Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Carl Gustaf is getting a ‘game changing’ laser-guided munition

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Oh ffs, you need to get it into your thick skull that some of us have actual experience from using these weapon systems. Instead of arguing with your wast computer game experience how about you shut up and listen for a change?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Stonecutter View Post
      Yet another reason never to join Armoured
      I doubt that CG would be your first concern. And AT operators in all out conventional war would have very short career, well except for Spike and Jav operators. But then again, even they would be at mercy how well enemy mortars are working.


      Also, comparing ATGM with recoiless launcher, haha 😂 Following same logic, why not arm every NATO soldier with PKM?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by ak16 View Post

        Re-read what I wrote: In terms of weight, function and effective combat distance of the guided munitions, a Metis and CG are very similar.

        What is the point of coupling the functionality of a much larger munition into a weapon system that is designed for something else entirely? CG is turning into a Frankenstein; initially starting out as a recoilless rifle, slowly morphing into a rocket-propelled grenade, and is now trying hard to mimic an ATGM. This obsession by paper-pushers in military leadership to increase the firepower of a squad at all costs and therefore force the poor-arse infantry to lug all that crap around will only result in men having the health of a pensioner upon conclusion of their military service. It's all fun and games on video, until you are the one having to go on a hike with all that weight. If it is necessary to provide some bunker-busting ability to the infantry squad, just replace some of the AT4 with an RShg-2 analogue or similar. In fact, something like this would be a perfect addition to the infantry section and would replace both the RShg-2 and AT4:

        German military doctrine "sweat saves blood"

        I'll happily carry that to defend against attacking tanks. Instead of being steamrolled by them.

        Multiple use tool the better.

        You also maybe using it in ambushes and the like.

        Originally posted by ak16 View Post

        SPG-9 has been removed from Russian service decades ago and has been replaced by Metis.
        Why? Because an ATGM is superior to a recoilless rifle/gun in terms of round weight, range, and accuracy.
        In fact, there are not many recoilless rifles/guns left in military service in the world. CG might have been one of the very last of such anachronisms. Fortunately for the users of CG, it has been progressively adapting with the times and is now capable of being referred to as an RPG.
        I know it is not an anologue that matches a 100 %. But it works on the same principle as CG.

        The CG is not the main defensive weapon against tanks in Western armies of today It is the Spike and Javelin sysetms for teh nth time.

        CG is additionally and for second tier reservist troops. And if you are stupid enough to clumsily tank roll - for example through Norways valleys and mountains - it will eat you.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by antwony View Post
          You might want to stop comparing Russian stuff/ doctrine, with First World nations. Or, at least, educate yourself better about others practises.

          Talking about the Metis, in fine in regards to Russia. But, if the West ever had any man portable wire-guided system it's been replaced by the Javelin, or whatever. TOW's, as far as I'm aware, were/ are all veh/ heli/ fixed mounted. Wire-guided is 1960's tech.
          Your "First World" nations militaries are not omniscient and omnipotent Gods that are above all reproach, and bleed and die just like everyone else - especially against sandal-wearing durkas for some reason. As in every engineering solution, there are benefits and trade-offs with wire-guidance. I am not going to expend any effort in educating you about them. Nonetheless, my contention was not in regards to the guidance principle, but 1) unnecessarily turning CG into a Frankenstein when better solutions exist and 2) forcing poor-arse infantry to lug this monstrosity around.


          Originally posted by antwony View Post
          No.

          M72's (or derivatives), Charlie G's, AT4's are all issued in enormous numbers with an enormous number of countries. Think it was on the old Milphotos site where some one posted a story about US soldiers bringing old 105mm recoilless rifles to Afghanistan..........
          You disagreed with my statement, yet your subsequent exposition did not refute anything I have said (and in fact confirmed it). I have to say.....I am at a loss here.


          Originally posted by mordoror View Post
          Metis = ATGM = engine + fuel cell + guidance receiving cells + warhead (fuse, explosive and whatever fancy system you want in it)
          A CG shell has no engine, no fuel cell, it is just a fuse + explosive

          A laser guiding system is not that heavy if you don't had additional flip flap engine exhausts. Fin controled trajectory is as fine and less heavy
          This is what is used in laser guided helicopter rockets. It doesn't make the ordnance much more heavy. An APKWS laser guided 70 mm rocket around 14-15 kg. An Hydra 70 mm is around 12-13 kg. Miniaturisation has improved since the 90s (date of service of the Metis), you know ?
          1) Try to familiarize yourself about the construction of available CG rounds prior to writing oversimplifications like "A CG shell has no engine, no fuel cell, it is just a fuse + explosive". Hint: You are incorrect. Some shells are actually more akin to RPGs (they have rocket engines), and all have propellant charges to expel the shell from the launcher at 200-300 m/s (amongst many other features).
          2) *Sigh*.......how do you imagine the new guided round is going to be able to reach out to 2km, when the typical rocket-assisted rounds of a CG only have an effective range of <1km? Do you expect this guided round to only utilize the Recoilless Rifle principle to reach the target? Hint: its a missile (https://www.janes.com/article/75518/...ns-development).
          3) Miniaturisation and material science has improved since the 80s, but not enough to violate the laws of physics. Unless you are using the CG as a mortar, or use a propellant charge massive enough to impart initial velocity in excess of 600 m/s (impossible due to the fine tuning of the Recoilles Rifle mechanism), the only other logical alternative is a rocket motor.

          I know this might be a surprise to you......but people in the past were not idiots. In fact, one might say they were in general more intelligent and imaginative than the current crop of "thinkers" since they had to achieve more with less. Don't believe me? Open up the textbook series "Course of Theoretical Physics" by Landau and Lifshitz and compare it to any contemporary textbooks in the field. There are numerous other examples......


          Originally posted by mordoror View Post
          About 3/, maybe you should have fired an Atk launcher once in your life to know that it takes less than 10 sec from traveling to loading, aiming and firing
          Which takes more with a tripod missile launcher
          RoF for the CG is given at 6 / min
          RoF for the Metis is given at 2-3/ min
          The manufacturer states that rate of fire of Metis is 3-4 rounds per minute, and that it can be brought from travelling to firing position (and vice versa) in 15-20 seconds.
          Having observed training videos of CG, I can believe in <10 seconds b/s shots (with good training and close targets), but not for transitioning from travelling to firing.

          Also, why are you even arguing with me. I have never compared CG (without the guided round) to Metis.

          Originally posted by Sniffit View Post
          Oh ffs, you need to get it into your thick skull that some of us have actual experience from using these weapon systems. Instead of arguing with your wast computer game experience how about you shut up and listen for a change?
          The following might hurt, but please don't take it personally. The military is not staffed with geniuses, and a particularly interested civilian that has no issues in comprehending.hard sciences ( or, for that matter, has shown academic excellence in any other field ) will typically experience no problems in picking up military science. "Sapienti sat" and all that.
          Additionally, it doesn't take a genius to "Google" the experiences of past and present users of CG worldwide to realize that the most common criticism is the excessive burden of this weapon system + its rounds. If you think that giving this weapon system + rounds + guided missile to each infantry section is an amazing idea......then you have no empathy for soldiers, nor care for their health.


          Originally posted by picanha View Post
          German military doctrine "sweat saves blood"
          Well said. However, you forgot that "brains saves both"

          Still, the German military already operates an excellent multipurpose light RPG-analogue called Panzerfaust 3 at the platoon level, while the CG has been rightfully resigned to training only. Unfortunately, it does seem that there are not many options for bunker-busting duties at the section level in German military. The multi-function MATADOR could do the job.....but it is excessively heavy for its effective range. Germany should probably invest in a light RShg-2 analogue for its infantry section.
          Something like this would be ideal:

          Малогабаритный Гранатомётный Комплекс "Бур" / Malogabaritnyy Granatomotnyy Kompleks "Bur" — Compact Grenade-launching System "Auger") is a 62 mm version of the RPO-M consisting of two major components: the disposable launch tube and reusable fire control unit. Described as "the most compact grenade launcher in the world," the weapon has an overall length of 742 mm and weighs 5 kg (11 lb). Loaded tubes weigh 3.5 kg (7.7 lb) and can fire thermobaric (blast yield similar to 6 kg (13 lb) of TNT, or a 122 mm artillery rocket) or fragmentation warheads. The fire control unit is the same one used on the RPO-M, weighing 1.5 kg (3.3 lb) and enabling ranges of 25–650 m with the baseline day sight; night and thermal systems are also available. Maximum range is 950 meters, with a firing mechanism service life of at least 500 rounds. It can be fired in confined spaces with a volume of at least 30 cubic meters. As of October 2014, it has been accepted into service and serial production has been started.

          As it is, the current loads that modern soldiers have to carry in combat have a detrimental effect on agility, performance, fatigue, and pose a serious risk of injury (https://www.dst.defence.gov.au/sites...TO-TN-1051.pdf). Therefore, dumping a CG into the infantry section, together with the added weight of new guided munition, is not going to remediate the situation .
          Last edited by ak16; 11-10-2018, 04:22 AM.

          Comment


          • #20
            1) Try to familiarize yourself about the construction of available CG rounds prior to writing oversimplifications like "A CG shell has no engine, no fuel cell, it is just a fuse + explosive". Hint: You are incorrect. Some shells are actually more akin to RPGs (they have rocket engines), and all have propellant charges to expel the shell from the launcher at 200-300 m/s (amongst many other features).
            2) *Sigh*.......how do you imagine the new guided round is going to be able to reach out to 2km, when the typical rocket-assisted rounds of a CG only have an effective range of <1km? Do you expect this guided round to only utilize the Recoilless Rifle principle to reach the target? Hint: its a missile (https://www.janes.com/article/75518/...ns-development).
            3) Miniaturisation and material science has improved since the 80s, but not enough to violate the laws of physics. Unless you are using the CG as a mortar, or use a propellant charge massive enough to impart initial velocity in excess of 600 m/s (impossible due to the fine tuning of the Recoilles Rifle mechanism), the only other logical alternative is a rocket motor.
            OK for the rocket engine
            Yet it doesn't need to be heavy
            Don't believe me, see the Pike ammo (2000 m range with laser homing in a 1.7 Lb ordnance)

            The manufacturer states that rate of fire of Metis is 3-4 rounds per minute, and that it can be brought from travelling to firing position (and vice versa) in 15-20 seconds.
            Having observed training videos of CG, I can believe in <10 seconds b/s shots (with good training and close targets), but not for transitioning from travelling to firing.
            Well believe what you want, but from a (limited) experience, i can tell you that unslinging, loading (by your team fellow), aiming and firing an ATK launcher is less than 10 s in a normal process

            Also, why are you even arguing with me. I have never compared CG (without the guided round) to Metis.
            You are the only one arguing that that ammo is useless, not understand that more versatility in ammo options is always preferable to a specialized weapon system
            Plus nobody forces the grunts to carry all kind of ammos at once.There are already 12 different variants and no infantry platoon carry all of that at once
            It just gives another option to an infantry platoon devoid of ATGMs to be able to engage APC/IFVs outside what was previous considered as a suicidal move (range < 600 m)
            Frankly if given the choice between a unguided ammo with a range of 600 m and a guided ammo with a range of 2000 m versus a BMP2 2A42 30 mm gun filled with HEI shells (which incendatlly has an effective range of 2000 m) which one would you choose.?

            Comment


            • #21
              I think we are arguing around in circles. It boils down to have a mean against armoured vehicles or have none.

              We still use the PzFst 3 only 300m against driving targets. You hav eto be smart to survive but its gold worth in urban combat. Or just worth of having somnething.

              You can shoot from tiny enclosements beause of its pellet counterweight.

              Last I used it was in the AGSHP.


              It all depends on tactics units etc.

              They would never give any Spikes to us reservist for example

              It is an RPG ok I know it


              And teh IT-600 version of the PzFst has a small computer and laser range finder too. It calaculates the trajectories distance etc. on a moving target and displays the vorhaltepunkt (the point you aim to hit a target but is not congruent with the target) to the gunner.

              All integrated into the Dynarange firing device.



              Would be interesting to know how it fared in Peshmerga hands.

              These are simple realtively cheap weapons.
              Last edited by picanha; 11-10-2018, 04:57 AM.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                OK for the rocket engine
                Yet it doesn't need to be heavy
                Don't believe me, see the Pike ammo (2000 m range with laser homing in a 1.7 Lb ordnance)
                If you are referring to Spike, then the Spike SR missile container appears to have a weight of 9.8 kg for a maximum range of 1.5km.

                Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                You are the only one arguing that that ammo is useless, not understand that more versatility in ammo options is always preferable to a specialized weapon system
                Yes, but too much versatility might be detrimental for the weapon's primary function. For example, I estimate that the new guided munition for CG to weigh anywhere from 7kg-9kg. In addition to the laser designator at 2kg-3kg. This is the weight that will not be taken up by the HE, HEAT or HEDP rounds (which are themselves not light at 3kg-4kg each), unless one is a sadist and adds this additional weight to the existing loadout. And at some point one might ask, shouldn't another, more specialized, weapon system be introduced to take away some of the burden?

                Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                Plus nobody forces the grunts to carry all kind of ammos at once.There are already 12 different variants and no infantry platoon carry all of that at once
                It just gives another option to an infantry platoon devoid of ATGMs to be able to engage APC/IFVs outside what was previous considered as a suicidal move (range < 600 m)
                If you can't carry all the necessary rounds to utilize the weapon system in its primary intended function, why have it in the first place? Imagine that a platoon needs to place a smoke barrier, or attack infantry in defilade at or just beyond effective rifle distance (300m-900m) etc.... but instead of the required rounds (which you are going to need in 99% of situations) you are lugging around this nifty little missile and laser designator.....

                Originally posted by Mordoror View Post
                Frankly if given the choice between a unguided ammo with a range of 600 m and a guided ammo with a range of 2000 m versus a BMP2 2A42 30 mm gun filled with HEI shells (which incendatlly has an effective range of 2000 m) which one would you choose.?
                How common is it for an infantry section to encounter a BMP on flat terrain? Is taking out BMPs at 2km on flat terrain the typical task of infantry sections? What if said infantry section suddenly encounters a helicopter flying just above the horizon......should this infantry section be therefore armed with a SHORAD?

                Ideally, I would choose to have a light ATGM (like Eryx, Metis or Korsar) team in my platoon with several bunker busting and AT rounds for hitting targets at 1-2 km, another team that is specialized in providing direct fire support at 0.5-1km with smoke, illumination, HE, HEAT, HEDP, thermobaric and armed with something like CG, Panzerfaust 3, or RPG-7. This would be more effective at increasing the organic firepower of the platoon than dumping extra weight onto the already overburdened CG team, or expecting the CG team to run to another platoon during combat in order to resupply with the required charges. At the section level I would ideally have several light and disposable HEAT/thermobaric launchers like AT4/RPG-22/RShg/Bur with effective range (<500m), in addition to an under-barrel grenade launcher.

                Humans are not pack-mules and are rather prone to injury. Therefore, there is a hard limit on the amount of firepower you can expect a man to carry and employ effectively together with his gear, tools, rations, clothes, armour etc. Therefore, specialization can sometimes be beneficial. The other option would be to enlarge the CG team.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by ak16 View Post
                  Yes, but too much versatility might be detrimental for the weapon's primary function. For example, I estimate that the new guided munition for CG to weigh anywhere from 7kg-9kg. In addition to the laser designator at 2kg-3kg. This is the weight that will not be taken up by the HE, HEAT or HEDP rounds (which are themselves not light at 3kg-4kg each), unless one is a sadist and adds this additional weight to the existing loadout. And at some point one might ask, shouldn't another, more specialized, weapon system be introduced to take away some of the burden?
                  And who would "carry" that weapon system? You do relize that you suggest adding a whole new weapon system rather then a 2kg projectile to an existing one. Which is heavier?

                  Originally posted by ak16 View Post
                  If you can't carry all the necessary rounds to utilize the weapon system in its primary intended function, why have it in the first place? Imagine that a platoon needs to place a smoke barrier, or attack infantry in defilade at or just beyond effective rifle distance (300m-900m) etc.... but instead of the required rounds (which you are going to need in 99% of situations) you are lugging around this nifty little missile and laser designator..
                  You aren't, they are stored in your vehicle. You know where you keep all the other stuff you don't need right away.

                  Originally posted by ak16 View Post
                  Ideally, I would choose to have a light ATGM (like Eryx, Metis or Korsar) team in my platoon with several bunker busting and AT rounds for hitting targets at 1-2 km, another team that is specialized in providing direct fire support at 0.5-1km with smoke, illumination, HE, HEAT, HEDP, thermobaric and armed with something like CG, Panzerfaust 3, or RPG-7. This would be more effective at increasing the organic firepower of the platoon than dumping extra weight onto the already overburdened CG team, or expecting the CG team to run to another platoon during combat in order to resupply with the required charges. At the section level I would ideally have several light and disposable HEAT/thermobaric launchers like AT4/RPG-22/RShg/Bur with effective range (<500m), in addition to an under-barrel grenade launcher.
                  Then fire up that arma3 game or what ever it is that you play and put together such a team.

                  Originally posted by ak16 View Post
                  Humans are not pack-mules and are rather prone to injury. Therefore, there is a hard limit on the amount of firepower you can expect a man to carry and employ effectively together with his gear, tools, rations, clothes, armour etc. Therefore, specialization can sometimes be beneficial. The other option would be to enlarge the CG team.
                  Which is why such things are kept in your vehicle and brought out when needed.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    If you are referring to Spike, then the Spike SR missile container appears to have a weight of 9.8 kg for a maximum range of 1.5km.
                    I am refering to the Pike, not the Spike
                    https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/pike

                    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pike_(munition)

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X