Carl G's and GMS Air

Canada has used the Carl-G for decades, and the Canadian infantiers I've

talked to about it say it's a good piece of kit, but too heavy - even
the
lighter more modern versions.

** To an infanteer, any object is too heavy!

 My friend fired one during famil training at
an old tank, and the round bounced off the turret and set fire to some
grass on the range.

** Angle of attack can do that to just about any round.

 They then had to put the fire out and he was most
unimpressed - particularly since I think the tank he fired it at was an
old
Korean-war vintage Centurian, or something like that...  We also use the

US-made LAW, though for some reason I think that the Canadian
*disposable,
one use* LAWs are reloaded - maybe for practice purposes only, but
that's
what I was told...

** I've heard this rumor too. Since we reload "disposable" plastic C7
(M-16) mags, this doesn't really come as a shocker.

 What we don't have is a good GMS/P - and with the
introduction of the Javelin we're finally getting something that is
guided,
but smaller than the TOW...

** And we'll never be able to afford to train with so all the training
(mostly) will be of the "if you were to want to shoot this...." variety.
We don't even do enough training with LAWS, Grenades, and the Carl G
(IMO).

** I wrote some stuff up on GMS/Air based on some previous suggestions
including an Aircraft Action drill for infantry small arms. I'll check
it over then repost the URL.

** If Oerjan is tuned in, or anyone else who knows, I have RR figures
from old BT sets.... gunner and loader. It's like a thinned out Carl G.
I'm wondering what kind of effective ranges the new Carl G claims, and
what kind of penetrations relative to saw an M-72 66mm LAW. (Or even the
LAW-80). ?   I want to give these weapons some reasonable stats, and I'm
not sure if they are qualitatively better than an IAVR or if they should
basically be treated as a multi-shot IAVR. Maybe they should have their
RB multiplied by vehicle size class or something?

Tom.