm can do that CASW can't.

You are incorrect according to the CF-endorsed findings that conducted the trial.

You are correct that there are some areas that a mortar can do something slightly better, but when talking about certain functions that can not at all be performed by the other system, the CASW is the only one of the two that can do that.

There are specific questions asked like "Is the system capable of getting a round on a point target in ____ seconds?" and "Is it within any performance envelope of the system to be able to hit a target traversing at _____ km/h".

There were some criteria when a mortar achieved a slightly higher score.  There were many criteria where the CASW scored "yes" and the mortar scored "no".

 

[Nfld Sapper]

We each in turn become the dinosaur, and then we fade away, recalling the first weapons we learned to use (that's me in the front many years ago):

I thought your first weapon was the sharpened stick aka the spear.......

;D

 

[Loachman]

But in a situation like Afghanistan you could completely avoid the IED'd roads anyway, and do so in a manner that didn't involve bulldozing farmers' fields so the LAVs could use that route.

We've lost a couple of guys on a Gator not on an "IED'd road" (whatever that is - is there a special map symbol)?

I was overtop (remotely) of a couple of IED strikes not on "IED'd roads".

We've also lost a few guys on foot.

You are offering no better argument for ATVs over what we have now than you are for CASW over what we have now.

Consistency, at least...

It's been decades since I last did the Infantry thing, but I still have an appreciation for light things over heavy when it coms to humping them.

And "CF-endorsed findings" got us the Griffon as well, so that impresses me a whole big bunch.

 

[Michael OLeary]

I thought your first weapon was the sharpened stick aka the spear.......

;D

Nope, it was

"a short chamber Boxer Henry point 45 caliber miracle ...and a bayonet, ... with some guts behind. "

 

[Fusaki]

We each in turn become the dinosaur, and then we fade away, recalling the first weapons we learned to use (that's me in the front many years ago):

Holy fuck, I'm only 25!  I can't expire yet!

But on the other hand,

Does that mean I get to grow a handlebar moustache?

 

[OldSolduer]

I've seen the results of CF Endorsed findings:

The LSVW Loud Squeeky Vehicle Wheels - and spontaneous combustable at times
As mentioned, The Griffon
The non adoption of a Super Dart range well over 25 years ago because "The General didn't like it". The trial they ran was so skewed the range was destined to fail.
CF endorsed the MSVS which is now grounded- it burns by itself.
I will reserve my judegment on the CASW. Great idea in principle. Lets see how it plays out in the field. Lets hope and pray it doesn't cost a troop his or her life.