No more Carl G?

[GO!!!]

We made extensive use of M72s in A'stan in 2002, they are excellent peices of kit, and we stated so.

M72s have also made regular range appearances since then, so I assume that we will continue to use them, due to the pitiful performance of the Eryx and the cost of the 84mm round.

 

[Hmm donuts!]

Definitly true on the M72, how much do the 84 rounds go for?

 

[GO!!!]

I remember having this conversation with someone who knew..

84mm
cement head - 600$
HEAT - 900$
HEDP - 1200$

M72
400$

All prices "ish"

Plus, it is light, waterproof, disposable, and everybody in the section/platoon can carry one!

So we should trade it for the Javelin (firing post 70 000$ and missile 60 000$) Which means I will never, ever, even come close to firing one. Another great call by DLR. The bad guys are driving toyotas, so we buy a tank buster, but 20 years ago, when the bad guys were in tanks, we bought the M72....

 

[KevinB]

Careful dude - DLR will axe you off the christmas list too... 


Actually US Javelin is pretty impressive - I got a chance to speak with (okay listen too) a 18B that whacked a Tank in OIF (Iraqi tank) while the Det Ops WO read him the instructions on how to use it...

Fills a niche -- but not at the expense of the 84 and M72 (which should be replaced by AT-4 anyway).

The 72 has no setup for attaching a NV aimer unlike the AT-4 and 84 (and the AT-4 is a 84mm system - with so much more "oomph" than the 66mm HEAT M72 warhead)

Eryx is a fricken bad joke -- I cleared in to the RCR BSL in Jun94 to teach and had to put up with a long winded blather on Erxy by the CO -- he had just come from being PMO Eryx -- he made it sound like the heat --- unfortunately when I got issued the damn things it was a POS (which I blame entriely upon the RCR  ).

 

[MG34]

Careful dude - DLR will axe you off the christmas list too...  


Actually US Javelin is pretty impressive - I got a chance to speak with (okay listen too) a 18B that whacked a Tank in OIF (Iraqi tank) while the Det Ops WO read him the instructions on how to use it...

Fills a niche -- but not at the expense of the 84 and M72 (which should be replaced by AT-4 anyway).

The 72 has no setup for attaching a NV aimer unlike the AT-4 and 84 (and the AT-4 is a 84mm system - with so much more "oomph" than the 66mm HEAT M72 warhead)

Eryx is a fricken bad joke -- I cleared in to the RCR BSL in Jun94 to teach and had to put up with a long winded blather on Erxy by the CO -- he had just come from being PMO Eryx -- he made it sound like the heat --- unfortunately when I got issued the darn things it was a POS (which I blame entriely upon the RCR   ).

I have no problem with the Eryx provided it is used properly,the main problem is that most simply lack the skills to use it The AT4 is no great piece of work either,too heavy for what it can deliver and is one shot only,at least with an NM-72 you can carry more than one. The Dragon is the hottest thing out there with a confirmed kill on a stationary tgt at 5km,but there is still a place for the Carl G,as long as the purse strings are loosened a bit and the newer rounds are purchased for it such as the FFV 751 Tandem warhead round, the FFV 545 Illum, FFV HE441B VT fused round which can be set for airburst or point detonating and has an 1100m range.

 

[Unknown Factor]

From what I hear (and indicators I've seen) the Javelin is probably going to replace the Eryx, 84mm and M72 are not currently being looked at for replacement considering light deployments are on the rise and both systems are a popular choice not only for our Army but others as well.  AT-4 is actually not as great as it is knocked up to be, most guys in the states would rather leave it a home.  Ranger Bns have more use for the 84mm than the AT-4 as well as more round choices, plus at the end of the day a platoon can carry more 84mm than AT-4's.  As for 50 cal. CTC is in the process of re-writing the pam (making the drills and lessons more streamlined and updated for the quick change barrels) and sooner than later we may be seeing the likes of a Mk19.  But in the end the reality may just be that it's all rumor and we have no money to do any of it.  But of the interm AT-4's are more expensive than 84mm and M72 so unlikely that they will replace any time soon.

 

[KevinB]

MG34 I both agree and disagree with you at the same time.
I've carried 6 M72's on me at once - however myself and the 3 others firing had to suffer the displeasure of LCol Vida for not hitting out tgt he had indicated.  Secondly it lacks a good punch and while good on some bunkers it is awkward to use in low light (hence my like ofthe AT-4)
Dragon is dead - the thing sucks.  They have RFI'd the Javelin due to Dragon issues - but the Dragon was in service way before Eryx - why did Eryx not have at least some of the capabilties (range)
Besides your a Royal I know you have a regimental affinity for the Eryx (and white rocks and drill  ;D -- PM inbound BTW)

Never mistake taking a CarlG for a AT-4 or vice veras.  The 4 and the M72 are individual Anti Armour systems - disposable...
The US had AT-4's strapped to their Hummers in Afghan - and in talking with their QRF guys - it worked as a good anti vehicle setup in some situations. 
 
Rangers are using the 84's to open buidling for raids or take out buidlings -- this is a good use - and something the munitions can be tailored for - a shaped charge Anti-Armour warhead from a M72 or 84mm is only punching a small hole - useless for that role.  However if you want to ambush a convoy driving down a road -- a bunch fo AT-4's is a good choice -- unless you got the Flash working your Carl G.

And AT-4's travel better -- we found we had to tape down the arming levers on our M72's or they got all f'd up (and the body too) in short time of being 'bounced' around a vehicle.


-

 

[GO!!!]

My choice is still the M72.

I feel that for a tradeoff in low light, you can have 10 in a section. Even if 20% malfunction due to being banged around, and 20% miss, you still have 6 rounds. The same cannot be said for the 84mm, even if the flash (thank you, thank you) is working the venturi.

The Eryx is a sad joke, it can't be fired through wire, the missiles in their packaging are too big, and not practical for anything but a static defence. The simulators are not at all similar to the real missile, the flight time is too long, the range is too short, and requires the exposure of the gunner, the missiles are not durable enough for light applications, the batteries freeze in the winter.....you get the idea.

The AT 4 would be an improvement, but my love of the M72 is partly based in it's affordability and thus availability for trg. I've only ever seen one Eryx missile fired, it went about 15 feet and tangled the gunner and #2 up in the wire, then ground detonated - way to go DLR.
All that for the low price of every man in a platoon having an M72.

I'll take volume and availability over 2 high tech "omnikill" missiles anyday.

 

[AmmoTech90]

The M72A5 can be purchased with a rail attachment, infact Raufoss makes a reflex sight that can be attached there.  After having looked at one, it looks like a pretty standard rail that any sight can be mounted on.  Of course with decent night optics you would have to remove it after firing or face the wrath of the CQ.

Eryx is not the greatest missile, but having seen seen several hundred go down range, it is not that unreliable.  Yes it does have a shorter range than Carl G, but you can fire it from an enclosure.  The time of flight to max range is (I believe) 3.9 or 4.9 seconds, this makes it one of the fastest missiles out there.  Outside packaging should be removed, I know they have been carried out of the logistical pack on deployment, just kept int the foil to keep the dust off.  Someone did muff the design for stowage on the LAV III by the way, but it came in after the Eryx.  No wire guided missile can be fired through wire reliably, heck I've seen TOW from TUA get grounded in wire and they're pretty damn high.
There are definately better missiles out there now, but at the time it was bought, the only downside (other that the Mirabel fiasco) was the short range.  Of course it was procured when we were facing the Soviet hordes and fighting from village to village in Germany so 600 metres would be ok.

Oh, and Eryx entered development prior to 1989, entered service in 1994.  Javelin Joint Venture started development in 1989 and Javelin entered service in 1996 so Eryx did come before.

It seems to me that there wasn't a clear place in the org chart designed for the Eryx.  I've seen it issued at the section level, while Carl Gs are held at the platoon, but there weren't enough section members qualified on it so it was dead weight in the LAV.  It was bought as a shiney piece of kit.  I just think the Army was shocked, getting something new in the early 90s and not having to give anything up...

The AT4 is a great piece of kit, but it much heavier than a 66 and much expensive.  I would think that it would be a good idea to skip the AT4 and go right to the MBT-LAW.  It is not guided, it is predictive, you track the target for a bit, and launch and it adjusts the flight to where the target should be.  It can be top attack, or direct fire, and for all the bells and whistles it features, it is is relatively cheap.  There is a variety of warheads available for the M72 that I've mentioned in another post and some newer ones including a thermobaric warhead and a fuze that can sense a hard target and detonate outside to allow penetration, or a soft target that where the rocket will penetrate and then function.

I would say keep the 66mm (with a rail to make Kevin happy), replace it with MBT-LAW when we can afford it, and replace all the Carl Gs with lightweight carbon fibre version and field a full range of ammo for it.

Oh, and Javelin rocks...but it still wont replace Carl G unless we get a them one for one.  USMC use Javelin but still have a spot for SMAW.

 

[Unknown Factor]

There is no reason why that Carl G could not be configured with a day/night sight, in fact I do remember a time when the 'Eryx contract' was actually the replacement for the Carl G right up until they found out that it had a shorter range.  The misconceptions that many have towards the 84 is that it is not accurate or can't be fired at night.  Both false, accuracy is due to firer and not firing at night, there is in fact a mount for the kite sight for the 84 and I do remember firing them at night in that config.  As for the dedate over M72 and AT4, at the end of the day when every man can carry an M72 there is no debate, the capabilities of the AT can be filled by 84 or Javelin.  84 is potentially the most flexable wpn system of the three - ammo improvements over the years have created newer rounds - such as Illum, Anti-pers, bunker buster to name a few, and why couldn't you develop a thermo version.  Remember at the end of the day it is flexability of a wpn system in Canada we don't have the lux for tailoring our wpn sytems around missions. 

 

[GO!!!]

There is no reason why that Carl G could not be configured with a day/night sight, in fact I do remember a time when the 'Eryx contract' was actually the replacement for the Carl G right up until they found out that it had a shorter range.   The misconceptions that many have towards the 84 is that it is not accurate or can't be fired at night.  

I don't think that ever came up, the 84mm already has a functional night vision capability.

The 84mm is a very accurate weapon in the hands of a well trained and experienced gunner. With the dearth of ammo we seem to experience though, experienced gunners can be in short supply. The theory behind systems like the Javelin (so I'm told) is that the gunner will be able to have a high probability of a first round hit, due to the high technology that that system contains, whereas it takes some practice to hit tgts at 700m with an 84mm HEAT round.

The fact of the matter is, that the 84 is heavy, you can only have one, with a very limited amount of ammo, and it takes practice to use. I know that there are newer and better rounds out there, but that is immaterial, since our military is loathe to buy anything that could hurt someone. There are also new variants of the M72, including variants that are thermobaric, have NV capability, filled with anti-pers projectiles etc. I still think we are better off with 24-30 M72 variants in a platoon, than 6 rounds for the 84mm.

Also, when one considers that the majority of the vehicle targets canadians will encounter in the next 5 years will be of the Toyota persuasion, and not the tank/APC, would it not be better to use a smaller, cheaper, more numerous weapon? Collateral damage and the ability to fire in confined spaces is also a concern here. I'm not saying to deep six the 84 right out of the inventory, just concentrate on a different system for the present conditions and operations.

 

[Bruce Monkhouse]

Quote from GO!!!,
Also, when one considers that the majority of the vehicle targets canadians will encounter in the next 5 years will be of the Toyota persuasion, and not the tank/APC, would it not be better to use a smaller, cheaper, more numerous weapon? Collateral damage and the ability to fire in confined spaces is also a concern here. I'm not saying to deep six the 84 right out of the inventory, just concentrate on a different system for the present conditions and operations.

Agree with everything exept "5 years". I think one could say with the world dynamics now, soft-skinned vehicles will be the norm for a lot longer than that.

 

[Douke]

Definitly agree with GO!'s point of view. The very few high armored threats that will be encountered in today's context can be dealt with by assault choppers (granted we don't have any, even though we should, but we are usually fighting togheter with our NATO allies who possess them)  or any other heavy fire option.

Infantry is also much more flexible if every soldier can cary his own soft vehicle stopper/ cave clearer etc. Imagine losing the Carl G in an encounter in wich it is needed (operators KIA, an unlikely but yet possible firing problem), you are left without any heavy fire capability. Also, once the Carl G is spotted, they know where the heat will come from. Much harder if you have 30 different positions of potential rocket fire.

Finally, if we concentrated on the M72, I am pretty sure we could improve the concept to make it more reliable.

Of course that is my theorical point of view, anyone more experienced sees flaws in that logic?

 

[KevinB]

I dont think anyone is saying dump the Carl G for M72's -- they are an augmentation to each other. The G has a night capable sight - albiet ideally the thermal projected image ballistic computer one that was trialed/demo'd several years ago would be neat (it does range and wind deflection for you - just put the dot on the tgt you want to go bye bye too)

The one issue I will point out to is the Afghan AMF - whoes loyalty depends upon the $ you pay them and the "what have you dont for me lately" concept.  They still have armour, driving around the provinces outside of Kabul you will see their tanks...

When your the one in the toyota the idea of having a backstop of the Javelin is a nice idea...

 

[Unknown Factor]

The G has a night capable sight - albiet ideally the thermal projected image ballistic computer one that was trialed/demo'd several years ago would be neat (it does range and wind deflection for you - just put the dot on the tgt you want to go bye bye too)

I remember when this was done, as I recall the system worked great, problem was size and weight.

Also, when one considers that the majority of the vehicle targets canadians will encounter in the next 5 years will be of the Toyota persuasion, and not the tank/APC, would it not be better to use a smaller, cheaper, more numerous weapon? Collateral damage and the ability to fire in confined spaces is also a concern here. I'm not saying to deep six the 84 right out of the inventory, just concentrate on a different system for the present conditions and operations.

Yes and the Ranger's in 'Mog' thought they'd be gone for 30 mins, you start tailoring everything to one mission and you'll soon find the mission is dictating your tactics, how you pack and how you fight.  What are you going to do when T-55's start rolling out of a warlords compound firing at you?

Also, once the Carl G is spotted, they know where the heat will come from.

I'm sure we don't have to start a tread on Fire and Movement

 

[GO!!!]

Yes and the Ranger's in 'Mog' thought they'd be gone for 30 mins, you start tailoring everything to one mission and you'll soon find the mission is dictating your tactics, how you pack and how you fight.   What are you going to do when T-55's start rolling out of a warlords compound firing at you?

All the bad guys in Mogadishu were in cars and pickups, and the Rangers had a kit list, which included water, the rear ballistic plate and NVGs. They simply neglected to follow it - and their CoC did'nt check.

No one is suggesting "tailoring" anything to one mission. Afghanistan will be somewhere we are going to be occupied with for at least the next ten years. We can train to fight there, and meet the current threats in a reasonable manner with the weapons available without damaging your ability to fight off the T-55 driving Russians as they swarm through the Fulda Gap.

Also, your T-55 argument is excellent! The standard T55 has frontal armour of 200mm ( http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/t54tank.htm ) and an M72 can penetrate 300mm+ ( http://www.inetres.com/gp/military/infantry/antiarmor/M72.html )

So, in your example, I would pull out my M72, fire a single well placed round at the turret ring of the offending tank, which would ignite the ammunition stored in the ready rack, and watch the fireworks. The 84 team and the warrant would arrive a few minutes later, as I finished posing with my victims. If hell froze over and I missed, every other man in the platoon could follow up with a round.

Does that answer your question satisfactorily?

 

[Infanteer]

With the dearth of ammo we seem to experience though, experienced gunners can be in short supply.

This from the guy who fired off 19 rounds at rapid rate at nothing.... ^-^

 

[armyvern]

The 84 team and the warrant would arrive a few minutes later, as I finished posing with my victims.

Uhmmm GO!!! posing is OK but I hope your not having the passersby snap any photos!!   8)

 

[Infanteer]

As well, what's with this "Take the tank from the front" shit?  We see Iraqi Insurgents nailing Abrams and Bradleys with RPGs and they are hitting them from the back and the side and from close ranges.  If a Light Infantry force was attacked by tanks in a complex environment, I'd expect us to be sending rounds up the pipe from the back or from a top down shot, no?

 

[GO!!!]

As well, what's with this "Take the tank from the front" crap?   We see Iraqi Insurgents nailing Abrams and Bradleys with RPGs and they are hitting them from the back and the side and from close ranges.   If a Light Infantry force was attacked by tanks in a complex environment, I'd expect us to be sending rounds up the pipe from the back or from a top down shot, no?

Well, yes, ideally you can always take the armour with a nice round popped into their backside, or even better, into the top of the turret, but such opportunities seem rare for us, the good guys. This is the theory behind the top attack missiles like the TOW Charlie (?) and the javelin (at least some of th variants) because the thickest armour is on the forward facing surfaces, and the thinnest faces up and to the rear.The bad guys seem to pull it off though!

The Chechens have proven extremely adept at this, in addition to using molotov cocktails on tanks from the roofs of buildings,  then shooting the crew when they try to escape.