Javelin

[2nd Ranger 1]

"Did you see how high that turret went!?"

https://mfcbastion.external.lmco.com/mfc/vi...LiveFire_PG.mpg

[pz3 338]

it was used during the iraq war by?

i think by the uk, usa and australia.

maybe im wrong... but i do remember seeing some US marines with it.

[MarauderMike 0]

I'm at work now, and can't see the link, but if it is the one with the Russioan T72 or T80 being blown to timy pieces...I call BS on that. I am advanced anti-armour qualified, and no hand-held AA missiles kill tanks like that.... unless they are filled with deisel, gas, and/or explosives (beyond normal payload).

I'd direct you to a video clip of the Aussie troops firing the Javelin at ammo carrier hulk.... there you will see a normal Javelin strike.

Catastrophic Kills on tanks are much more rare since modern improvements to armour, add-on armour and missile defence attachments, passive or active.

But it still is kinda cool.

Cheers,

Mike

[DeltaDude 0]

Yeah, in that video the tank was packed full of explosives as I recall.

Awesome video nonetheless.

[pz3 338]

oops(link dont work)

Edited September 29, 2004 by Prozac360

[Dan 0]

yeah the aussies SASR used javelins in iraq. Ive got a coupla vids of em test firing them, ill upload them if i get a chance.

[Kurtz 4]

I thought the Javelin was used by the Canadian army as a close air defence weapon, such as on the ships in the gulf, and that it was going to be phased out in favor of the Stinger or some Brit missile.

For man portable anti armor, do the Canadians use the M172 or Carl Gustav or both. Are the TOW and ERYX strictly vehicle mounted weapons.

Edited September 30, 2004 by Kurtz

[MarauderMike 0]

I thought the Javelin was used by the Canadian army as a close air defence weapon, such as on the ships in the gulf, and that it was going to be phased out in favor of the Stinger or some Brit missile.

For man portable anti armor, do the Canadians use the M172 or Carl Gustav or both. Are the TOW and ERYX strictly vehicle mounted weapons.

The Javelin that we use is indeed a MANPAD but it is being replced, not by the Stinger but by another MANPAD (name escapes me)

Right now the Canadian Army has phased out the M72, in favour of using the 84mm Carl Gustav (which we always had, but now has even better ammunition).

We also have the French-built ERYX (Short Range, wire-guided Missile), which although is wire guided, has a very good thermal site and the missile itself will definitely kill a tank (which the 84mm CG porobably won't). It's one great failing is that it is a better Defensive weapon, which is why you will see Canuck Infantrymen humping an 84 more often than you will seeing them use the ERYX. (Sorry I forgot to mention, it is not vehicle mounted.. Max eff range 600m if I recall correctly).

TOW is still the backbone of our Anti-Armour assest, and can be both dismounted or (more commonly) vehicle mounted.

The Canadian Army is loking at getting either the Javelin, or the Medium and Long-range version of the Israeli Gill/Spike missile family, which is an excellent and very versitlie weapon system.

[Kurtz 4]

Is the Israeli missile fire and forget, and is it man portable?

And, on another subject, since your in the forces, if the Liberal government could get over its anti military bias and give the military its needed infusion of money, what would be the priorities - recruitment, wages and benefits, equipment, vehicles, transport?

Or do you have to start with the larger question of what kind of force you want and how you want to project that force.

I think the force has been stretched thin by the govt undertaking too many commitments without proper support. Forget Chretien and Martin, Canadians appreciate the greta work by the forces in the gulf, balkans,Haiti, Africa and every where else.

Edited October 1, 2004 by Kurtz

[MarauderMike 0]

Is the Israeli missile fire and forget, and is it man portable?

And, on another subject, since your in the forces, if the Liberal government could get over its anti military bias and give the military its needed infusion of money, what would be the priorities - recruitment, wages and benefits, equipment, vehicles, transport?

Or do you have to start with the larger question of what kind of force you want and how you want to project that force.

I think the force has been stretched thin by the govt undertaking too many commitments without proper support. Forget Chretien and Martin, Canadians appreciate the greta work by the forces in the gulf, balkans,Haiti, Africa and every where else.

←

Not ignoring you buddy... just busy at work. I'll post an articualte response to your question shortly (from my perspective and with my opinin).

Mike

[FuSaKi 0]

Right now the Canadian Army has phased out the M72, in favour of using the 84mm Carl Gustav (which we always had, but now has even better ammunition).

The M72 is still in the system, I got a chance to fire a few last month. You're right, it is being phased out, but its not gone yet!!

We also have the French-built ERYX (Short Range, wire-guided Missile), which although is wire guided, has a very good thermal site and the missile itself will definitely kill a tank (which the 84mm CG porobably won't). It's one great failing is that it is a better Defensive weapon, which is why you will see Canuck Infantrymen humping an 84 more often than you will seeing them use the ERYX. (Sorry I forgot to mention, it is not vehicle mounted.. Max eff range 600m if I recall correctly).

To build on that, in the Mech Batts its common on have at least a couple ERYX per platoon. As for it being a defensive weapon, I'll add that the ERYX has a very small backblast area making it ideal for FIBUA (MOUT, CQB, whatever you want to call it) because you can fire it in a small room. Ironically, you can't do that with the Carl G even though its a lighter (but still ###### heavy) weapon. This makes it good for defending an urban environment, where its short range doesn't hinder it and you can hide the weapons system in a well concealed ambush position.

TOW is still the backbone of our Anti-Armour assest, and can be both dismounted or (more commonly) vehicle mounted.

Not for long. There are no longer Anti-Armour Platoons within the infantry battallions. Apparently our TOW Under Armour is all headed out to Wainwright to make an "Anti-Armour Company" that will be used by all branches of the Combat Arms. Just to be clear, thats what I heard from a friend who heard from a friend. All I know for sure is that there is no TUA parked outside 1RCR lines.

Edited October 10, 2004 by FuSaKi

[MarauderMike 0]

Is the Israeli missile fire and forget, and is it man portable?

Yes and yes. There are vehicle mounted versions that can fire the smaller man portable version. It is a very versatile wpn system and would be a good fit.

And, on another subject, since your in the forces, if the Liberal government could get over its anti military bias and give the military its needed infusion of money, what would be the priorities - recruitment, wages and benefits, equipment, vehicles, transport?

Or do you have to start with the larger question of what kind of force you want and how you want to project that force.

To me you have to start with the Larger Question. This is key. Canadians, god bless them are ignorant and have little clue as to the military, its needs and capabilities... and I'm talking about those so called 'experts' that are out there from the overly educated at the CMI to the reporter [idiots], let alone your average, 'I want more health care' schmuck.

Throwing equipment and money is not the answer either, although many will tell you it is. We have been solving our problems with equipment, because for a long time we have had poor stuff. Now a lot of our euipment rocks (and some sucks). But part of the problems is we buy something AND THEN try to figure out how to make it fit in our organization.

Alot of THAT is politically based BS and pressure. The government wasted millions of dollars on upgrading our Leo C1 MBT's to C2's. The Germans would have sold us Leo 2's for cheaper than the upgrade... but no the Government said 'No New Tanks' so BAM, more money down the drain. Now they sit and Rot out west.

Same thing with the MGS Stryker, we are spending around $700 Million (Cdn) for 66 of these POS vehicles. The Aussies bought 59 M1A1 AIM-D MBT's (and a bunch of extra stuff) for around $500 Million (Cdn). All becasue the MGS is made by GDLD in London Ontario. More money down the tubes. Is it the Army's fault? No. We work for the Gov't and people of Cannada, so the people of Canada will get the Military they deserve.

Same with the Helicopters, same with the Subs.

I think the force has been stretched thin by the govt undertaking too many commitments without proper support. Forget Chretien and Martin, Canadians appreciate the greta work by the forces in the gulf, balkans,Haiti, Africa and every where else.

Yeah we are stretched thin and we will continue to be.

You want to hear something Sick? One of the best things that came out of those poor four Patricia lads dying was a greater sympathy for the CF. Until then, very few Canadians REALLY gave two turds about the men and women in uniform.

Sometimes I'd like to say 'Eff off' to Joe Canadian, dig your self out of the snow, flood, ice, dark.

[Kurtz 4]

I live 15 miles from CFB Gagetown and we have always appreciated the work of the RCR. I think the mission to Afghanistan increased the respect level and appreciation for the Canadian forces.

I'm not sure what role our tanks play since we don't have air transport capable of delivering them to theatre, I am not sure if even a Stryker will fit without modification.

The government has to stop putting off the defence review and decide what kind of force we are to have and how we will project it.

Thanks for your reply.

[MarauderMike 0]

I'm not sure what role our tanks play since we don't have air transport capable of delivering them to theatre, I am not sure if even a Stryker will fit without modification.

←

None are air-transportable... so that BS Myth is busted. Once we get the Joint Support Ship, however you are talking space and not weight. So you could take 4 MGS or 3 Tanks..... which would you pick.

Pro Patria Buddy.

Thanks for your support.