I'd even question the utuility of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
William F. Owen
...On what planet does CASW (40mm AGL) meet the same requirements as a mortar. The UK already made this mistake at the platoon level and is now reversing it.
IMO, unless a 40mm AGL is on a vehicle and preferably part of a RWS, it has no place in modern infantry.
Other than as a psychological weapon.
It looks scary, booms nicely and makes more noise than anything else -- with the caveat that the Mk 47 or the CIS AGL make slightly more sense. If one can afford it, it's a nice to have toy; if one cannot afford it and a 60mmm mortar issue, IMO one would be making a really bad mistake to opt for the AGL.
For our brothers-in-arms, I hope this decision doesn't stick...
Gentlemen,
100% concur with the general sentiment of this thread. The 60mm mortar is an essential weapon in the modern rifle company, if not rifle platoon. As infantry units continue to disperse on the battlefield, they'll need more instantly available--organic--fire support, not less. Check out the article here: http://www.nypost.com/seven/05032008...cry_109193.htm and also review the photo gallery. This is an infantry platoon reinforced operating out of a patrol base, mortars and all. This is 2008. In the book Platoon Leader, the harsh reality on the importance of 60mm mortars was learned the hard way. Initially the infantry platoon did not have it's own lightweight mortars at its patrol base in Vietnam. Soon after commencing operations, the Soldiers quickly realized why they needed a lightweight mortar. For a 2002 perspective, Sean Naylor's Not a Good Day to Die clearly illustrates what happens when "higher" makes the very dangerous assumption that rotary wing and fixed wing close air support are all that's needed for fire support in modern combat. Additionally, the book Phase Line Green, an intensely personal combat story about Hue City in 1968, also hammers home the importance of high angle 60mm mortar fire.
For our Canadian infantry brethern fighting side-by-side with us in Afghanistan, I hope "higher" re-evaluates this decision.
Disciplinary charges in the CF
From CBC.ca
Quote:
Disciplinary charges soar since the push into Afghanistan
Last Updated: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 | 11:06 AM ET
Military charges against Canadian Forces members have risen dramatically in the years since Canada sent troops to Afghanistan, a CBC investigation has found. In fact, the charges have risen by as much as 62 per cent over an eight-year period.
All military forces face discipline and morale issues resulting from soldiers serving in war zones — and from the latest numbers uncovered by the CBC, it seems Canada is no exception.
In 1998-99, just over 1,300 so-called summary charges were laid against Canadian Forces members, for everything from drunkenness to charges of a sexual nature and drug dealing. But that number rose sharply to 2,001 in 2002-03, the year Canada first sent troops to Afghanistan, and stood at 2,100 in 2006-07, the latest year in which stats are available.
More...
Not that this surprises me, but I would really like to see hese numbers tossed into more context.