I submitted an idea to the Marine Enhancement Program a few years ago, recommending the exploration of an indirect fire sight to allow for the M203 to be employed in an IDF mode, similar to the the sling technique that has been all but forgotten.
The MEP folks said it would be pushed past Gunner Eby at that time to review, and it seems it didn't stick.
40mm Medium Velocity / Extended Range
The British have raised a supply contract for 40mm MV/ER cartridge grenades to be employed in a feasibility study with in-service single-shot weapons. The contract specified six grenade variants – HEDP and five types of smoke, marker and illuminating. That variety is generally similar to the types of bomb previously fired from their 51mm platoon mortar.
See: http://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOT...3:TEXT:EN:HTML
If testing is successful then possibly the Canadians will follow and be followed in alphabetic order by Oz and NZ.
Last edited by davidbfpo; 10-26-2013 at 11:25 AM. Reason: 2nd sentence corrected at authors request
There is an old thread Canadian 60mm problem, which maybe relevant:http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/...ead.php?t=5692
davidbfpo
40 MV (and LV) plus 60mm at platoon level
That 60mm mortar problem was well considered by Canadian CAPTs Rintjema, Boucher and Erkelens as reported in Infantry Company Crew Served Weapons . Their report is available at
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
The British Army seems to generally share/agree with its main conclusions: summarised as infantry company fire based on 60mm mortar and 84mm CG RclR with 40mm HV AGL introduced in preference to 12.7mm HMG.
Hence believe British are now considering the 40mm MV grenade capability as a complement to their recently gained 60mm platoon mortar. The 40mm MV seems particularly suitable for section use and close-in tasks where even the small bombs of the 51mm mortar were previously useful.
Can anybody explain to me why the excessively heavy M3 Carl Gustav (still not exactly lightweight in its most recent version) is so very popular among anglophones?
Nothing, absolutely nothing in its published specs points at a superiority over the likes of the already phased out LRAC F1 STRIM* and similar weapons.
Is it all about the (recently developed) fancy munitions?
For example, the U.S.Army finally introduced the M3 CG for general infantry and promotes this fact as if they had invented something great, but the marines already had their equivalent already for three decades (an Israeli 70's design).
Sometimes it seems as if the people's capacity to think about weapons and munitions cannot reach beyond a few marketing stars, ignoring more than 90% of what's actually available.
* An export success story in the francophone world.
US Army and Carl Gustav
Saw the story the other day. IIFC, the major point was that it had greater range over the disposable AT-4s currently being carried.
Ammo for it is also "in the system" as our rangers got it back in the 90s.
I had recommended it as a replacement for the old 90mm recoiless rifle when I worked at the Engineeer Center. My thoughts were it was more flexible then the 90mm because it also had the capability to fire both smoke and illum rounds. Nice options for a combat engineer as part of a breaching effort, smoke to screen and illum for thermal marking.
They went with the Javilin ATGM instead. Go figure.
TAH
That's a function of barrel length and munitions, which are about identical.Originally Posted by TAH
The effective range is coined by the aiming device, and as Germany shows with its Panzerfaust 3IT-600, you can also attach an electronic fire control system to a disposable ammunition tube. In fact, the U.S.Army could have adopted the Dynarange sight 15+ years ago and simply attached it (with slightly adapted dimensions and computing variables) to its AT4s.
The trade off between reloadable and disposable is rather the fixed weight (launcher) and weight per shot (less for reloadable).
its ABCANZ
Its a result of the ABCA association which nuclear concerns notwithstanding - effectively includes NZ as per http://www.abca-armies.org/
The hierarchy in terms of population and military power is ABCANZ. Taking Australia as an example, defence force development and procurement elements are enmeshed in a public service system that is concerned with process before purpose. Hence with some notable exceptions such as the Bushmaster IMV, Oz defence procurement tends to delay and ultimately to follow a lead established by A or B and preferably also C. Then the alpha order resets with Aus followed by NZ, or NZ followed by Oz.
Believe Carl Gustav is somewhat unusual in that B and C preceded Aus and NZ with A in last place. But Saab/FFV has been fortunate because its product should have been dumped in the 1960s when Sweden withheld CG spares and ammunition from ANZ in SVN.
Changing the name from ABCA to ABCANZ was mooted for about 30 seconds when NZ became a full member in 2006 but it was correctly considered the name change would just be an administrative overhead offering little value thous the organization remains ABCA http://www.abca-armies.org
Your statement wrt Australian and New Zealand acquisition processes is incorrect and one only has to look at the orbat of either nation to see this. both nations have steered their own courses for some decades although there IRS some obvious benefit to common equipment.
The attraction of the CG 3 is its flexibility and portability. It has a good rangeo of ammunition types and is relatiively simples to train and use...simply, if it ain't broke...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks