US Army Adds 84mm Recoilless Rifle to Platoon Arsenal

U.S. Army infantry platoons will soon have the 84mm Carl Gustaf recoilless rifle, a devastating anti-armor system, as a permanently assigned weapon.

Service officials completed a so-called conditional materiel release authorization late last year, making the M3 Multi-Role Anti-Armor Anti-Personnel Weapon System an organic weapon system within each infantry platoon, IHS Jane's 360 recently reported.

The service is also working on an effort to achieve Full Material Release of the M3 later this year.

Army light infantry units began using the M3 in Afghanistan in 2011, but only when commanders submitted operational needs statements for the weapon.

The breech-loading M3, made by Saab North America, can reach out and hit enemy targets up to 1,000 meters away. The M3 offers the units various types of ammunition, ranging from armor penetration and anti-personnel, to ammunition for built-up areas, as well as special features like smoke and illumination.

Special operations forces such as the 75th Ranger Regiment have been using the 84mm weapon system since the early 1990s. The M3 became an official, program of record in the conventional Army in 2014.

The M3 has enjoyed success with units such as the 25th Infantry, 10th Mountain and 82nd Airborne divisions in Afghanistan.

The launcher weighs approximately 22 pounds, with each round of ammunition weighing just under 10 pounds. By comparison, the AT4 weighs about 15 pounds and the Javelin's launcher with missile and reusable command launch unit weigh roughly 50 pounds.

The CMR allowed the system to be quickly fielded to operational units before the more exhaustive full materiel release process is completed, Jack Seymour, marketing director for Saab North America, told IHS Jane's.

The current plan is to equip all brigade combat teams with one M3 launcher per platoon.

-- Matthew Cox can be reached at matthew.cox@military.com

Original Post

Fuck yeah! Because my hearing isn't bad enough apparently...

I've been hearing stories about how bad ass these are for years from the 75th guys, can't wait to see for myself. Despite being a Guard unit, we've already got M240L's and M4A1's so hopefully I won't have too wait long to get some Goose time.

PRAISE THE FALLEN

SSG Kevin Roberts KIA 7-May-08         SPC Peter Courcy KIA 10-Feb-09

1Lt Nick Dewhirst KIA 20-July-08          PFC Jason Watson KIA 10-Feb-09

CPL Charles Gaffney KIA 24-Dec-08

 

Joined: 2/21/04          Location: Seattle,  WA

It's about time. It only took 'em 40 fucking years of getting hosed by 900 meter capable RPGs to wake up and figure out that we needed a weapon to reply in kind. I had a Carl Gustav in my 2nd Ranger Bn company arms room in 19fucking77.  I was in a Ranger Weapons Platoon (M19 60mm mortars, 90mm recoiless, and M47 Dragon missiles). We were very much in the market for something more capable than a LAW and more portable/mission flexible/jumpable/longer ranged than the M67 Recoilless rifle. We were considering adopting the Gustav back then. Didn't happen until many years later. Probably because of a Not Invented Here syndrome.

Better late than never.  It's a belated step forward for our conventional infantry. Just like fixed head space and timing M2s finally adopted 15 years after some of our Euro allies started fielding them.

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

The moral high ground is sometimes just a head on a long pike... - Astronomy

 

A new Plt Ldr is like a first time new mother. The Plt Sgt is a lifelong midwife and nanny. It's your baby, but he knows a lot about changing diapers and other ugly things. - Astronomy

Wow, I completed British Army infantry training in 1975 and had to qualify on the 'Charlie G'.  Training money was tight back then so we all got to fire TPTP but only the 'best shots' got to fire a HEAT round. I was young, keen and stupid back then so made sure I got to fire one of the few HEAT rounds, only to realise that then 'qualified' me to carry the bastard thing on exercise. I never thought I'd beg for the GPMG  (M240) as it was 'lighter'.

We used to stuff cotton wool in our ears and inside the cups of our hearing defenders. Head would still ring plus the occasional nose bleed.....

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

 

I did NOT slap you, I just high-fived your face!

 

Joined: 2003          Location: At home pretending to be retired (again).

When I was a company commander (1988/89), we had a go-to-war plan to recover/borrow/steal as many 90mm recoiless rifles we could*.  Perhaps one of my peers is finally in a position to get a portable, flexible fire-and-forget weapon pushed down to those that may actually need it.

 

* Never had much faith in the M47 Dragon.  We used to joke about Dragon warshots coming pre-packed with a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart so the gunner didn't have to get them posthumously. 

And instinctive shooting is other myth that makes me laugh. Fucking is instinctive, shooting is learned.

 

Mohican

Miraclejoe posted:

I couldn't even tell you how long the Carl G has been in service in the Canadian military, but that thing has been in production since 1948 according to wiki.

What took you guys so long?

Since the mid-70s every Canadian infantry platoon had a Carl G.  I did handling drills on one as an army cadet in '77.  My platoon in Germany had 3 (one per rifle section).

I recall seeing an article in Popular Mechanics (or Science...whatever) in the early 90s about 75 Rangers.  It had a full page devoted to their unique weapons etc.  It was like a checklist for a Canadian platoon:

Carl G -check

FN MAG 58 (M 240 or C6 as we call it) - check

FN Minimi (M 2490r C9) - check

60 mm mortar - check....

I thought at least we were doing something right. 

Mind you, although we had the C6 aboard our Leo tanks since approx '77, we didn't get them in our platoons until nearly 10 years later.  Until then we were humping around C5s (7.62 mm version of the Browning M1919).  Just like Don Rickles in "Kelly's Heroes".  This despite the fact that the MAG 58 (there's a reason for that number) was considered the best GPMG available since the late 50s.  The Brits figured that out early on.

Joined sometime in 2008.                  Live in Canada.        

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for all effective purposes, this is a Swedish equivalent to the RPG-7.  I quickly compared the specs, and they are close in weight and length, though the Carl Gustav is heavier and longer.  They fill the same role and have roughly similar performance.

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

Mark

Swear allegiance to the flag Whatever flag they offer

Never hint at what you really feel

Teach the children quietly For some day sons and daughters

Will rise up and fight while we stood still

 

Joined:  2/24/2003                          Location:  Nevada, USA

Can I get a Carl G vs. Mk153 SMAW comparison? I'm going to guess the big selling point is range if the Gustav can do 1,000 meters vs. the SMAW's roughly 500 (tracer burnout)... 

Having never fired a Carl G, they look similar externally or maybe the CG is easier to carry around loaded than a long ass SMAW with rocket attached? 

 

 

 

 

Joined:      14 January 2010                Location:  MAINE

Don't forget to pack  the BFA for this bad boy. Not cool when you have to hump it on 'ex without firing it...  Seriously though, it's refreshing to see (at least once in a lifetime) our brothers in arms south of the border adopting something for general issue to the infantry that we've had forever. 

 

 

 

God doesn't believe in athiests

Yeah....welcome to the 80s. I've been wondering since I was a kid (i.e, the early 80s) why the US didn't have these, when everyone else in the fucking world did. I worked for a guy literally just prior to my exodus from the People's Republic of Kalifornistan who back in his much younger days, had humped a 75mm RR in Korea. According to him, it was the shit for killing bunkers, houses, light armored vehicles, etc. I happened, through a friend, to have an expended 75 RR round at the time and left it giftwrapped on his desk for Christmas on my final day (which was Christmas week).

 

His secretary thought I was demented, but I bet he got a kick out of it!

 

I mean, we made an "improved" RPG-7, and we've flirted with the Gustav for decades, been at war with a low tech enemy for a decade and a half and now FINALLY decide a cheap way to blow shit up at long range is smart? Holy fuck we could have been using these in Vietnam (instead of the LAW, which I've heard mixed reports on for blowing up bunkers).  Never got to shoot any of these except the AT-4 trainer with the 9mm tracer, but seriously, how the hell did it take this long to adopt?

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

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

Our company had 2 Carl G's on deployment in 2012-13. 

They killed a lot of people. 

Baby G broke up one particular ambush that would have otherwise resulted in a lot of American deaths. I'm angry it's taken this long for the infantry to adopt it nationwide as opposed to only in country. It's a killer. As far as I'm concerned, put 1-2 in every weapons squad. 

Will the weapons squad get an additional 3 bodies (Gunner, AG and Ammo Bearer)?  Or will this be an incremental system that  would take the place of a 240?

 

Tenui Nec Dimittam

 

"Ideals are peaceful.  History is violent"   -Wardaddy, Fury

 

Joined: 8/5/07         Location: Chester County, PA

So when will the Marine Corps get them?  My guess: 2258 AD.  

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

It's easy to make assumptions about puppies strapped to missiles, but good science requires research.

 

Joined: 12-2005          Location: Central OK

Hussar posted:

Will the weapons squad get an additional 3 bodies (Gunner, AG and Ammo Bearer)?  Or will this be an incremental system that  would take the place of a 240?

 

Does the weapons squad no longer have two anti-tank guys? When I was a weapons squad leader we had two Dragon gunners, but they almost universally got sliced out to the rifle squads to plus them up...

What does the Carl do that the AT4 didn't/doesn't? Besides reloadable? What about a Dragon and/or Javelin? Besides weight?

I carried 3 LAWS to the first gulf war...they gave us AT4's in the PHA..literally we had to read the instructions on the side to learn how to use them.

I always figured what they may have given up in effects, they made up for in the "everyone can have one" department.

 

And IIRC, the RPG7 is a copy of the Rocker Launcher M1 "Bazooka".

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

"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:

The SMAW is a rocket with a tracer spotting rifle, max effective range is roughly 500 meters.  

The Goose is a recoilless rifle, max effective 700, 1000 with rocket-assisted round.

 

Roger that. Unsurprising that the Marine Corps has the less effective,  shorter range weapon that I bet much training and employment considerations would carry over for..... SIGH SPDSNYPR lets go back to our corner and color... 

 

 

 

 

Joined:      14 January 2010                Location:  MAINE

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

Joined: 12/26/02        

location:Retired 11B in southern AZ

The Gustav has a bunch of different rounds, HE, canister, whatever else they've thought up. AT4 is pure antiarmor, even though we use them to blow other shit up, kind of like the LAW back in the day.

 

The RPG's copied the Panzerfaust, up to the fairly late models (RPG-18, 22, etc, which copied our one shot throwaway idea) the RPGs always had a warhead much larger than the actual rocket itself. Our bazooka had a rocket that inserted entirely into the tube and limited warhead size.

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

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

I'll have to look for it, but somewhere I read that the panzer thing was copied & improved from captured M1...and then the RPG was copied from that, or also form nefariously obtained M1

 

NIH....I think far to much shit is blamed on that and officer promotion. I'm almost positive that there is more to it.

 

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

"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" 

You're thinking of the Panzerschreck. That's a straight bazooka copy. The Faust was their improved version with a bigger warhead. The original panzerfaust was a single shot throwaway with a big enough warhead to be a serious threat.  In the last ditch fighting in Berlin some crazy German bastards apparently survived killing multiple tanks with them.  Mostly due to tight quarters and lots of cover I'd bet.

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

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

Wow, finally. Once again big Army bringing up the rear.

Could have used these back on my Astan trip. Instead we launched AT4 after AT4 at qlat walls, with negligible effects.

The Army procurement process never ceases to amaze. Unit after Unit submitting urgent need statements and finally the PEO, etc. get around to making it a standard issue.

P.S. - I'd also like an RPG as issue over the AT4. After shooting ANA RPG's I'm a fan

SF

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

Outside of the manual, I never saw an assigned 3 man gun crew. If I ever got a ammo bearer is was mission specific, sliced from a rifle squad, or maybe one of the Dragon gunners if the rifle squads were full. But, all my time was Airborne of Light...so.....

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

"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" 

USMC_Anglico posted:

Wow, finally. Once again big Army bringing up the rear.

Could have used these back on my Astan trip. Instead we launched AT4 after AT4 at qlat walls, with negligible effects.

The Army procurement process never ceases to amaze. Unit after Unit submitting urgent need statements and finally the PEO, etc. get around to making it a standard issue.

P.S. - I'd also like an RPG as issue over the AT4. After shooting ANA RPG's I'm a fan

It makes sense to someone. I'd like to know the line of thinking behind the adoption of the various disposable launchers, LAW/AT4/Dragon/Javelin...

Again, I do think there is something to everyone having an AT weapon immediately available. But, I can see the issue with it not being the right warhead for the job.

On the other hand, it's hard for the command to see into the future, and figure out what the grunt on the ground will face from the enemy...all the while the enemy is adjusting his tactics.

When the Soviet threat was much more real, stopping Soviet armor was probably a much bigger concern then having to dig a haji out of a cave. 

Of course on Okinawa, didn't they flood the caves, then float gas on the sea water and burn 'em? American ingenuity!

 

While it seems I am blindly defending procurement...what I am really interested in the thought process behind previous acquisitions, the environment..both battlefield & political, the perceived threats of the time, training and resource concerns, etc.

I just don't think the various "pentagon wars" type stuff is as prevalent as some profess it to be.

 

As far as the various Panzerwhatever's....wasn't the M1 Bazooka the first to use the shape charge? Or did the internet lie to me again?

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

"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" 

Would/is the LAW still effective against all those Toyota's with MG on the back I see on the news?

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

"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" 

Same here. I spent most of my time in Airborne weapons squads, and we never had 3 gun teams. The most full weapons squad I was a part of had 2 full gun teams, and 2 AT/anti armor guys. In reality though they rarely get any training on AT platforms, and usually get sliced out to someone else or turn in to AB's once anything chaotic happens to manning. 

The ground shook and the sky burned as even the devil himself cowered in fear of the chaos that had just been unleashed.

Oh at the hurtin' we are about to put on some bad guys. This may be the best thing to be given to the infantryman since the invention of the hand grenade. Now to figure out how I'm gonna carry the freaking ammo, wonder if BFG is gonna release a Goose sling anytime soon? 

KyPlinker posted:

Same here. I spent most of my time in Airborne weapons squads, and we never had 3 gun teams. The most full weapons squad I was a part of had 2 full gun teams, and 2 AT/anti armor guys. In reality though they rarely get any training on AT platforms, and usually get sliced out to someone else or turn in to AB's once anything chaotic happens to manning. 

When I was in Leg land...I mean the 25th ID....the AT guys were in a HQ weapons section with the mortars...

I always thought the weapons squad should have 3 2man MG teams, one for each rifle squad...then maybe 3 AT guys..again one for each squad...

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

"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" 

It shouldn't be a big deal to issue every other infantryman a LAW -- it's just another piece of ammo.

Meanwhile the bad guys have been swinging RPGs since the 60s.  The US Army didn't think the LAW was big enough so grew it up into the AT-4 -- but not every target you need to shoot a rocket or HE projo at is a tank.

R.Moran 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

Outside of the manual, I never saw an assigned 3 man gun crew. If I ever got a ammo bearer is was mission specific, sliced from a rifle squad, or maybe one of the Dragon gunners if the rifle squads were full. But, all my time was Airborne of Light...so.....

That was when I was a WSL as a Light Infantryman. Now years ago at the 101st(94-97), I was a AG without a AB carrying a M16, tripod, barrel, 600+ rds was fun(yeah right). But then I never saw AT in our squad just the two man gun teams  (x2) and the WSL.

mercUSA

Joined: 12/26/02        

location:Retired 11B in southern AZ

mercUSA posted:
R.Moran 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

Outside of the manual, I never saw an assigned 3 man gun crew. If I ever got a ammo bearer is was mission specific, sliced from a rifle squad, or maybe one of the Dragon gunners if the rifle squads were full. But, all my time was Airborne of Light...so.....

That was when I was a WSL as a Light Infantryman. Now years ago at the 101st(94-97), I was a AG without a AB carrying a M16, tripod, barrel, 600+ rds was fun(yeah right). But then I never saw AT in our squad just the two man gun teams  (x2) and the WSL.

mercUSA

That was me..8 or 10 years earlier...and I had to jump it. It wasn't until I went to JM school, that I found out asking "why do they always give the heavy shit to the little guy" wasn't part of JMPI.

The weapons squad had two 2 man gun teams, two dragon gunners and 1 RTO...the Dragon gunners were the first to go..

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

"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" 

History.  The US invented a shaped-charge hand grenade just before WWII.  But it was too heavy to get much range and work was done to combine it with a rocket and the bazooka was created in 1942.  German troops in N. Africa captured some and it was copied and improved to create the Panzerschreck (Armor Terror).   The Germans had been working on a parallel, but different design in 1942, the Faustpatrone, which was the predecessor to the Panzerfaust, which entered service in 1943.   The Bazooka and Panzerscheck were rockets that were enclosed in a tube.  Warhead size, and therefore penetration, were restricted by the tube diameter.  The Panzerfaust, RPG-2, RPG-7 use a gunpowder charge to expel the warhead from the launcher.  In the case of the Panzerfaust, that was it, which greatly limited the range.  The RPG-7 has a rocket that ignites a safe distance from the shooter.

In brief, because we know this, there are a multitude of anti-tank weapons.  In WWII, you had Tanks, anti-tank guns, Tank Destroyers, and at the infantry level, bazookas, Panzerschreck, Panzerfaust and anti-tank grenades.  The infantry deployed weapons were developed to give infantry something to use when they didn't have tanks, etc. for support.

Bazookas, recoiless rifles, RPG's, TOW's, MILAN, AT-11, etc. are all crew served weapons, some of them pretty heavy and not really man-portable.  So things like the LAW M-72 were developed to bring it down to something the individual could be issued.  The tube was disposable to reduce the cost  and weight.  Really, a return to the Panzerfaust idea.  The diameter of the warhead largely determines the penetration of the shaped charge.  The larger the diameter, the greater the armor penetration.  So as tank armor improved, small diameter rockets like the LAW became ineffective against MBTs unless you got them from the flank or rear.  

In tube or outside the tube.  The RPG-7 can use different rockets with different sized warheads for different purposes.  The normal anti-tank rocket has an 85mm dia warhead.  But because the rocket is loaded into the front of the launcher with the warhead exposed, it doesn't matter.  The Carl Gustav has an 84mm dia warhead that is entirely enclosed, hence the larger diameter tube.  Plus it is a recoiless rifle.  It can have a rocket assist, but normally all of the propellant is consumed inside the launcher.  The other main design difference is the stabilization.  The Carl Gustav has rifling to impart spin to the shell.  The RPG has pop-out fins that also impart a slow spin.  The RPG is more susceptible to wind drift because of the long lever arm between the fins at the rear and the warhead at the front.  Wind has more effect on the light fins so in a cross-wind, the RPG rocket will turn into the wind, not downwind. 

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

Mark

Swear allegiance to the flag Whatever flag they offer

Never hint at what you really feel

Teach the children quietly For some day sons and daughters

Will rise up and fight while we stood still

 

Joined:  2/24/2003                          Location:  Nevada, USA

Beren412 posted:

Is there a thermobaric round for it?

I like how you think. 

___________________________________________________________________

I'm either dead right, or horribly wrong. Either way the results should be entertaining.

 

"Shoot the MOTHERF$%^ER until he changes shape or catches fire"  the PAT ROGERS

R.Moran posted:
USMC_Anglico posted:

Wow, finally. Once again big Army bringing up the rear.

Could have used these back on my Astan trip. Instead we launched AT4 after AT4 at qlat walls, with negligible effects.

The Army procurement process never ceases to amaze. Unit after Unit submitting urgent need statements and finally the PEO, etc. get around to making it a standard issue.

P.S. - I'd also like an RPG as issue over the AT4. After shooting ANA RPG's I'm a fan

It makes sense to someone. I'd like to know the line of thinking behind the adoption of the various disposable launchers, LAW/AT4/Dragon/Javelin...

Again, I do think there is something to everyone having an AT weapon immediately available. But, I can see the issue with it not being the right warhead for the job...

As far as I have heard and can tell, the AT-4 is a disposable Carl Gustav.  

The problem is the US bought it in the 80s, called it the M136 and said "done!" There are variants and improvements on the AT4.  We could at least have upgraded to the CS (confined space=less backblast) one. Saab-Bofors don't well explain everything here http://saab.com/land/weapon-sy...support-weapons/at4/ but the brochure is a little more helpful: http://saab.com/globalassets/c...y_brochure_en_aw.pdf But they include a couple HE types.  

You can even put aimpoints on them!  

Anyway, I've always thought that it made sense to buy a system of systems. We give everyone whose job is AT gunner a Carl G, and buy a selection of awesome rounds. Then, we also buy a bunch of AT-4s with /the same selection of rounds inside/. As much as possible, get the same performance so they do the same thing whether the lightweight-disposable sort of backup capacity, or the reloadable primary weapon with a good sight and so on. But I may be crazy. 

 

I can find no evidence anyone makes an FAE (thermobaric) round for the Carl Gustav, but there's no obvious reason you could not. I suspect if the US Army asked, they would appear. There are a lot of other options. Wonder what will be in the US inventory.

Here's a cross section of the ADM401. I know you want that one: 

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

And in it's utter wisdom, the Army will type classify every round, and then only buy and supply HEDP.......

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

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

standeasy posted:

Wow, I completed British Army infantry training in 1975 and had to qualify on the 'Charlie G'.  Training money was tight back then so we all got to fire TPTP but only the 'best shots' got to fire a HEAT round. I was young, keen and stupid back then so made sure I got to fire one of the few HEAT rounds, only to realise that then 'qualified' me to carry the bastard thing on exercise. I never thought I'd beg for the GPMG  (M240) as it was 'lighter'.

We used to stuff cotton wool in our ears and inside the cups of our hearing defenders. Head would still ring plus the occasional nose bleed.....

Ha.  I completed mine & the bastards decided they didn't want to risk the precious toys being damaged on ex.  So I got a star picket driver & two rifle slings: no diff since there were no 84mm blank rounds, right?  Still had to carry an L1A1.

Where did ‘Goose’ come from?  Others fondly call it ‘Charley G’ or ‘Charley Gutsache’

 Still, about time.  Mind you, when I started to see Bofors made HEDP with a US NSN I thought something was up.

 I’m assuming that SAAB are going to set up a gun & ammunition facility in the USA as part of the contract?  If not- I’d be cautious.  The Swedes have a past history about being finicky about where their defense products are used and apparently threatened to sever ammunition supplies if the Charley G was employed in Northern Ireland or South Vietnam.  Maybe things have changed.

 Dorsai- back in the 1980’s FFV were demonstrating an 84mm+ anti-armour round: it looked as if the case was loaded normally but the over size warhead inserted from the muzzle.  Sorta like that overbore round the Germans were using out of their 37mm AT guns.

 As for thermobaric rounds…great idea but this might depend on the licensing agreements: the Swedes don’t approve of thermobarics.

 One thing not discussed here are training options: the subcal systems (6.5x55mm or 7.62x51mm Gallery or Ball) make practice range shoots cheap & easy.  Accurate as well.  I’m assuming your people are planning  a laser engagement system for training? 

 And on the topic of 84mm ammo, I present to you the 84mm HEAP:

Attachments

Photos (1)

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:  MAINE

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.

I've got Carl G's in my Rifle company right now.  Currently they are being operated by Marines within the rifle platoons. Our 0351's at still running their SMAW's, but those are largely worn out crap at this point. We are still trying to figure out employment with our maneuver sections and as the Company GySgt, I am also trying to come up with ways for the guys to carry extra rounds, particularly in a jungle environment. Any of you guys who have ran these things for a while have suggestions for ammo carriage, I'm all ears, as I really don't want to make rifle squads carry  any extra stuff than they have to and right now the ideas being thrown around involve things like main rucks in the assault and other bad ideas....  

The thing in the above picture looks interesting if it is a stand alone unit that will protect the rounds in transit.

"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."         - Thomas Sowell

"A Republic, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

 

LOCATION: ....

JOINED:  Feb 2012

     

rcbusmc24 posted:

I've got Carl G's in my Rifle company right now.  Currently they are being operated by Marines within the rifle platoons. Our 0351's at still running their SMAW's, but those are largely worn out crap at this point. We are still trying to figure out employment with our maneuver sections and as the Company GySgt, I am also trying to come up with ways for the guys to carry extra rounds, particularly in a jungle environment. Any of you guys who have ran these things for a while have suggestions for ammo carriage, I'm all ears, as I really don't want to make rifle squads carry  any extra stuff than they have to and right now the ideas being thrown around involve things like main rucks in the assault and other bad ideas....  

The thing in the above picture looks interesting if it is a stand alone unit that will protect the rounds in transit.

What packaging/containers are the 84mm rounds being delivered in?

No experience with the Carl G but used to display a bazooka w/ rockets for local vets.....  WW2 had a triple rocket bag that could be tasked out to the support gunner..... not sure if they would fit but it was an improvement over the vest Shoobe showed above.  Link here:

https://www.atthefront.com/product-p/usgpb1.htm

I'm sure something made with modern materials could work...

I think in the 3rd line forum the thread about Crossfire's DG-3 ruck talked about them working on something for carrying Goose ammo and has pics from Mystery Ranch as well.

Tenui Nec Dimittam

 

"Ideals are peaceful.  History is violent"   -Wardaddy, Fury

 

Joined: 8/5/07         Location: Chester County, PA

Linz posted:
rcbusmc24 posted:

I've got Carl G's in my Rifle company right now.  Currently they are being operated by Marines within the rifle platoons. Our 0351's at still running their SMAW's, but those are largely worn out crap at this point. We are still trying to figure out employment with our maneuver sections and as the Company GySgt, I am also trying to come up with ways for the guys to carry extra rounds, particularly in a jungle environment. Any of you guys who have ran these things for a while have suggestions for ammo carriage, I'm all ears, as I really don't want to make rifle squads carry  any extra stuff than they have to and right now the ideas being thrown around involve things like main rucks in the assault and other bad ideas....  

The thing in the above picture looks interesting if it is a stand alone unit that will protect the rounds in transit.

What packaging/containers are the 84mm rounds being delivered in?

Right now I have several of the 3 cell shipping containers with the handle on it that the rounds come in saved from previous ranges. Some have been filled with dirt and sealed for training purposes and others are empty just in case we need them but with us having the Carl G's in the rifle squads and not in the weapons platoon, we are trying to work through carriage options that don't degrade squad maneuverability too much.

"If you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism."         - Thomas Sowell

"A Republic, if you can keep it" - Ben Franklin

 

LOCATION: ....

JOINED:  Feb 2012

     

rcbusmc24 posted:
Linz posted:
rcbusmc24 posted:

I've got Carl G's in my Rifle company right now.  Currently they are being operated by Marines within the rifle platoons. Our 0351's at still running their SMAW's, but those are largely worn out crap at this point. We are still trying to figure out employment with our maneuver sections and as the Company GySgt, I am also trying to come up with ways for the guys to carry extra rounds, particularly in a jungle environment. Any of you guys who have ran these things for a while have suggestions for ammo carriage, I'm all ears, as I really don't want to make rifle squads carry  any extra stuff than they have to and right now the ideas being thrown around involve things like main rucks in the assault and other bad ideas....  

The thing in the above picture looks interesting if it is a stand alone unit that will protect the rounds in transit.

What packaging/containers are the 84mm rounds being delivered in?

Right now I have several of the 3 cell shipping containers with the handle on it that the rounds come in saved from previous ranges. Some have been filled with dirt and sealed for training purposes and others are empty just in case we need them but with us having the Carl G's in the rifle squads and not in the weapons platoon, we are trying to work through carriage options that don't degrade squad maneuverability too much.

OK...most of the ones I've played with have been doubles.

Are the three cells single mounding or riveted together?  Got a image?

If riveted together, separate by removing the rivets  & if single mounding, your friend the fine bladed hacksaw comes into play.  

You might have to sacrifice the middle cell to cut out two singles. 

Singles should give you more storage of transport options, better if you can add a sling to them.

Also, found this:

https://www.venturesurplus.com...m-carl-gustav-pouch/

If it has an NSN...

For those interested in 84mm round carriage, this was posted by Crossfire on the DG15 pack topic:

"Sorry to all for my lack of attention and poor passage of comms.

The SAS MK7 shares commonality with the DG 16 in that also shares the 20 DG Frame set and a 85 litre centre bag capacity ( it also can be swapped out for an internal sheet frameset that also comes with the pack). I am very happy with the end result and as mentioned by Diz SOFIC will be its unveiling as well as a sniper variant SAS MK7 ( S).  I'm also confident we will have our variant of the Goose ammunition carriage systems at SOFIC for comment and appraisal. If any of the forum ,members are attending SOFIC please call by the Team Australia stand and have a look and make comment good or bad.

In regards to website at this stage we haven't put the SAS or revised DG3's up as yet  ( a combination of we will never go off half baked and also filling current contracts). I will however always give this forum at least 24 hours notice on release of anything new. And finally we are in advance stages of having e-sales and a web site based in the US ( no more weeks of waiting ) . I will keep you updated of progress."

Add Reply

Post
Copyright Lightfighter Tactical Forum 2002-2019
×
×
×
×
×