Improved Firepower for the ADF

[Exsandgroper]

The Hon. Greg Combet AM MP
Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science
17 Feb 2010

Improved Firepower for the ADF


Greg Combet, Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science today announced improved firepower for the ADF with contracts being signed for a new anti-armour weapon capability.


“Defence has contracted SAAB Bofors Dynamics for the supply of the M3 84mm Carl Gustaf anti-armour support weapon,” Mr Combet said.


“These new weapons provide an increased direct fire support capability and will be employed by the Infantry, Special Forces and RAAF Airfield Defence Guards.


“Soldiers will appreciate the weight savings afforded by the M3 Carl Gustaf anti-armour weapon.


“The value of the contract with SAAB Bofors Dynamics is approximately $10.5m which includes the supply of weapons, spares and documentation to support the system,” Mr Combet said.


In addition, Mr Combet announced the contract with BAE Systems Australia to supply the enhanced sighting system for the newly acquired M3 84mm Carl Gustaf anti-armour weapon.


“The value of the contract with BAE Systems Australia is approximately $16m which includes the supply of sighting systems, spares, documentation and three years of support for the system,” Mr Combet said.


“The enhanced sighting system includes thermal technology which provides the ADF with an increased direct-fire support capability when used with the M3 84mm Carl Gustaf anti-armour weapon.


“Furthermore, the new sight will also now permit engagements during day, night and adverse conditions,” Mr Combet said.

Cheers

[Doohan]

Part 1 of LAND40-2 now all they have to do is announce the 40mm AGL.

[Gubler, A.]

Part 1 of LAND40-2 now all they have to do is announce the 40mm AGL.

And then the infantry platoon will have two weapon systems they can't carry into battle... When what they need is a mix of the 60mm Commando mortar and the 40mm six round grenade launcher on top of the current machineguns, 66s and GLAs.

[McDethWivFries]

Ah but then they can buy those million dollar 'mini-jeeps' to cart it all round for them, all they need to do to justify it is stick a pda into it liberally slather 'Network Centric' on any justification papers for it and i'm sure there will be a massive order placed (o;

[Raven22]

1, 2 and 3 RAR already have ATVs to carry around their heavy weapons.

[Riđđu]

When what they need is a mix of the 60mm Commando mortar...

Why 60mm mortar always pops up as an attractive future weapon is beyond me. It is as complicated to operate as 81mm mortar, needs lots of resources to carry ammunition, light but with short range, and the round is not very effective.

Professional soldier would of course argue that comparing apples and oranges is pointless, but this is an internet forum so let´s continue. After all weapons are just tools and professional infantry specialists know how to use different tools in a best way to get the job done. But as an old end user my opinion is that 60mm mortar is inferior compared to many other infantry weapons.

[Gubler, A.]

1, 2 and 3 RAR already have ATVs to carry around their heavy weapons.

Can’t drive an ATV everywhere a grunt has to hump. Also if you fire the weapon from the ATV it raises your profile so you have to take return fire. If you fire the weapon from the tripod then you can’t move it. Not so bad for a DFSW platoon shooting in a company attack from 500-1,000m away from the enemy position but how the hell is an infantry platoon meant to fire and move with static weapons?


Why 60mm mortar always pops up as an attractive future weapon is beyond me. It is as complicated to operate as 81mm mortar, needs lots of resources to carry ammunition, light but with short range, and the round is not very effective.

Talking about a 60mm COMMANDO mortar which is fired by hand and eye not a bipod and calculator.

[Doohan]

The Issue with the 40mm AGL is not so much the weapon but the ammo. Even the ammo for a five to ten min support to an assult runs into the multip hundereds of KG. L121 did have a DFSW variant to move the 40mm and its ammo to as near the firing point as posisble but not sure if this got throught to the final designs

[Gubler, A.]

Ammo is part of the problem as well and you need a big vehicle to support AGLs or fixed firing positions. Which is why it’s insane to stick them into dismounted infantry platoons. Sure have them on the Bushmasters for direct fires when they are rolling. But as soon as they dismount the AGL is going to be impossible to deploy while keeping the platoon intact. The one AGL per platoon should be concentrated in the DFSW platoon where they can actually be used.

[Riđđu]

Talking about a 60mm COMMANDO mortar which is fired by hand and eye not a bipod and calculator.



Yes I thought I knew what a commando mortar is. How can they hit or actually destroy anything with that? And they say it is a platoon level weapon. I say give that man a light machine gun or LAV with thermobaric ammunition.

Then again I only have personal experience with 81mm portable mortar, 120mm heavy mortar and HK69A1 grenade launcher, so used those weapons as a comparison. Could be wrong with this, but COMMANDO mortar just doesn´t feel right. :o

[Gubler, A.]

The commando mortar is a very successful weapon used by many armies and which used to be a standard part of the Australian platoon up until the jungle mission took over in the 60s. The operator aims the weapon in bearing by sight, ie points the barrel in the right direction, and for range by estimating the range to the target and then angling the barrel to the right degree with the help of an aiming table built into the grip. The bomb is just dropped down the barrel but fired by a trigger when the barrel is laid onto the target and then adjust fire until it hits. With a bit of training operators can be extremely accurate with it. Training is simple because there is no firing back blast or significant effect and 60mm mortar bombs are dirt cheap (compared to rockets). It may not look right or be as cool as a shoulder fired thingy but the platoon’s artillery has been a part of many successful armies and still is. For medium-low intensity operations outside of triple layer jungle canopies it is ideal for laying down HE, smoke and illum.

[dan891]

Light mortars - 51mm and now 60mm at the platoon level have been very popular with the British infantry. There was a move to phase out the 51mm a few years back when the 40mm UGL came into the sections, but fighting in Afghanistan has proved them very useful bits of kit. Subsequently the Brits moved to a 60mm in part for ease of ammo purchase. The US Marines also have integral 60mm at the company level which they seem quite happy with.

[Riđđu]

Thanks for explaining the background of commando mortars. I´m still not entirely convinced, but like to read this forum because it actually makes me to rethink my own views.

[Milne Bay]

Very reminiscent of the dreaded Japanese Knee Mortar of WW2. There was no comparable Australian weapon on the Kokoda track, and from reports our boys suffered terribly from this little beastie.

[Gubler, A.]

Very reminiscent of the dreaded Japanese Knee Mortar of WW2. There was no comparable Australian weapon on the Kokoda track, and from reports our boys suffered terribly from this little beastie.

That’s an interesting point because the Australian Army was to have had the same 2” (51mm) platoon mortar as the British Army but production of this type of mortar had been delayed in Australia (there were plenty 3” battalion mortars) and it wasn’t until ’42 that large numbers were on hand.

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks for explaining the background of commando mortars. I´m still not entirely convinced, but like to read this forum because it actually makes me to rethink my own views.

The CO of 2RAR who are conducting at least part of the infantry 2012 program has recommended a light mortar capability for the fire support (maneuver support) section.

Other than that, the more firepower the better, right?

That is my only 2 points...

[Gubler, A.]

That was a Company OC not the CO making those recommendations. But he’s on the money.

Infantry 2012 was basically finalised in the 2005 Infantry Conference and the key weapon (40mm AGL) decided at this time but not in any kind of serious comparative way. The AGL was chosen because it was a great suppressive fires weapon but so too are others. The 82mm Carl Gustav received a second breath of life for Inf 2012 when someone realized that then inf pltn needed to shoot their own smoke and illumination and had to defeat bunker type targets that 40s and 66s can’t take out. Since it was on the books it was issued even though for a smoke and illum capability it is about the worst thing you can have because of its difficulty in firing, low rate of fire and huge firing signature all made worse by the need to lob these rounds at high angles. Because of OH&S limitations caused by the back blast of the 84 each safety supervisor can only supervise seven shots in a day. Which severely limits a units ability to train up on the weapon.

It would appear from this practical experience plus a reasonable amount of thought about such weapons that the infantry platoon really needs a 60mm Commando mortar before other heavy weapons like 40mm AGLs and 84mm Carl Gustavs. Commando mortars can also be used for much better defilade fires than an air burst 40mm, rapid smoke deployment and target marking to support the JTAC and air support strafing guns and rockets (SADF Bush War speciality). It is also ideal for engaging elevated targets like hill tops and building tops (IDF speciality). Of course it can't defeat targets with overhead protection like bunkers and fortified buildings or tanks but that's a low demand job that can just as easily be dealt with by a mix of disposable 66mm and 84mm rocket launchers. The 40mm AGL and 84mm belong in the dedicated direct fire support weapon (DFSW) platoon at battalion level where they can be best deployed.

The most attractive use of 40mm AGL is quick suppressive fires. But this seems more like a vehicle mounted application – where you need a direct fire, flex weapon to quickly track to target and start shooting in counter ambush – and not a dismounted suppression weapon. Especially considering that 40mm AGLs need to be in two or four man back pack loads and then assembled to fire. Not the kind of thing you can do if patrolling on foot into an ambush. When you need to suppress the enemy on your own terms or in quick response while dismounted I think the 60mm Commando mortar would outshoot a 40mm AGL any day of the week.

Even the super lightweight Mk 47 40mm AGL is way too heavy to be practically deployed within an infantry platoon. They can only fire from a tripod so are effectively fixed and exposed to enemy fires when deployed. This may be OK for a battalion level supporting DFSW platoon but these weapons will have to stay with the infantry platoon which means they remain close to the enemy. So why not replace the infantry platoon AGL with a more portable 40mm rapid fire system?

The Milkor MGL XRGL40 is the latest version of the six round revolver 40mm grenade launcher. It can fire a new round called 40x51mm (it can still fire the legacy M203 compatible 40x46mm) with only half the muzzle velocity of the AGL’s 40x56mm (and two thirds more than the 40x46mm). Firing these grenades the maximum effective range against a point target is 800m. Combined with a digital fire control system sight like the Vinhog Vingsight the MGL should be just as accurate as the AGL out to this range. This sight has even more optical magnification than the Mk 47’s PWG-1 sight plus a laser rangefinder and computer controlled aiming point adjustment. The key thing is the MGL (with a Vingsight) weighs only 8kg. Which means for the same weight as one Mk 47 AGL and 32 rounds you can carry two MGLs and 184 rounds (see attached table for a full comparison). Since it is fired from the shoulder it is far more practical within the platoon.



For targets beyond the effective range of the 40mm and firing smoke, illumination and target marking for close air support the best weapon is the 60mm commando mortar. This can replace the 84mm Carl Gustav that is only barely suited to firing high angle fires (like illumination) and has a very limited rate of fire and man portable unit of fire. It also has a huge firing signature and requires two men to operate. The 60mm commando mortar only weighs 7kg and requires no costly sighting units and fire control system for accurate fires. Each mortar bomb weighs under 2kg and is quite compact. Each soldier in the platoon can carry one (or two) attached to their day pack giving a 40 round unit of fire for each mortar. Each HE bomb has 300g of explosives and up to 600 fragments and their plunging fire they are far more lethal than even bursts of 40mm grenades or the direct and grazing fire of 84mm HE rounds. With a rate of fire of 12 rpm they are highly effective for laying down smoke.

The Inf 2012 structure has a single four man team able to be armed with EITHER the 40mm AGL or the 84mm Carl Gustav. The Mk 47 40mm AGL requires four men to carry it and a useable supply of ammunition. Each man has a load of about 20kg broken down into: the Mk 47 grenade launcher with PWG-1 sight, the Mk 108 tripod and two 32 round ammo cans. The weapon needs to be assembled before it can be fired and any movement requires two men to work together to move the 41 kg mounting.

With each solider carrying the same 18-20kg load the four man team can be armed with two Milkor MGLs with Vingsights with 36 rounds each and a single Denel M4 60mm commando mortar with 18 mortar bombs divided up amongst the four soldiers (team leader with 10, mortar operator with six and each grenadier with one).

The AGL armed team is limited to no mobility when the weapon is ready to fire, a single channel of fire at any one time and a maximum rate of fire of 32 40mm grenades per minute and no smoke or illumination capability. The MGLs and mortar armed team is able to fire the grenades on the move and quickly redeploy the mortar, has three channels of fire and is able to lay down 36 40mm grenades and 12 60mm mortar bombs per minute including smoke and illumination.

That’s why I think the 84mm Carl Gustav and 40mm AGL are not the weapons of choice for the infantry platoon, in 2012 or 2010.

[Raven22]

Because of OH&S limitations caused by the back blast of the 84 each safety supervisor can only supervise seven shots in a day. Which severely limits a units ability to train up on the weapon.


That's only for the HEAT-RAP round, and it is a load of shit that gets ignored whenever no one is looking anyway. I find it funny that you can only safety sup 7 HEAT rounds in a day but you can fire as many 120mm rounds as you like. I know which one has a bigger concussion. An 84s still a particularly handy capability to have - you aren't going to blow qualas apart with a 60mm mortar.


The Inf 2012 structure has a single four man team able to be armed with EITHER the 40mm AGL or the 84mm Carl Gustav.

It's really either a Mag-58 or 84. The QCB/AGL will only be broken out for very specific occasions - its not like you are going to patrol with one. The QCB/AGL have really only been put in the rifle platoons to make the BOP look neat. They are always going to deployed as required by higher - if the CO decides he wants all the AGLs for perimeter security for his FOB or something, then that is where they will go. I dare say I will be an old man before the Army buys enough for one per platoon anyway.

A light mortar might be handy (they've borrowed a few off the Dutch in Afghanistan), but a six-shot grenade launcher is a waste of time. Just carry more rounds for the GLAs.

[Exsandgroper]

News Release

BAE Systems secures Australian thermal weapon sight contract17 Feb 2010 | Ref. 040/2010

Uncooled AN/PAS-13C thermal weapon sight
Adelaide, Australia – BAE Systems has secured a contract to supply a new targeting system for the Australian Army’s new Carl Gustaf M3 weapons.

BAE Systems will provide more than 400 of its proven, uncooled AN/PAS-13C thermal weapon sights to equip the Army’s crew-served Carl Gustaf shoulder-fired 84mm direct-fire weapons.

The sights can be used for both day and night operations, and in adverse conditions such as smoke and dust, enabling the user to track a round all the way to the target.

The sights also are self-contained and eliminate the need for cables and day/night mode switching, and can be readily used for surveillance off-weapon via a quick release mount, according to Ian Sharp, Director of BAE Systems Australia’s Land Business Unit.

“They are a reliable, lightweight, and simple to use, combined imaging and sighting systems for all conditions. Users are able to rapidly convert to the new sight from the Carl Gustaf’s current day-only sight,” Mr Sharp said.

He said that the contract was another example of the company’s ability to reach back to access the diverse capabilities of the global BAE Systems organisation, adapt them to a local requirement and support them with a comprehensive regional through life support solution.

“The sight is manufactured by our US-based Electronics, Intelligence & Support business. It is a proven military off-the-shelf (MOTS) advanced, uncooled thermal sensor, with more than 50,000 currently fielded on 12 weapon types operating across coalition forces.

“Our Australian team was able to contribute rapid and innovative engineering design to integrate the sight to the Carl Gustaf within just 90 days for program trials.

“The sight performed so well during trials on the Carl Gustaf launcher that it has now been adopted for other crew-served weapons in several other countries and has been fielded in theatre in Afghanistan through Urgent Operational Requirements,” Mr Sharp said.

The contract is valued at AUD $16 million.


Cheers

[Gubler, A.]

An 84s still a particularly handy capability to have - you aren't going to blow qualas apart with a 60mm mortar.

Sure but you don't need to lug a big 10kg M3 tube to shoot it. The AT4 disposable launcher will do the job. And you use the much lighter and easier to deploy 60mm mortar for shooting smoke and illum and dropping HE on the heads of bad guys without overhead cover.


A light mortar might be handy (they've borrowed a few off the Dutch in Afghanistan), but a six-shot grenade launcher is a waste of time. Just carry more rounds for the GLAs.

A six shot MGL with a FCS sight like the Vingsight or the PAS-13C transforms the 40mm capability. DSTO found this out in the AICW trial. With the high MV of the the special MGL round, the sight and the follow up shots you can drop these rounds in bulk where you need them out past SAA effective range.

[Simon9]

Sure but you don't need to lug a big 10kg M3 tube to shoot it. The AT4 disposable launcher will do the job. And you use the much lighter and easier to deploy 60mm mortar for shooting smoke and illum and dropping HE on the heads of bad guys without overhead cover.

For one AT4, sure. But an M3 and five rounds is much lighter than five AT4s, and if the platoon are already carrying 60mm mortar bombs in your scenario they're going to get weighed down extremely quickly if you start making them carrying AT4s as well.

Seems to me it's just horses for courses. The 60mm would be superior for suppressive fire, plunging fire, laying smoke and illume, while the M3 would be superior for anti-armour (which is after all its primary purpose), bunkers/hardened targets, and buildings.

What it all comes down to is, no matter which way you look at it, the 2012 infantry platoon is going to be extremely heavily loaded. Body armour, water, SAA, PRR, radio batteries, NVG and personal weapon alone already add up to over 20kg - and that's just patrol order. Start talking about adding M3s, 60mm, AGLs or MGLs at platoon level and the 2012 infantry platoon isn't going to be going very far from its vehicles.

[Gubler, A.]

For one AT4, sure. But an M3 and five rounds is much lighter than five AT4s, and if the platoon are already carrying 60mm mortar bombs in your scenario they're going to get weighed down extremely quickly if you start making them carrying AT4s as well.

But it isn’t one AT4 for each 84mm round. The 60mm mortar is providing the smoke, illum and frag capability replacing those 84mm rounds used for this role. Since the mortar rounds and the actual mortar are a lot lighter than the 84mm you have a significant weight balance to consume with AT4s not to mention cash in for a return (ie lighter loads). AT4s also have the benefit of being distributable amongst more soldiers providing more simultaneous channels of fire and survivability and a minimal back blast (AT4CS)weapon for better OH&S, survivability and urban combat useability. Each 40mm MGL gunner could also be trained with the AT4 and clip their thermal imaging, laser range finding FCS from weapon to weapon to provide enhanced accuracy and target detection.


Seems to me it's just horses for courses. The 60mm would be superior for suppressive fire, plunging fire, laying smoke and illume, while the M3 would be superior for anti-armour (which is after all its primary purpose), bunkers/hardened targets, and buildings.

No doubt. But the 60mm mortar and the 40mm MGL aren’t in the race. And I’m not against the 84mm and the 40mm AGL. I just think they need to be returned to the DFSW platoon where they belong.


Start talking about adding M3s, 60mm, AGLs or MGLs at platoon level and the 2012 infantry platoon isn't going to be going very far from its vehicles.

That’s the problem. In one corner is the M3 and 40mm AGL which are both a lot heavier than the other corner with the AT4, 60mm mortar and 40mm MGL.

[Raven22]

Start talking about adding M3s, 60mm, AGLs or MGLs at platoon level and the 2012 infantry platoon isn't going to be going very far from its vehicles.

They don't go very far from vehicles now, at least not in a warzone. Haven't for some years.

[Weasel]

Talking about a 60mm COMMANDO mortar which is fired by hand and eye not a bipod and calculator.



?... do you mean as in the photo, or a direct fire breach loaded point-at-the-target-and- fire weapon like a gun/mortar?

If the latter I suppose you could do it, seeing as Denel have come up with the 20mm anti-materiel weapon. But now it is starting to look like a british ww2 anti tank weapon...or a charlie gee (lol)

cheers

w