Infantry Mortars (From: Pioneers)
- Thread starter Jarnhamar
- Start date
- Status
40below said:
It is an LSVW with rotors.
While it shares many parts with earlier Hueys (and one with the Bell 47), it is built to commercial standards.
It is overly complex and underly robust.
It did not match our doctrine at the time of its no-trial political purchase and still cannot perform the roles that we need adequately or, in some cases, at all.
Technoviking said:
Which completely invalidates the trial.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
Petamocto said:
:
How did you ever get to where you are? I am sure many are just curious as to what you may do or say next, and that is the only reason they follow you around.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
While I am sure the CASW has its place, its place is not:
1. With advancing dismounted infantry
2. Shoved in the back of a section LAV
3. Mounted on the turret or back deck of said LAV
Since the basic argument is that we need portable firepower, a 60mm mortar is far more suitable regardless of how it shoots in trials, simply because I or one of my soldiers can physically carry it into battle, and the platoon can carry 30 or so mortar bombs between us. A weapon derived from the ARPAD 600 could in theory provide some hish speed firepower using 40mm HV grenades from the CASW, although as a single shot weapon it cannot provide volume of fire. A very lightweight AGL like the QLZ-87 would provide portable firepower, but this is not what the CASW specifications call for.
The CASW may actually be more suitable for people like the MP's, service battalions and Info Ops troops (CIMIC and PSYOPS) since it does make sense to mount it on a vehicle and it can be lashed to the roof of G Wagons, HLVW's and RG-31's. The firepower and speed of engagement will make a difference fighting mounted (especially since the troops named are perhaps not as proficient in weapons craft as combat arms soldiers), although even then it will not be able to provide the same effective plunging fire that a mortar can to targets in defilade.
Just on another tangent, small mechanized vehicles like 'gators greatly increase the logistics tail, which is one reason they are in only limited use. If you want some off road mobility without invoking exoskeletons or other exotica, how about mountain bikes? The Finnish PPP's (Polkupyöräpataljoona) of Winter War fame were bicycle battalions in summer and switched to skis in the winter.
1. With advancing dismounted infantry
2. Shoved in the back of a section LAV
3. Mounted on the turret or back deck of said LAV
Since the basic argument is that we need portable firepower, a 60mm mortar is far more suitable regardless of how it shoots in trials, simply because I or one of my soldiers can physically carry it into battle, and the platoon can carry 30 or so mortar bombs between us. A weapon derived from the ARPAD 600 could in theory provide some hish speed firepower using 40mm HV grenades from the CASW, although as a single shot weapon it cannot provide volume of fire. A very lightweight AGL like the QLZ-87 would provide portable firepower, but this is not what the CASW specifications call for.
The CASW may actually be more suitable for people like the MP's, service battalions and Info Ops troops (CIMIC and PSYOPS) since it does make sense to mount it on a vehicle and it can be lashed to the roof of G Wagons, HLVW's and RG-31's. The firepower and speed of engagement will make a difference fighting mounted (especially since the troops named are perhaps not as proficient in weapons craft as combat arms soldiers), although even then it will not be able to provide the same effective plunging fire that a mortar can to targets in defilade.
Just on another tangent, small mechanized vehicles like 'gators greatly increase the logistics tail, which is one reason they are in only limited use. If you want some off road mobility without invoking exoskeletons or other exotica, how about mountain bikes? The Finnish PPP's (Polkupyöräpataljoona) of Winter War fame were bicycle battalions in summer and switched to skis in the winter.
- Reaction score
- 26,384
- Points
- 1,090
Petamoco: Still waiting for you to agree to the trial: You carry the main part of the CASW the distance in the SOR then engage a target; then do the same with a 60mm mortar, and compare the elapsed time from crossing the start line.
Per other comments "CASW - not that there's anything wrong with that", but it does not replace the 60mm mortar as a dismounted platoon portable weapon system.
Per other comments "CASW - not that there's anything wrong with that", but it does not replace the 60mm mortar as a dismounted platoon portable weapon system.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
And what kind of Illum can be fires by the CASW? Maglights taped to Training rounds? ;D
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Ouch, which poor bugger gets to self illum with the 84MM? Big waste of man power too.
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 1,040
Oh, there are illum rounds for the 84; however, the point is this. The document was supposed to be a direct comparison between two systems, operating in a vacuum as it were, to illustrate how each could do certain tasks. The very fact that they made apologetic references to the CASW's capabilities where it was shown to be insufficient or non-existant, yet ignoring the same procedure re: the 60, shows the bias. For example, in quick direct fire engagements, the CASW is significantly superior: point and shoot. The 60 takes more time, and adjustment rounds are required. We get this; however, nothing we mentioned of the GMPG being able to suppress the enemy while the 60 adjusts and engages.Tango18A said:
I would offer that a better comparison would be the CASW in an infantry platoon context (no outside enablers) versus a 60 mm mortar in an infantry platoon context. Both platoons would be LAV mounted in one comparison, and purely dismounted in another. The point would be to show each in context in which it is to be employed. I mean, if a M777 were compared to a CASW in the method they employed, then the CASW would lose in every comparison, less mobility, which would be offset by the M777's far superior range. (eg: why move 10 km when you can shoot over 20 km?) So, in a vacuum, the M777 would be much better than a CASW or 60, yet we all know intuitively that the M777 would come in third for so many reasons.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
DAPaterson,
Send me your army e-mail address and I will forward you the comparison.
You are only stating one criteria and basing your decision on that. The CF has conducted a comparison with 21 criteria.
Send me your army e-mail address and I will forward you the comparison.
You are only stating one criteria and basing your decision on that. The CF has conducted a comparison with 21 criteria.
- Reaction score
- 7,934
- Points
- 1,160
Technoviking said:
Can one be uninformed and a pedant at the same time? I'll try.
Isn't the CASW a glorified MG and aren't MGs sighted by observing fall of shot? Therefore, wouldn't the CASW/MG require adjustment rounds as well? I understand that the CASW has all sorts of trick gizmos to improve first round accuracy but after all, it is still a gun and not a rifle. And everyone knows that gunners never hit their target first time.
- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
Loachman said:
I agree. I know dick about either, but agonising my way through this thread I have come to one conclusion.
The discussion is akin to comparing bulldozers and natural erosion when speaking of earth movement. While both accomplish like results, neither is comparable in the real world of immediate consequenses and actions.
Champions on both sides of this discussion will never agree to comprimise, as 7 pages of drain circling have proven. All we're doing now is wasting bandwidth.
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 1,040
Yes, it is. The brits refer to it as a GMG (Grenade Machine Gun). And yes, the fall of shot is adjusted by observation. So, yes, adjustment rounds would be required, but the time required to do so are significantly less than those for a 60mm.Kirkhill said:
The comparison was flawed. In the cases in which the CASW out performed the 60, nothing was said about how that could be mitigated by other platoon weapons. In the cases in which the 60 out performed the CASW, stuff was indeed said about how that could be mitigated.Petamocto said:
The author thought that a high-angle fire range band of 1700 m to 2000 m meant that the CASW was capable of providing high angle fire. There is more, but in the end, the premises of the document date from 2004: two years before the reality of combat shook a lot of preconceptions to the ground. Tanks. Artillery. The whole "out range with precision effects and exploit with infantry" concept of war. All out the window.
Now, having said that, the GMG/CASW is an EXCELLENT weapon for mounting on a vehicle and using in a light infantry battalion. It would be a perfect addition to a Direct Fire Support platoon. Or even a company level direct fire support weapon, taking the place of the .50 calibre, or supplementing it. It simply has no place in a mechanised infantry platoon: the direct fire of the four fully stabilised 25 mm chain guns outweigh any benefits a GMG could offer. The GPMG gives some added flexibility with engaging enemy infantry and soft-skinned vehicles, the 84 can help deal with enemy LAVs, and the mortar gives the flexibility of being able to engage enemy who are not in view long enough to allow the King of Battle to destroy said enemy.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Technoviking said:
- Reaction score
- 1,308
- Points
- 1,040
Not saying that at all. I simply state that a high angle fired weapon gives a capability to an infantry platoon that cannot be provided by low angle fired weapons. And that it's proven in combat, by our soldiers, maybe even today as I type this. That's all.
- Reaction score
- 5,691
- Points
- 1,060
Of course it could only have been expected to turn into a personal pissing match right? Way to go. Your smart assed remark has given us the excuse to close off your personal pulpit.
Tanks!
Milnet.ca Staff
- Status
