Goose is coming -- Carl Gustav for US Infantry Platoons

Probably from "Goose-tav".....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So low speed, i'm in Park.

"I could stand to hear a little more.." Jayne

Training is brief. Death is forever. PAY ATTENTION.

Joined: 6/14/03 1:02 PM

Cannot for the life of me even find out for sure if SAAB-Bofors makes anything in the US or Canada or just distributes, but two interesting things I have found: 

 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

mercUSA posted:

Bob,

The  weapons squad has  the three man gun teams and two guys assigned as javelin gunners. If needed, the ammo bearers for the guns were flexed to them to carry an additional round.

Glad to hear the Carl G has been adopted.

 

mercUSA

The Ammunition Handler in the Weapons Squad is a 2C Javelin Gunner position, not part of the MG Teams. Common misconception since we seldom employ the Javelin Teams in training or deployed environments.

So in low armor threat environments you leave the Javelin at the Trains/FOB and patrol with the M-3. Need to take on an Armor BN, then pull out the Javelins. I'm concerned about sustainment training over the long haul.

Desert01 posted:
mercUSA posted:

Bob,

The  weapons squad has  the three man gun teams and two guys assigned as javelin gunners. If needed, the ammo bearers for the guns were flexed to them to carry an additional round.

Glad to hear the Carl G has been adopted.

 

mercUSA

The Ammunition Handler in the Weapons Squad is a 2C Javelin Gunner position, not part of the MG Teams. Common misconception since we seldom employ the Javelin Teams in training or deployed environments.

So in low armor threat environments you leave the Javelin at the Trains/FOB and patrol with the M-3. Need to take on an Armor BN, then pull out the Javelins. I'm concerned about sustainment training over the long haul.

Yes they were. However, because the MG's were priority the Jav was secondary. It was unfortunate that when we conducted training  they were not incorporated in the training.  In fact, once I was certified I was the only WSL in the company (maybe BN) that would plan sustainment training at the sim center for my Jav guys.  Everyone focused on the last deployment vs. actually learning the tasks for the positions.

 

mercUSA

Joined: 12/26/02        

location:Retired 11B in southern AZ

Roger (aka the BN's that did not man sniper sections or man Javelins so they could fill line squads). Understand in the current fight, but as we transition to training for DAT is that right? Training AT gunners takes a little time, in particular if no one knows how to do it.

Just some references to show where the Goose may fit in, since I am assuming it will be used in the Arms room Concept. So we have body's the question is of course how we prioritize manning them:

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctr..._a/pdf/atp3_21x8.pdf

CLOSE COMBAT MISSILE TEAM

1-44. The two-man close combat missile team is comprised of a gunner and an ammunition handler. Currently, the team uses the Javelin missile system. The weapon squad has two close combat missile system teams. This system provides the platoon with an extremely lethal fire-and-forget, man-portable, direct- and top-attack capability to defeat enemy armored vehicles and destroy fortified positions at ranges up to 2000 meters. The Javelin has proven effective during day, night, and adverse weather conditions.

http://armypubs.army.mil/doctr..._a/pdf/fm3_21x10.pdf

Infantry Rifle CO

SOLDIER'S LOAD

B-36. When employing the Javelin the Soldier's load becomes important. With a total system weight of just under 50 pounds, the Javelin is admittedly heavy. Although a man-portable weapon, one Soldier cannot easily carry the Javelin cross-country for extended periods. Leaders should be aware of this problem and address it as they would any other Soldier's load difficulty. (FM 21-18 discusses Soldier's load and cross-leveling of equipment during movement to reduce the burden on Soldiers.) Leaders should develop unit SOPs that identify and describe the details of unit equipment cross-leveling.

I recall we never came up with a really good way for a soldier to carry a CLU with a sustainment load. The bag it comes in was made the way it was to keep the weight down because the CLU had almost exceeded the weight requirement by itself. Eagle made us a pack for it, which we decided not to buy because it was crazy big.

 

I'm retired now but I was thinking that it would be along the arms room concept which would be nice to pick the tool for the job. I had a idea of issuing the Jav gunner a M4 or one of the 40mm multi shot launchers the Marines use. I thought if they are on the SBF, they could lay some platoon level indirect. 

Anyway, in Alaska we had an issue with the CLU bag as well. I've seen the Eagle ones on Ebay never in person. I went to the post tent repair civilians one day with an idea and they came up with something. Basically, using a rubberized material and a cover flap it had pockets inside to cut up a puss pad for protection. There was mounts for standard ALICE straps so if you drop rucks, take your straps off and mount to the bag to move  on mission. We only tried them a couple times before I left.

mercUSA

Joined: 12/26/02        

location:Retired 11B in southern AZ

Speaking of load carriage, I know the rounds are different sizes, but is there a reason western armies keep doing this

 

instead of this

There was a thread here a year or three ago with an ATGW gunner who was trying to make, modify or rig up something to carry a Javelin or something similar vertically. It seems possible and like the simulators my first inclination is that no one seems to buy true systems anymore, but is there some other good reason? Has it been tried and weapons with the needed capabilities are simply too big? 

Does a Carl G help with this?  Sure the launcher (M3 here) is big:

But you only need one for (unit size). Rounds are are much, much shorter and presumably will come in simple storage tubes, or 2-3 round clusters not too much larger than 81 mm mortar ammo. 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

The good thing about carrying SMAW rockets was they fit pretty awesomely vertical on the sides of the ILBE pack. The rocket head fit in the elastic bandy portion at the bottom, and the two or three straps held it as securely as needed. Each dude could carry two and be perfectly balanced and compact. 

 

The good thing about carrying the SMAW launcher was.... nothing. 

 

 

 

 

Joined:      14 January 2010                Location:     Lobster emoticonMAINELobster emoticon

The M3s have already been issued to my BN.  Just another tool in the tool bag.  It is interesting to see how we have adapted the way we fight over the past 15 years.  These latest items stem from conducting operations normally in close proximity to vehicles, which is where they are mostly kept.  

Leaders determine the required capability for the mission and make choices.  

In 2012-13 my battalion provided infantry uplift to CJSOTF ODAs/SEAL platoons.  We were able to equip our squads with a 240B/L replacing one of the SAWs and most had a 60mm in hand held configuration.  All squad members could carry 200rds of 7.62 and 2 - 60mm mortars in their LBT Light Infantry patrol packs.   This gave us extended range while the ROE process  was run down for anything above 60mm. 

AT weapons were a mix of M141 BDM/SMAW-D @15lbs(basically a collapsible AT4, but for bunkers) M72A7 and M72A9s LAWs @10lbs, and Javelins @50lbs and were typically employed against structures when dudes had no way to exfil.

We are not likely to change the manning of the Infantry platoon anytime soon, so weapon squads will still get cut guys to fill squads and will probably only have the capability to man the two MG teams.   Rifle squads will still be 7-8 dudes, and 3rd squad will always be more like a team.    

As long as leaders maintain proficiency and use common sense, this will further add to the menu of capabilities, which is a good thing.

 

LobsterClaw207 posted:

The good thing about carrying SMAW rockets was they fit pretty awesomely vertical on the sides of the ILBE pack. The rocket head fit in the elastic bandy portion at the bottom, and the two or three straps held it as securely as needed. Each dude could carry two and be perfectly balanced and compact. 

 

The good thing about carrying the SMAW launcher was.... nothing. 

Ha yup. Humping  the SMAW sucked monkey balls

SEMPER FIDELIS

So, before I go Googling...

How does the Gustav compare to the AT4, Javelin and what the hell, the Dragon as far as effectiveness against modern armor, range, accuracy,  other???

I'm assuming a LAW is still good against un armored vehicles, like supply trucks, A/C on the ground, Toyotas with MG in the back...etc..

----------------------------

"Good landing, good fight, and good luck" James M. Gavin 09Jul43

 "they say if it works, it's a good tactic...I say anything can work once" 

Sinister posted:

LAWs are great for when you need something bigger than a hand grenade or 40mm.  Gustavs give you a bigger direct-fire punch farther out.  Also a lot cheaper and less bulky than guided missiles.

And far more ammunition options/flexibility.

MrMurphy posted:
Probably from "Goose-tav".....

 

I've always heard it referred to as the "Karl G" - then again as a young one some members of the opposite sex thought my name was Karl Gustav at some drinking establishments..........

 

The bunker buster round makes it worth it to hump. 

As a side note, part of the impetus to field the M3 started back in August/2010 when my old commander from 4/101 (a former Bat Boy who was familiar with and liked the M3) directed the S4 (best logistician I ever met - if our S2 had been as talented, we would have been stacking smelly dudes like firewood) to come up with M3s or the equivalent RIGHT NOW.  

We ended up fielding M67s from some depot, with ammo pulled from Korea war stocks (they hadn't been purged yet...).  Lots of guys had fun firing them for training (like shooting a Barret .50 w/o hearing pro), but I don't think a single Talib experienced one during our deployment.  No one liked carrying them.

Tankersteve

 

In Yorktown, VA.          Joined August 2008

Gov't Civilian, after retiring from active duty in 2015. 

 

'One's own open sore never smells.'  - Haitian proverb

Googling and so on:

Cal Gustav

  • Effective Range - varies depending on rounds, some have rocket boost. 700 m on the low end, >1,000 precision attack for some rounds, up to 1,700 m for buildings, area targets, etc. 
  • Weight - 7 kg launcher (M4), ~ 3.2 kg round
  • Armor Penetration (FFV651) - 500 mm and defeats ERA

M136 (AT4)

  • Effective Range - 300 m, up to 500 for area targets
  • Weight - 6.7 kg
  • Armor Penetration - 300 mm

Javelin

  • Effective Range - 2,500 m, but real world hits >4 km
  • Weight - 13.9 kg launcher+CIU, 8.4 kg missile
  • Armor Penetration - >600 mm, top attack, dual warhead

Dragon

  • Effective Range - 1,000 m but guided with significant midflight signature
  • Weight - 6.9 kg launcher+CIU, 11 kg missile
  • Armor Penetration - 450 mm, SuperDragon

RPG-7v

  • Effective Range - 50 m. Seriously, PH at 180 m may be as low as 50%; say 500 m at the top end
  • Weight - 7 kg launcher, 2 - 4.5 kg rounds
  • Armor Penetration - PG7vr, which you will never see, up to 700 mm with 

 

ETA: It occurs to me that these sorts of comparisons may lead to someone thinking one or another system is better or worse than another. Generally however, they are instead more or less suitable for the situation, organization and tactics. 

For a fun example, this comparison of the MG34 and the BAR. There is no winner. Each was adopted because it fit their tactics and methods, and worked well because of that. Each would have done poorly if a wizard made us trade across with the enemy. 

So with that said: the Carl G seems like it would add capabilities in warhead throw weight and range to the infantry PLT, but seems like it may still be too large to carry conveniently everywhere so it's not at hand, may too hard to hit with or employ properly due to lack of training, and so forth. Aside from money, training systems and rounds in the inventory, would be the right thing for the way an (Army) Platoon is organized now and your needs or is this as close as it gets today? 

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

tankersteve posted:

We ended up fielding M67s from some depot, with ammo pulled from Korea war stocks (they hadn't been purged yet...).  Lots of guys had fun firing them for training (like shooting a Barret .50 w/o hearing pro), but I don't think a single Talib experienced one during our deployment.  No one liked carrying them.

Tankersteve

My buddy Mike (now a two-star) took an SF dive team to JRTC when he was a captain.  They war-gamed their target and absolutely insisted they needed a recoilless rifle to take it out.

The Observer/Controller Log OCs got the request through the S4.  They bought a cast iron pipe cut to M67 dimensions and gave them ten cans filled with either concrete or plaster of paris to make weight as stand-ins for the rounds.

The weapons guys got their reckless-rifle stand-in (much to the delight of the O/Cs).  Then came time to infil and move.

Bottom line they took it to the target and the OCs assessed effective kill shots.  Gained smack-talking points, but I don't think they asked for one again.

57s:

Instead of working, did some research. Hoping to find we used to carry the RCL or Bazooka in specific gear, or a foreign army carries rockets well. Nothing in my books, and the only one I found from WW2 (the M2 Ammunition Vest) is... discouraging. 

From http://sipseystreetirregulars....ammunition-vest.html with more photos

The things that will destroy America are prosperity at any price, peace at any price, safety first instead of duty first, the love of soft living and the get rich quick theory of life. – Theodore Roosevelt

 

Joined: 19NOV2004   Location: Mission, Kansas

U.S. Army testing M3 recoilless rifle improvements

The M3E1 being tested now is more ergonomic, lighter and shorter.
 
upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2016/10/14/US-Army-testing-M3-recoilless-rifle-improvements/3741476454844/
 
By Geoff Ziezulewicz   |   Oct. 14, 2016 at 11:33 AM

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUNDS, Md., Oct. 14 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army is testing improvement upgrades to the M3 recoilless rifle, making it more ergonomic, lighter and shorter, the service announced Thursday.

Also known as the multi-role anti-armor and anti-personnel weapon system, or MAAWS, the shoulder-fired weapon is being upgraded as part of a foreign technology program, the Army said in a statement.

The upgraded weapon will be known as the M3E1 when testing and qualifications are completed in the spring, at which time it will be available for procurement by all Defense Department branches.

It fires a high-explosive round to engage light armored vehicles, bunkers and soft structures.

The upgraded weapon can fire the existing suite of MAAWS ammunition.

Army engineers and weapons experts worked with Sweden's Saab Bofors Dynamics to test and qualify the weapon.

Add Reply

Likes (8)
nursetimMG in TX120mmshoobe01JS7SFGAchrisletchGLOCK10MMkaltesherz
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×