Close Area Suppression Weapon (was Company Area Suppression Weapon)

[KevinB]

By CDEx do you mean concept development?  If so why are developing a concept for something in service?  Should that not have been done during the coceive stage, even before development?

Dont injected rationality into their reality...

 

[a_majoor]

Unfortunately the procurement PR campaign focused on selling it to people who will never use it, instead of selling it to those who will use it. Unanswered questions created doubts. Hopefully it will prove to be everything predicted and more. But there remains the issue of answering what will fill the gap in dismounted ops when a 60 would have been carried but a AGM cannot be brought within manning and operational limitations, or the question of semi-indirect and indirect applications of fire into dead ground the AGM munitions cannot reach where a 60 would have succeeded. Perhaps if we had a better conceptual model of the infantry platoon as a fighting system, within which support weapons are one component, then any future was developments can be shown to be effective within the system model and that could have mitigated some of the internal PR damage.

But, to be fair, we've never effectively studied the section or platoon as a fighting system - a balance of manning, weapons, mobility, etc. - and created a capability baseline we wish to maintain, accepting decreases in one capability component when offset by an advantage elsewhere. Instead, for procurement purposes, we try to argue the validity of swapping out individual items one for one, and failing to show the mitigating elements within the organizational system where shortfalls are perceived.

Too true. The model sections and platoons seems to have been frozen in time, and weapons and systems being grafted to fit an eight man dismounted section etc. rather than perhaps seeing if the section or platoon should be reconfigured. To use two past examples, the Canadian Mounted Rifles had a different organizational and tactical model compared to line infantry based on their method of transport, and Canadian platoons in WWI were organized around the firepower of the Lewis Gun and the grenadiers (riflemen being mostly to escort the weapons and supply ammunition).

New systems like the C-16 obviously need to be looked at in this light; if they are capable of supplying an immense increase in firepower for the dismounted infantry, then perhaps the infantry company or platoon should be reconfigured like the WWI infantry platoon around the weapon. Now there may be lots of reasons not to do so, but then we also need to accept that the C-16 cannot be utilized except under unusual circumstances (i.e. enough manpower can be freed up to man the weapon).

 

[dapaterson]

To celebrate Public Service Week a C-16, together with project staff, set up on the concourse of NDHQ.  ("Look out public servants - we've got airburst munitions!" - messaging seems off to me, but what do I know).

I had a long conversation with them.  After five fire missions, the C-16 is lighter than the 60mm mortar (apparently).  And one of the contractors offered this helpful hint:  "Bring it in on a truck."

 

[vonGarvin]

I had a long conversation with them.  After five fire missions, the C-16 is lighter than the 60mm mortar (apparently).  And one of the contractors offered this helpful hint:  "Bring it in on a truck."

They are full of shit, plain and simple.


Ask them why buy a large piece of kit with no truck.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

They have all the wpn specs up in our coy lines.  It looks like an impressive weapon but honestly it would be suited for something like a DFS Pl and I hope the CF goes that way with it.  When we get the TAPV that could provide us with the vehicle for it.

 

[vonGarvin]

Stymiest:
It is indeed a terrific weapon with awesome capabilities; however, it is by no means a platoon weapon.  It's too heavy, and in all honesty, virtually all of its capabilities already exist in LAV-equipped platoons.  (Yes, I realise that if the LAVs aren't there, it would be great; however, how do you get it there with no LAV to carry it?)

As for TAPV, they are gonig to come equipped with C-16 AGLS (not the guns we are getting with the CASW project, but further C 16s that will be mounted)

As a DFS-platoon weapon for the light battalions, that is the perfect place for it.  For dinosaurs such as myself, it's easy to think of the employment of the .50 in the DFS platoons, and just use the C-16 like that.

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

Stymiest:
It is indeed a terrific weapon with awesome capabilities; however, it is by no means a platoon weapon.  It's too heavy, and in all honesty, virtually all of its capabilities already exist in LAV-equipped platoons.  (Yes, I realise that if the LAVs aren't there, it would be great; however, how do you get it there with no LAV to carry it?)

As for TAPV, they are gonig to come equipped with C-16 AGLS (not the guns we are getting with the CASW project, but further C 16s that will be mounted)

As a DFS-platoon weapon for the light battalions, that is the perfect place for it.  For dinosaurs such as myself, it's easy to think of the employment of the .50 in the DFS platoons, and just use the C-16 like that.

Yah I am not a mech guy, I am in the 3rd Bn and we have brought back a DFS Pl for this very reason.  They actually just ran a .50 cal gun camp and are doing train the trainer on the C-16 at the end of August. 

 

[vonGarvin]

Yah I am not a mech guy, I am in the 3rd Bn and we have brought back a DFS Pl for this very reason.  They actually just ran a .50 cal gun camp and are doing train the trainer on the C-16 at the end of August.

That is great news.  PM inbound

 

[Michael OLeary]

That is great news.  PM inbound

No TV, you're a Major now, you can't go command the DFS platoon, no matter how much you want to.

 

[vonGarvin]

No TV, you're a Major now, you can't go command the DFS platoon, no matter how much you want to.

What if they make it a DFS company?  (All those C-16s rotting in the mech battalions need homes, too!)  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

For the rest of us who want a primer on using heavy weapons, I recommend this article.

For the full set in PDF format go here

 

[vonGarvin]

I read those articles on the "Emma Gees" for the first time in 1989 during my basic machine gunner course.  I'll just say that they were rather influential to me.  Amazing articles.

 

[Michael OLeary]

What if they make it a DFS company?  (All those C-16s rotting in the mech battalions need homes, too!)  ;D

How about an "FS Company"

C-16 Platoon
HMG Platoon
81 mm Mortar Platoon

;D

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I know US Marine DFS Pl use Mk 40 grenade launcher, .50 cal and AT4 interchangeably depending on what they need to get the job done.  While the Mk 40 is not the same as the C 16 it is quite similar.  They also hump it so their is no reason we can't do it, their is a reason after all that they pick big dudes for their DFS Pl because those weapon systems are heavy as all hell.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Army News' story about how cool it is.

 

[OldSolduer]

They also hump it so their is no reason we can't do it, their is a reason after all that they pick big dudes for their DFS Pl because those weapon systems are heavy as all hell.

So for a man portable system, what's your suggestion as to how many pers we need to hump this behemoth?

 

[vonGarvin]

So for a man portable system, what's your suggestion as to how many pers we need to hump this behemoth?

As you do so, please remember that a box of 32 rounds (linked) has a mass on the order of 21 kg.  Please factor in a fire plan of 5 minutes at 30 rounds/minute, plus 10%.  Don't forget to include personal weapons and ammo.

 

[Matt_Fisher]

I know US Marine DFS Pl use Mk 40 grenade launcher, .50 cal and AT4 interchangeably depending on what they need to get the job done.  While the Mk 40 is not the same as the C 16 it is quite similar.  They also hump it so their is no reason we can't do it, their is a reason after all that they pick big dudes for their DFS Pl because those weapon systems are heavy as all hell.

AT4 is used in the Marine Corps as a squad level anti-armor weapon similar to how the M72 is used.  It's not just the HMG platoon that gets these.  As far manportability of the Mk19, very very very rarely is it ever carried by hand very far.  Usually employed in the dismounted role for defensive positions.  Most of the time it's mounted on a HMMWV or MATV type platform so you can have some measure of mobility with it.

 

[ArmyRick]

TV, I got it worked out.

COA#1
If we have a 5 man det, than 3 men carry 2 boxes of 21KG. They will wear running and carry no personal weapon or personal gear.

COA#2
We make a C16 det a 10 man operation (Sure the CSM will love coughing up that much for a single weapon). Never mind that a M777 det is only what 8-9 guys?

COA#3
We purchase and hire donkeys. CQ, straw on the next DP please.

What do you think?

 

[daftandbarmy]

TV, I got it worked out.

COA#1
If we have a 5 man det, than 3 men carry 2 boxes of 21KG. They will wear running and carry no personal weapon or personal gear.

COA#2
We make a C16 det a 10 man operation (Sure the CSM will love coughing up that much for a single weapon). Never mind that a M777 det is only what 8-9 guys?

COA#3
We purchase and hire donkeys. CQ, straw on the next DP please.

What do you think?

COA#4: Attach a butt and a bipod to it and call it a 'light automatic grenade launcher', just like the Germans tried to do with the ridiculously heavy and awkward MG08: