project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > Off-Topic Forums > Off-Topic Discussion > Military Technology
20 Jun 2018, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Forum RulesDeveloper Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Military Technology Discussion on military hardware.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-09-2012, 09:25 PM   #1
Eddie Baker
Banned
Default Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

These used to be USSOCOM only, like the Mk-48, but are being test fielded to conventional Army units in Afghanistan based on a UOR.

Army acquires recoilless, shoulder-fired weapon | Article | The United States Army

Makes me wonder if it will be adopted as another tool in the box for the weapons squads of light/air assault/airborne infantry.
Eddie Baker is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 06:15 AM   #2
[R-DEV]​Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

I've also heard that some units of the 101st in Afghanistan were even being re-issued the M67 Recoilless Rifle.

I remember seeing a couple of dozen of those things rotting away in an armory over at Benning, but never imagined we'd actually put them back in the field.

Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 08:57 AM   #3
CastleBravo
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

84mm airburst? Nasty....

Carl Gustav Airburst Round in Iraq | Military.com

CastleBravo is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 01:07 PM   #4
Bellator
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

I wondered why the US doesn't use these kind of reasonably affordable rocket launchers more. 90 mm HE warhead of somekind is probably dirt cheap compared to those sophisticated AT weapons designed to fight hordes of Soviet armor.
I even read on some boards comments by US soldiers that they're impressed with the RPG 7 and would like to have something like it.
Bellator is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 05:52 PM   #5
[R-DEV]​Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellator View Post
I wondered why the US doesn't use these kind of reasonably affordable rocket launchers more. 90 mm HE warhead of somekind is probably dirt cheap compared to those sophisticated AT weapons designed to fight hordes of Soviet armor.
I even read on some boards comments by US soldiers that they're impressed with the RPG 7 and would like to have something like it.
In "Ye Old Days" when plastics weren't too popular yet, we lacked the light-weight or compact designs that modern troop-transportable anti-armor weaponry have. The earliest real "plastic" AT weapons that I'd say the US had was the M202 and M72. Having fired them myself I know the M202 was a little bulky and had very limited use. Of course the M72 LAW was pretty light, which in my opinion has been one of the best light AT weapons around (overall).

The older weapons like bazooka, recoilles rifles, etc were powerful but also bulky. Their ammunition wasn't exactly light either, so it required humping a lot of crap through the woods. And back then their grunts lacked a lot of the field gear we pack around today, so they had room for those tubes of rounds on their backs. With the average fighting load of today's infantryman, it'd be pretty damn difficult to move cross-country with one of those old setups and still pack enough ammo to get the job done.


As for the RPG family, they have their pros and cons. They are pretty simple in design and don't break often, and when they do you can fix it with a paperclip and some tin foil MacGyver-style. Their rockets don't weight too much, so you can carry several on your back. But the damn things are about as accurate as a senile blind woman, and they leave one huge damn signature behind. This makes them perfect for some suicide-lovin meatbag, but not so good for conventional forces that dislike incoming tank rounds or mortar fire.


The reason we're going back to some of our old stocks is that in such an unconventional war, certain design features of the newer items aren't necessary. It's the perfect time to use up all those supplies that have been sitting dormant for decades, and it saves us some money from having to restock new crap. Another key note, often times after a conflict is over, mobilized forces are often required to "leave stuff behind". It would be much easier to just discard some old CG's or LAW's than have to mess with the restrictions on M136 or Javelin.

Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 06:00 PM   #6
Navo
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Ninja2dan, sort of related to this topic: What happened to the SRAW we use in PR:BF2? Was it ever produced?
Navo is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 06:36 PM   #7
[R-DEV]​Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by Navo View Post
Ninja2dan, sort of related to this topic: What happened to the SRAW we use in PR:BF2? Was it ever produced?
Lockheed is still producing the "SRAW", designated the FGM-172B Predator. But the earlier version (A) that had an AT warhead was cancelled, all current inventory has either been converted or produced in the Bravo class. These use a blast-frag warhead for bunker busting or anti-personnel. And only the USMC uses it, the Army instead has opted to stick with the FGM-148 Javelin, M136 AT-4, and other weapon systems.

Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-10-2012, 07:25 PM   #8
Eddie Baker
Banned
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ninja2dan View Post
I've also heard that some units of the 101st in Afghanistan were even being re-issued the M67 Recoilless Rifle.

I remember seeing a couple of dozen of those things rotting away in an armory over at Benning, but never imagined we'd actually put them back in the field.
Dayamn, the last time I had heard of one being fired was at Point Salines airfield in Grenada by the Ranger Regiment. Do they still have the beehive rounds for them in inventory, too?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bellator View Post
I wondered why the US doesn't use these kind of reasonably affordable rocket launchers more. 90 mm HE warhead of somekind is probably dirt cheap compared to those sophisticated AT weapons designed to fight hordes of Soviet armor.
I even read on some boards comments by US soldiers that they're impressed with the RPG 7 and would like to have something like it.
Because there is a higher probability of hitting the tank with an anti-tank guided missile? And the Javelin was designed and fielded post Cold War.

That having been said, like Ninja2Dan said, the benefits of them are being "re-realized" in the unconventional war of the past 10 years.

It's not like the US military hasn't been using them at all, only the conventional infantry units of the US Army. USMC has used the SMAW for a couple of decades at the rifle company level. The 75th Rangers used the CG for almost as long. For the Rangers, it's a tool in the box: they carry either it or the Javelin depending on mission. The Marines' Javelins are at the battalion level in a weapons company, but manned by Marines of the same MOS as the SMAW (0351 Anti-Tank Assaultman); kind of makes me wonder why the rifle company weapons platoons don't switch out the SMAWs for the Javelins (and vice versa) when necessary.

Now we just need to make the Goose and SMAW fire-from enclosure capable.
Eddie Baker is offline
Last edited by Eddie Baker; 01-10-2012 at 07:35 PM..
Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 10:06 AM   #9
[R-DEV]​Ninja2dan
PR:BF2 Developer

Ninja2dan's Avatar
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Eddie Baker View Post
Dayamn, the last time I had heard of one being fired was at Point Salines airfield in Grenada by the Ranger Regiment. Do they still have the beehive rounds for them in inventory, too?
I do recall seeing a small stock of the M590 munitions but didn't ask at the time how many they had. But I saw enough to assume it was sufficient to last a few operations when needed. I'm guessing that they have plenty of those rounds still left in armories around the globe, just not sure how often they would be used anymore. The military appears to have basically ignored flechette munitions in all weapon systems, even letting the 40mm style collect dust everywhere.

Quote:
Now we just need to make the Goose and SMAW fire-from enclosure capable.
From what I understand, Raytheon beat you to it. They've been coming up with several improvements, and it supposed to go into field testing this year.

Quote:
Development of the 83mm Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon II was delayed several times as designers struggled to meet the Marine Corps requirements.

The weapon, which can be fired from within confined spaces, is planned as a lighter, modernized replacement for the existing SMAW, which has been used since the 1980s to target enemy tanks, heavy armor and fortified positions. It has been developed in conjunction with a new Fire From Enclosure round that can be launched out windows and from other tight spaces without Marines suffering ruptured ear drums or other injuries.

The Corps anticipated fielding the SMAW II next year, but initial fielding now is expected in summer 2012, said Jim Katzaman, a spokesman with Marine Corps Systems Command, out of Marine Corps Base Quantico, Va. The contractors, Nammo Talley and Raytheon Missile Systems, have made strides to address two major problems, Marine officials said.

Ninja2dan is offline Reply With Quote
Old 01-11-2012, 04:04 PM   #10
Navo
Default Re: Army test-fields Carl Gustav in conventional units

Quote:
Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Ninja2dan View Post
Lockheed is still producing the "SRAW", designated the FGM-172B Predator. But the earlier version (A) that had an AT warhead was cancelled, all current inventory has either been converted or produced in the Bravo class. These use a blast-frag warhead for bunker busting or anti-personnel. And only the USMC uses it, the Army instead has opted to stick with the FGM-148 Javelin, M136 AT-4, and other weapon systems.
Thanks. Has it ever been used in the field?
Navo is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
army, carl, conventional, gustav, testfields, units
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:56 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin. ©vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All Content Copyright ©2004 - 2018, Project Reality