No more Carl G?

[Unknown Factor]

Also, your T-55 argument is excellent! The standard T55 has frontal armour of 200mm... Does that answer your question satisfactorily?

The point is not how much frontal armour a T-55 has but the fact that an M-72 cannot fire accuratly beyond 300m, in others words who cares how poor the tank is it can still hit you with it's main gun and with its armour protect it's coaxle before you hit it with your platoons worth of M-72's or did they not teach you that in basic? 

 

[GO!!!]

The point is not how much frontal armour a T-55 has but the fact that an M-72 cannot fire accuratly beyond 300m, in others words who cares how poor the tank is it can still hit you with it's main gun and with its armour protect it's coaxle before you hit it with your platoons worth of M-72's or did they not teach you that in basic?  

The average engagement in Urban terrain is 70m.

The accuracy of the M72 depends largely on the skill of the operator (as with the 84mm) The difference is that we can afford to practice with the M72.

A C7 is not accurate in battlefield conditions beyond 400m either, hence something I was taught about "close with and destroy..."

If the tank can get us with the co-ax before we can fire an M72, there is no hope that the 84 team will be able to load, ready, acquire, standby and fire in a shorter time period.

As I said in the beginning, the 84 still has a use, and should be kept, just not for use in the current mission context.

The M72 is not taught in basic, nor are tank hunting skills, but I'm sure you knew that.

 

[Glorified Ape]

I got a nice pamphlet on the Carl G at AUSA and picked one of their new ones up; pretty skookum.  They have a wide range of ammunition available for the thing and the tech said they are designing a FAE round (or was it a thermobaric; can't remember) for the thing that will make it a good urban assault weapon.

Is there a thermobaric round for the M72? I seem to recall reading an article stating that the Marines had had spectacular success with thermobaric SMAW rounds in Iraq, though it seems there were problems with collateral damage. They discussed the development of a thermobaric warhead for another AT weapon, but I can't recall if it was the M72 or not.

 

[AmmoTech90]

Yes there's a thermobaric round (or at least enhanced blast) and also a version that can be fired from enclosed spaces.

 

[Sh0rtbUs]

Yes there's a thermobaric round (or at least enhanced blast) and also a version that can be fired from enclosed spaces.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36543/post-297049;topicseen#msg297049

 

[AmmoTech90]

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/36543/post-297049;topicseen#msg297049

Yep same manufacturer.  I was talking about the M72, Talley Defence makes a NE (Novel Explosive) round for that too.  The FFE (Fire From Enclosure) is also for the M72 from Talley.  I don't think anyone has marketed an enclosed Carl G round althoug in principle something along the lines of a countermass like you have in the AT4 would work.

 

[Unknown Factor]

The average engagement in Urban terrain is 70m.

The accuracy of the M72 depends largely on the skill of the operator (as with the 84mm) The difference is that we can afford to practice with the M72.

A C7 is not accurate in battlefield conditions beyond 400m either, hence something I was taught about "close with and destroy..."

If the tank can get us with the co-ax before we can fire an M72, there is no hope that the 84 team will be able to load, ready, acquire, standby and fire in a shorter time period.

As I said in the beginning, the 84 still has a use, and should be kept, just not for use in the current mission context.

The M72 is not taught in basic, nor are tank hunting skills, but I'm sure you knew that.

So by your sumation - we'll only fight in urban enviroments, at distances of less than 70m, and based on that you will base your wpns load and capabilities? - Assumptions!
Close with and destroy the enemy with what? your platoon is desimated because you didn't have a stand off weapons to at least disable the tank! you are estimating your plan on 'will' alone at this point and your arguement is based on pride not tactics.  Might want to get on a PSWQ before you make estimates and if you do have the course already - stay away from support wpns!

 

[Infanteer]

So by your sumation - we'll only fight in urban enviroments, at distances of less than 70m, and based on that you will base your wpns load and capabilities? - Assumptions!
Close with and destroy the enemy with what? your platoon is desimated because you didn't have a stand off weapons to at least disable the tank! you are estimating your plan on 'will' alone at this point and your arguement is based on pride not tactics.   Might want to get on a PSWQ before you make estimates and if you do have the course already - stay away from support wpns!

Why are we discussing the Carl G in stand-off role?  The arguement is that it is suitable for close combat in complex terrain, which is most likely going to be where the Infantry will be fighting.  Arguing that it is no good because it can't take a tank at 2000 meters is a red herring; it's like arguing that the C7 is no good because you can't drop an enemy at 1200 meters.

If the enemy has taken to the field and is deploying more conventional fighting formations then I'm not concerned with what the Infantry can do - the US Army will get them with M1's or an AH-64 because we've pretty much left the heavy combat game altogether.  This was observed in the US "March Up" to Baghdad.

 

[GO!!!]

So by your sumation - we'll only fight in urban enviroments, at distances of less than 70m, and based on that you will base your wpns load and capabilities? - Assumptions!
Close with and destroy the enemy with what? your platoon is desimated because you didn't have a stand off weapons to at least disable the tank! you are estimating your plan on 'will' alone at this point and your arguement is based on pride not tactics.   Might want to get on a PSWQ before you make estimates and if you do have the course already - stay away from support wpns!

No, I quite clearly stated that the average urban engagement is 70m.

I also quite clearly stated that the M72 is as accurate as the operator, and that it is better to have thirty of anything than three.

I've already told you that an M72 can destroy certain tanks, that also includes certain APCs and civilian pattern vehicles. Additionally, a number of M72s will disable nearly anything that moves, getting mobility kills, rendering the optics inoperable etc.

I am not "estimating" anything yet, as I don't have a mission.

I'll clue you in to a few realities too, old timer. We are no longer training to fight the russians. The battlefield is no longer the fulda gap. Communism is dead, and so is the cold war. Give it up.

The new wars we are fighting will be based in complex terrain, where you, and your precious LAV will not be able to fight effectively. "Complex" refers to mountains, jungles, swamps, and even built up areas. All of these are extremely difficult for armour (wheeled or tracked) and thus, are operated in on foot. As such, we must learn to fight an enemy who will probably not use tanks. He will probably be in a civvie pattern vehicle. There will be civilians around that we are not permitted to kill - even by accident. As a result, we must be trained and equipped for more than the motor rifle division sending waves of ivans at us. That means EVERY man needs the ability to stop a vehicle - soonest. Not when the wpns det comes down off of the hill, gets a frag order and tries to find your tank.

The M72 is not ideal, but it is realistic, and very do-able in the current context. We may encounter tanks, but the truth is, if you encounter even a half - assed tank unit when you are light, you lose. Your 84 team might get one round off. Then they die, but half of the guys might get M72s off, at least giving us a chance.

Finally, what is your solution? A problem without a solution is just a bitch, and you've been doing alot of it. What would you have us do? I expect this to be a comprehensible, accomplishable solution that we can do right now, not some "when the xxxx shows up" solution. I've noticed a pattern in some of your other posts that you like to complain alot, without ever offering a solution. So lets hear it?

 

[Unknown Factor]

If the enemy has taken to the field and is deploying more conventional fighting formations then I'm not concerned with what the Infantry can do - the US Army will get them with M1's or an AH-64 because we've pretty much left the heavy combat game altogether.   This was observed in the US "March Up" to Baghdad.

I've completely left 'conventional fighting' I'd keep everything you've got and hope that the Javelin would be at least accessable in Coy Wpn Platoon.  But to limit you weapons based on statistics would be a poor estimation for a leader to make.

 

[Infanteer]

I've completely left 'conventional fighting' I'd keep everything you've got and hope that the Javelin would be at least accessable in Coy Wpn Platoon.

Sounds like a good idea to me.

 

[George Wallace]

Being a Cadet....they probalby were pulling you leg.  ;D

 

[geo]

not sure but I think it sucked the brains outa that one.........
cleaning your sinuses?... yeah
suck out your lungs & vacuum formed?.... not!!
methinks they figured they had a fish on a string and were playing with ya

If you want to blow things up... you should drop in on 2 Field Engineer Reg't
you'll learn how to build things, dismantle things, make em, break em AND twist & bend em... and the best part is that they pay you to do this!!!! Isn't life great

Have no personal knowledge on 2FER but being a Sapper is a good thing

Don't make any rash decisions, drop on in for a visit and info session.
ask questions, lots of questions, talk to some of the members ... and if you like what you see & hear... c'mon down

CHIMO!

 

[gunfxr]

as far as I Know
M-72 Replacement program is on-going with a very low priority however updadted versions are being purchased, as the M-72 is treated as ammo not a weapon it is a tricky and complex process to replace.

Karl G staying for a long time due to it's range and versitility, newer ammo is on the board as well as a sight upgrade and an update of the sub cal going from the 6.5 x 55mm swedish mauser to a 7.62mm NATO  round

TOW is staying for a long time however an update/upgrade program is underway (we spent way too much money on the TUA turret for us to get rid of it) the ground mount is currently on the way out (next week it will be staying so don't hold your breath)

Eryx is staying for now with an examination to upgrade to the Fire Controll System on going at a low priority

ADATS is ramping up as they are now in the super duper comic book hero direct fire regement (for now)

there is a project to unify the sights on many system but this may just be a study.

the M203 is replacing the 60mm mortar on some levels the rest of the 60mm s will be replaces when the Company Level Area Suppression Weapon/System( read automatic grenade launcher) is brougt and fielded.

Of cours this is all subject to whim and operational requirement. so relying on plans is futile. as for the original question most of the Karl G training is happening at unit level due to the ease of use of the 84mm and the lack of time on the courses for weapons training.

these are all unofficial and just what I have heard and/or read please feel free to corect me if you have better/ truer info. 

 

[zishka]

Its my understanding the Brits are testing out SAAB's ( the guys whom make our beloved Carl G) new" NLAW"
http://products.saab.se/PDBWeb/ShowProduct.aspx?ProductId=640

it could be the next replacement if the money is spent ( yeah right!) but I'd be guessing it'll be in the works in the not to distant future regardless. as for the ERYX , we  tested it out back in the mid 90's and from what I heard of the price tag ( as compared to Javelin and Carl-G) was enough to choke a horse. Another thing the Eryx was a general pain in the ass to lug around and was a finiky creature, could be different now but I doubt it.

Its too bad about the reserves being denied training on the Carl G or any phasing out of the poor mans arty ( the 60mm). mortars are the life support of any Coy in a bad way.

 

[geo]

thought the 60 was being kept for Smoke and Illumination?