If I understand Arius correctly then he seems to also be saying that "training" comes out of the National Procurement budget, or at very least is factored into the Life Cycle costing.
If that is the case then I believe that the Army and I have a similar problem. I am dealing with putting together a new plant in an environment where labour is scarce and turnover is high. Also the conditions of service are not the greatest here for the guys on the floor so lets just say we don't get too many Medical School candidates applying. Traditionally we have been able to tailor processes based on having long-service employees that learned the ins and outs of very complicated processes and how to handle problems with very simple tools. Alternatively we could rely on one good supervisor to direct the activities of a handful of strong backs.
Now we don't have the strong backs and the supervisors are hard to come by. Fortunately electric motors can replace most of the strong backs and computers can do some of the supervision. But we can't eliminate people entirely. The best we can do is make systems that look after themselves, conduct self-diagnoses and let the guy on the button at 0300 know which part needs to be fed or changed. Whenever possible we try to make one post look like all the others so that people can be moved around easily. With simple Microsoft-type "Start" instructions then we can start getting useful work out of a newby fairly quickly. Otherwise we spend 6 months training somebody who immediately shops his resume around as a "trained operator". No 3 years of guaranteed service for us. We get what the market supplies with Militia terms of service.
Assuming that this is what the Army is facing as well, if slightly more predictable, I would think that one of the "advantages " of the CASW over the 60mm is that, as has been noted, the CASW is basically a Machine Gun firing a heavy round at superelevation. Thus anybody familiar with the drills and sights for the C7/C9/C6/M2 shouldn't have much trouble picking up the CASW. That sight system would be very similar, I believe, to the CLASS system developed by CDC which could be applied to any Direct Fire weapon, including the Carl Gustaf. One training course would take you from C7 to AGL with iron sights. Another would take you through the same weapons with the FCS.
Meanwhile I seem to recall long discussions both here and in Ducimus about whether normal range safety procedures were necessary for something as simple as the 60mm with the Company Infantry saying procedures necessary for 81s and 155s weren't appropriate for their personal arty. I am pretty sure that goes back to the issue of training and how much training and what kind of training and who to train - gunners or riflemen.
The CASW may not make a great mortar but I am guessing that it will successfully engage many of the targets that a mortar can. Meanwhile, in my opinion, it would seem that a better discussion would still be how to get 81s or 120s into the Battalion Support. Leave the OC and CSM responsible ONLY for the training, maintenance and deployment of DF weapons. Other weapons to be brought in by specialists according to situation and operational need.
Another unwanted 2 cents worth.
Cheers.
