OK, with all the to-do about fielding new arty, new rifles and new TA weapons, what about the main fire support of the infantry, the mortar? The USMC is going to need to start replacing the M252 81mm moortar really soon, as they are reaching the end of their service lives and getting truly maintainance intensive. The M224 60mm company mortar is not far behind.
So what are the possibilities? I know the US is looking at going to 81mm across the board with a lightweight 81mm short tube for the company level gun, but the real problem is the ammo weight IMO. Without vehicle support, you can't haul much 81mm ammo at the company level and still haul all the other stuff needed by a rifle company.
Buying more M252 is certainly an option, but is there anything better waiting in the wings? The French have a long range 81 that goes to 7800m, a 2km improvement over the M252, so why can't the US develop something similar or better? Given the increasingly larger battlespaces covered by a Bn, the increased range can be extremely useful for covering the operating area while decreasing time spent moving 81 sections around.
Given the eventual USMC fielding of a 120mm rifled mortar, is this increase in range needed? Is a smoothbore going to give adequate accuracy at 7800m in order to have adequate effects on target, assuming modern mortar computerized FCS? Do we need to field a motorized(HUMM-V, ATV's, M-gator's, etc) mortar platoon in order to ensure adequate mobility and ammo load to accomplish the mission? S/F...Ken M
Full Version: Future mortar systems
Motorized - Yes, if meeting an enemy with the most basic counterbattery capacity they would need to move away fast.
How about the Finnish-Swedish AMOS? http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume5/5-1-2.pdf
And where there not also an Austrian project some time ago with four 120mm mounted on a (soft skin) truck.
My 2
Cheers
Hans
[Edited by Hans Strelow (18 Dec 2003).]
How about the Finnish-Swedish AMOS? http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume5/5-1-2.pdf
And where there not also an Austrian project some time ago with four 120mm mounted on a (soft skin) truck.
My 2
Cheers
Hans
[Edited by Hans Strelow (18 Dec 2003).]
My observations as CO Cdr/BN staff for ASSLT and MTZ Bn
Except rare occasions (Ranger BN) BN mortars must have wheels (or tracked if you prefer) for transport. Most likely, given habits of US, this would be self propelled (as we have never figured out concept of bicycles or carts). If going to use HMMWV we should transition to 120mm to improve the effectiveness of accepting the penalty of adding additional vehicles to light units. The gross wt/cube of a HMMWV vs load (round capacity) is poor in any case and when hauls only a 81mm peashooter is really poor deal. In airasslt ops lift of a combat loaded HMMWV requires a CH47 which is better used for other purposes.
A 3 axle HMMWV would be a considerable improvement with vehicle mounted hydraulic spade rather than a baseplate for normal ops. Extra load space in a 3 axle HMMWV would allow deletion of secondary ammo transport HMMWV from Mortar Plt reducing plt manning req, fuel usage, and transport cube. For dismounted ops (HMMWV stays at PZ) a 120mm is a big big problem unless work out a cart system to haul the gun and ammo.
If going to stay with a smaller cal. tube we need longer range. If US develops ourselves we'll probably end up going thru 3 different iterations and maybe field something in 2031. Current system struggle along until then (as M60 project).
An 81mm still needs transport, a wheel cart would be an option, certainly improvement over humping the gun and ammo. Maybe good old Missouri Mules? Multi Gators (or similar tracked beast) is likely best option. Diesel, 6 wheel/tracked, off shelf with milspec adaption, 5 year lease then discard/replace. Again adapt vehicle to the job rather than screwing around with half assed "throw it in the truck" for 29 years. Tube is rear spade mounted, Ammo racks in bed. Second/Third Cargo Gator to haul ammo. Can sling these under a UH60.
Except rare occasions (Ranger BN) BN mortars must have wheels (or tracked if you prefer) for transport. Most likely, given habits of US, this would be self propelled (as we have never figured out concept of bicycles or carts). If going to use HMMWV we should transition to 120mm to improve the effectiveness of accepting the penalty of adding additional vehicles to light units. The gross wt/cube of a HMMWV vs load (round capacity) is poor in any case and when hauls only a 81mm peashooter is really poor deal. In airasslt ops lift of a combat loaded HMMWV requires a CH47 which is better used for other purposes.
A 3 axle HMMWV would be a considerable improvement with vehicle mounted hydraulic spade rather than a baseplate for normal ops. Extra load space in a 3 axle HMMWV would allow deletion of secondary ammo transport HMMWV from Mortar Plt reducing plt manning req, fuel usage, and transport cube. For dismounted ops (HMMWV stays at PZ) a 120mm is a big big problem unless work out a cart system to haul the gun and ammo.
If going to stay with a smaller cal. tube we need longer range. If US develops ourselves we'll probably end up going thru 3 different iterations and maybe field something in 2031. Current system struggle along until then (as M60 project).
An 81mm still needs transport, a wheel cart would be an option, certainly improvement over humping the gun and ammo. Maybe good old Missouri Mules? Multi Gators (or similar tracked beast) is likely best option. Diesel, 6 wheel/tracked, off shelf with milspec adaption, 5 year lease then discard/replace. Again adapt vehicle to the job rather than screwing around with half assed "throw it in the truck" for 29 years. Tube is rear spade mounted, Ammo racks in bed. Second/Third Cargo Gator to haul ammo. Can sling these under a UH60.
Patria-Häglunds has licence building deal with some US company and on some trials it met all requirements there was, others did not meet these requirements.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Hans Strelow:
How about the Finnish-Swedish AMOS? http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume5/5-1-2.pdf
<font size=1>[Edited by Hans Strelow (18 Dec 2003).]
How about the Finnish-Swedish AMOS? http://www.argospress.com/jbt/Volume5/5-1-2.pdf
<font size=1>[Edited by Hans Strelow (18 Dec 2003).]
This is probably a really dumb idea, but if Uncle Sam goes with an all 81mm system, we could do the following. Company level mortarers get the lightweight/short 81mm pack mortar with some sort of half-sized round, i.e. a half-sized propellant charge and a half-sized warhead. Battallion/brigade level guys get the fullsized 81 on whatever motorized chassis, and both the shorty round and the fullsized round. My rationale for the big boys still having the shorty rounds on hand comes from reading about our RVN experience, particularly at forward bases. If some future OPFOR tries the NVA's "hug the belt" tactic, then a squib round would allow the mortarers to continue thinning light infantry from one click out to maybe 100-200 meters from the wire. I am assuming that a mortar tube could fire more shorty rounds per minute sustained than the full rounds.
In this time where our forces are few but highly mobile and hi-tech, I keep thinking that we need to keep everybody in the fight when dealing with human wave tactics.
Plenty of downsides to this approach;
- doesn't solve the logistics issue
- potential for range accidents and blue-on-blues by using the wrong trajectory table
- numnuts will try the big round in the pack tube, beating the hardware to a pulp
- shorty round may not work in autoloaders
I'm sure y'all will trash it yet further.
In this time where our forces are few but highly mobile and hi-tech, I keep thinking that we need to keep everybody in the fight when dealing with human wave tactics.
Plenty of downsides to this approach;
- doesn't solve the logistics issue
- potential for range accidents and blue-on-blues by using the wrong trajectory table
- numnuts will try the big round in the pack tube, beating the hardware to a pulp
- shorty round may not work in autoloaders
I'm sure y'all will trash it yet further.
Since all mortars are essentially the same in operation--in US service, for example, they all use the same sight, regardless of caliber--maybe mortars should be issued according to the mission. US Army rangers follow this practice. On some missions they issue 120mm at the comapnay level, for others they may have only 60mm mortars throughout the battalion.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Tony Evans:
Since all mortars are essentially the same in operation--in US service, for example, they all use the same sight, regardless of caliber--maybe mortars should be issued according to the mission. US Army rangers follow this practice. On some missions they issue 120mm at the comapnay level, for others they may have only 60mm mortars throughout the battalion.
Since all mortars are essentially the same in operation--in US service, for example, they all use the same sight, regardless of caliber--maybe mortars should be issued according to the mission. US Army rangers follow this practice. On some missions they issue 120mm at the comapnay level, for others they may have only 60mm mortars throughout the battalion.
That seems like the best solution, but I can't imagine rank and file units having a full TO&E of all mortar types. Perhaps a seperate stock pile of extras could equip a unit here and there on an adhoc basis. Did the 101st adopt any new equipment in Astan or was it all organic?
Also, each round is pretty heavy so why not try an develop a more efficient round?
Especially for manpack mortars through the mountains and what have you.
I think since tech is getting more and more compact, it won't be too long before we have the capability to utilize simple laser guidance kits and lightweight designators for the 120 or even 81mm systems.
Especially for manpack mortars through the mountains and what have you.
I think since tech is getting more and more compact, it won't be too long before we have the capability to utilize simple laser guidance kits and lightweight designators for the 120 or even 81mm systems.
I know there are long range 81mm rounds, very aerodynamic in design. Has anyone built similar rounds for the 60mm?
Mortars are the great overlooked system. Most of the killing power in an Infantry battalion comes from the mortars, but we have few systems to train with them and so we tend to focus on our MILE-equipped direct-fire weapons.
The 120mm system is a world-standard and we ought to keep it in the tracked/wheeled application. Modern electronics will further decrease prep time and so shoot-on-the-move is almost doable.
The 60mm is our only real choice for the man/horse-pack application that never really seems to go away.
I would like to see some sort of laser-designation round for the Big Boy to be used as a bunker-buster. I still lament the loss of our 165mm demo gun. Along the same path, an American "Merlin" round of anti-armor warhead would be way cool.
The 120mm system is a world-standard and we ought to keep it in the tracked/wheeled application. Modern electronics will further decrease prep time and so shoot-on-the-move is almost doable.
The 60mm is our only real choice for the man/horse-pack application that never really seems to go away.
I would like to see some sort of laser-designation round for the Big Boy to be used as a bunker-buster. I still lament the loss of our 165mm demo gun. Along the same path, an American "Merlin" round of anti-armor warhead would be way cool.
I must declare that I an am engineer not a Soldier. However as I understood the basic concept of a mortar was that it was to be a device for delivering a lot of HE at minimum cost and weight.
To get this you need a low muzzle velocity, this needs little charge and a relatively light case. The problem here is that low muzzle velocity tends to mean low accuracy. We the punters are told this is rule of thumb 1% of range.
If you increase the range of a mortar and improve its accuracy these both imply a heavier charge, i.e. less bang per lb. So in suggesting a new mortar are you really suggesting that what is wanted is a gun, where range and accuracy gains are acceptable at the cost of warhead yield.
To get this you need a low muzzle velocity, this needs little charge and a relatively light case. The problem here is that low muzzle velocity tends to mean low accuracy. We the punters are told this is rule of thumb 1% of range.
If you increase the range of a mortar and improve its accuracy these both imply a heavier charge, i.e. less bang per lb. So in suggesting a new mortar are you really suggesting that what is wanted is a gun, where range and accuracy gains are acceptable at the cost of warhead yield.
Take a peek at this http://www.haggve.se/Mpeg/AMOS.mpg (normally I tend to see that turret on either a CV90 or the new 8 wheeler from the Finns, this is a little ...odd)
and this mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_wis_l.wmv or rtsp://qstream-34.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_res_l.rm (sadly not firing from an AMOS)
and this mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_wis_l.wmv or rtsp://qstream-34.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_res_l.rm (sadly not firing from an AMOS)
It sounds like the biggest problem is logistics (carrying enough ammo) rather than the actual weapon system. I'm surprised that there have not been more "quad" type vehicles used for these purposes, there have been a few (Mule, Gamma goat?) but it seems like a quad and trailer combo would offer a lot of load carrying without all the logistics or air portability problems of using full size vehicles like the Humvee or larger. In the past 5 years I've seen a big increase in the use of quads in wildland firefighting but except for a few almost comical pictures (Isreali FAV) I haven't seen any military use.
Looks like they need a bigger platform for firing to the side.
I wonder whether it would fit on the AAAV.
It might be useful for a module for the Lirtoral combat ships.
I wonder whether it would fit on the AAAV.
It might be useful for a module for the Lirtoral combat ships.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Hans Engström:
Take a peek at this http://www.haggve.se/Mpeg/AMOS.mpg (normally I tend to see that turret on either a CV90 or the new 8 wheeler from the Finns, this is a little ...odd)
and this mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_wis_l.wmv or rtsp://qstream-34.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_res_l.rm (sadly not firing from an AMOS)
Take a peek at this http://www.haggve.se/Mpeg/AMOS.mpg (normally I tend to see that turret on either a CV90 or the new 8 wheeler from the Finns, this is a little ...odd)
and this mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_wis_l.wmv or rtsp://qstream-34.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_res_l.rm (sadly not firing from an AMOS)
IIRC we use john deere gators for airborne ops or mountain ops, I didn't look into it. I think that's an issue of "We need something, It's cheap and it's there...." rather than the gators being an ideal vehicle.
Sparky or Meyers or someone along those lines rants about their usefulness here http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/paragator.htm
The mantinence folks use them around campus- they look like they have alarmingly low ground clearance. Enough so to be an issue in any real terrain. And I doubt they're amphibious (if that matters). Here's a rear view to see what I mean: http://www.loughries.demon.co.uk/Patrick/trolley.jpg
As an interm vehicle it's useful I guess, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be developing something better.
A simple cart would be helpful, but if we're talking motorized, I like the Mule http://www.drivebuv.org/images/M274A2.gif
With portal axles it's got superior ground clearance, and looks nice and simple/cheap. But I'm not old enough to remember whether or not the soldiers liked it or not. There are also those civilian 6 x 6 ATV's with amphibious capabilities that might be nice throwaways in airborne/mountain situations.
[Edited by Burncycle360 (20 Dec 2003).]
Sparky or Meyers or someone along those lines rants about their usefulness here http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/5265/paragator.htm
The mantinence folks use them around campus- they look like they have alarmingly low ground clearance. Enough so to be an issue in any real terrain. And I doubt they're amphibious (if that matters). Here's a rear view to see what I mean: http://www.loughries.demon.co.uk/Patrick/trolley.jpg
As an interm vehicle it's useful I guess, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be developing something better.
A simple cart would be helpful, but if we're talking motorized, I like the Mule http://www.drivebuv.org/images/M274A2.gif
With portal axles it's got superior ground clearance, and looks nice and simple/cheap. But I'm not old enough to remember whether or not the soldiers liked it or not. There are also those civilian 6 x 6 ATV's with amphibious capabilities that might be nice throwaways in airborne/mountain situations.
[Edited by Burncycle360 (20 Dec 2003).]
A little off-topic, but a good friend's parents built a new house in Oregon a few years back. Well wouldn't you know it, they have a Gator to tool around the property. Long story short, when you mix a bunch of old college friends, some suds, the Fourth of July holiday, and a Gator you get a whole lot of fun - and some interesting scars.
Gators don't have the highest ground clearance but we made it go places I wouldn't have thought possible (were I of clearer mind). It also helps that it's light enough that one man can scoot it around, and two can easily lift it enough to clear about any obstacle. The two rear axles have a locking mechanism when the going gets rough (or when you really want to fishtail), and the bed tilts and is pretty sturdy.
It was a lot of fun, but for military purposes maybe a modernized kettenkrad is in order. Then again, it seems the Army doesn't like things with tracks much anymore...
mfw
Gators don't have the highest ground clearance but we made it go places I wouldn't have thought possible (were I of clearer mind). It also helps that it's light enough that one man can scoot it around, and two can easily lift it enough to clear about any obstacle. The two rear axles have a locking mechanism when the going gets rough (or when you really want to fishtail), and the bed tilts and is pretty sturdy.
It was a lot of fun, but for military purposes maybe a modernized kettenkrad is in order. Then again, it seems the Army doesn't like things with tracks much anymore...
mfw
The arms room concept for mortars might be do-able on a limited scale, at least at Co and Bn level, if not at Rgt. I could see 60's and a 81 at the company level, with 81's and 120's at Bn level. The key problem is logistics, how do you move the tubes and the ammo? Manportable 60's are easy, manportable light 81's are managable with effort, the heavy LR 81's are getting to be a rightous PITA, and smoothbore 120's are out of the question for anything other than short moves. Rifled 120's are artillery for all practical purposes.
I'm torn on the various 60mm mortars. They have light weight commando mortars, which are great for patrolling, the medium 60's which are adequate for most roles, and now you have long range 60's, which go out to 6km, which fill most of the 81 role, with half the ammo weight. The US M224 does a good job filling both the light patrol mortar and the company level mortar role, but I don't see a useful purpose having these at the Bn level, they just don't have the range to cover the area assigned to a Bn these days.
The Bn would really benefit from the introduction of a LR 81mm mortar. Extending the range from 5700m to at least 7500m, preferably 8000m would be nice to ensure coverage of the Bn AO. For LAV-M's and other mechanised units, 120's at the Bn level make more sense since ammo carriage isn't such a huge problem.
For Rgt level fires, the rifled 120 makes the most sense, since it's really replacing the 105mm howitzer. You're trading some range for on target effectivensss, but given that counterbattery is tasked to MLRS and 155's, the slight range advantage is outweighed by the greater effct of 120 mortar rds. I don't think the USMC needs to go as high tech as it is with the EFSS, but the idea is good. S/F...Ken M
I'm torn on the various 60mm mortars. They have light weight commando mortars, which are great for patrolling, the medium 60's which are adequate for most roles, and now you have long range 60's, which go out to 6km, which fill most of the 81 role, with half the ammo weight. The US M224 does a good job filling both the light patrol mortar and the company level mortar role, but I don't see a useful purpose having these at the Bn level, they just don't have the range to cover the area assigned to a Bn these days.
The Bn would really benefit from the introduction of a LR 81mm mortar. Extending the range from 5700m to at least 7500m, preferably 8000m would be nice to ensure coverage of the Bn AO. For LAV-M's and other mechanised units, 120's at the Bn level make more sense since ammo carriage isn't such a huge problem.
For Rgt level fires, the rifled 120 makes the most sense, since it's really replacing the 105mm howitzer. You're trading some range for on target effectivensss, but given that counterbattery is tasked to MLRS and 155's, the slight range advantage is outweighed by the greater effct of 120 mortar rds. I don't think the USMC needs to go as high tech as it is with the EFSS, but the idea is good. S/F...Ken M
What do infantry fireteam/platoon leaders need to leverage the mortars? These days I would guess the cool thing would be a one piece monocular/binocular with laser, compass, and GPS, so you essentially get a "point n shoot" method for sending grid coords to the mortar team. Maybe have detachable NVG. It would cost a fortune, but in improvement in hit prob and reduction in blue-on-blue accidents, wouldn't such devices be worth it?
There's an anecdote from a Cobra pilot in Air & Space mag where he essentially did the above; visually ID an AAA site, lased it, transmitted the grid coords to arty, and watched things go blooey. It sounded like most of the calcs and comms were automatic.
I'm not always a fan of the "Win With Networking" mindset but it does seem to me that as you get closer to the sharp end of the spear the less time you have to do calculations, read tables, and verbally transfer data. I know I'd much rather look at the desired impact point, press a button, confirm verbally, then watch the rounds impact.
There's an anecdote from a Cobra pilot in Air & Space mag where he essentially did the above; visually ID an AAA site, lased it, transmitted the grid coords to arty, and watched things go blooey. It sounded like most of the calcs and comms were automatic.
I'm not always a fan of the "Win With Networking" mindset but it does seem to me that as you get closer to the sharp end of the spear the less time you have to do calculations, read tables, and verbally transfer data. I know I'd much rather look at the desired impact point, press a button, confirm verbally, then watch the rounds impact.
We use the 120s as battalion level artillery (armour used to use the Bofors 105, sadly gone, unbeaten ROF on that gun, should have mounted it on the Gvozdikas we bought).
We have 6 tubesbattalion which wil be replaced by 4 AMOS vehicles. Some ranger style units still use the 81mm as a company level asset (the guy with the baseplate is an unhappy man most of the time).
I see no reason to use the 81 unless manpacking is a requirement. As for the 60mm and even 47mm I never thought much of them. The Carl Gustav can do the same job with a more powerful shell anyway. The under barel grenade launcher is a nice complement though.
We have 6 tubesbattalion which wil be replaced by 4 AMOS vehicles. Some ranger style units still use the 81mm as a company level asset (the guy with the baseplate is an unhappy man most of the time).
I see no reason to use the 81 unless manpacking is a requirement. As for the 60mm and even 47mm I never thought much of them. The Carl Gustav can do the same job with a more powerful shell anyway. The under barel grenade launcher is a nice complement though.
I like the idea of the efss as either a towed or mounded system, but if they bought AMOS on vehicles...
I would think something like a Wiesel with an 81mm mortar as a fire support asset would be useful. I wonder whether an autoloaded 81mm mortar would be cost/hassle effective?
Sounds like the RUAG 60mm mortar round is pretty useful. HOw hard would it be to put a proximity fuse or modify the fusing from the OICW/ahead/etc to use on mortars?
Just ruminating.
I would think something like a Wiesel with an 81mm mortar as a fire support asset would be useful. I wonder whether an autoloaded 81mm mortar would be cost/hassle effective?
Sounds like the RUAG 60mm mortar round is pretty useful. HOw hard would it be to put a proximity fuse or modify the fusing from the OICW/ahead/etc to use on mortars?
Just ruminating.
QUOTE
Originally posted by EchoFiveMike:
The arms room concept for mortars might be do-able on a limited scale, at least at Co and Bn level, if not at Rgt. I could see 60's and a 81 at the company level, with 81's and 120's at Bn level. The key problem is logistics, how do you move the tubes and the ammo? Manportable 60's are easy, manportable light 81's are managable with effort, the heavy LR 81's are getting to be a rightous PITA, and smoothbore 120's are out of the question for anything other than short moves. Rifled 120's are artillery for all practical purposes.
I'm torn on the various 60mm mortars. They have light weight commando mortars, which are great for patrolling, the medium 60's which are adequate for most roles, and now you have long range 60's, which go out to 6km, which fill most of the 81 role, with half the ammo weight. The US M224 does a good job filling both the light patrol mortar and the company level mortar role, but I don't see a useful purpose having these at the Bn level, they just don't have the range to cover the area assigned to a Bn these days.
The Bn would really benefit from the introduction of a LR 81mm mortar. Extending the range from 5700m to at least 7500m, preferably 8000m would be nice to ensure coverage of the Bn AO. For LAV-M's and other mechanised units, 120's at the Bn level make more sense since ammo carriage isn't such a huge problem.
For Rgt level fires, the rifled 120 makes the most sense, since it's really replacing the 105mm howitzer. You're trading some range for on target effectivensss, but given that counterbattery is tasked to MLRS and 155's, the slight range advantage is outweighed by the greater effct of 120 mortar rds. I don't think the USMC needs to go as high tech as it is with the EFSS, but the idea is good. S/F...Ken M
The arms room concept for mortars might be do-able on a limited scale, at least at Co and Bn level, if not at Rgt. I could see 60's and a 81 at the company level, with 81's and 120's at Bn level. The key problem is logistics, how do you move the tubes and the ammo? Manportable 60's are easy, manportable light 81's are managable with effort, the heavy LR 81's are getting to be a rightous PITA, and smoothbore 120's are out of the question for anything other than short moves. Rifled 120's are artillery for all practical purposes.
I'm torn on the various 60mm mortars. They have light weight commando mortars, which are great for patrolling, the medium 60's which are adequate for most roles, and now you have long range 60's, which go out to 6km, which fill most of the 81 role, with half the ammo weight. The US M224 does a good job filling both the light patrol mortar and the company level mortar role, but I don't see a useful purpose having these at the Bn level, they just don't have the range to cover the area assigned to a Bn these days.
The Bn would really benefit from the introduction of a LR 81mm mortar. Extending the range from 5700m to at least 7500m, preferably 8000m would be nice to ensure coverage of the Bn AO. For LAV-M's and other mechanised units, 120's at the Bn level make more sense since ammo carriage isn't such a huge problem.
For Rgt level fires, the rifled 120 makes the most sense, since it's really replacing the 105mm howitzer. You're trading some range for on target effectivensss, but given that counterbattery is tasked to MLRS and 155's, the slight range advantage is outweighed by the greater effct of 120 mortar rds. I don't think the USMC needs to go as high tech as it is with the EFSS, but the idea is good. S/F...Ken M
Well, in one of my grand-dad's books from WWII, there's a picture of Belgian Infantry on the march, complete with wheel-mounted HMG's and ammo carts drawn by Alsatian hounds... 
At least the US army is currently considering two 120 mm mortar systems (as FCS mortar system). The British AMS (single barrel) and Swedish/Finnish AMOS (two barrels) are the shortlisted ones. I think the decision should be made quite soon, but don't remember when. AMOS is more advanced, more powerful, heavier and probably more expensive. Finland has just bought 24 AMOS systems on Patria AMV wheeled vehicle for about 100 Me. They are used for battallion level fire support. AMS is lighter, with lesser fire-power and simpler system which should also be cheaper. I think AMOS would be the superior system, as it still is light enough for the FCS requirements, but with much harder punch than the AMS.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Hans Engström:
Take a peek at this http://www.haggve.se/Mpeg/AMOS.mpg (normally I tend to see that turret on either a CV90 or the new 8 wheeler from the Finns, this is a little ...odd)
and this mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_wis_l.wmv or rtsp://qstream-34.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_res_l.rm (sadly not firing from an AMOS)
Take a peek at this http://www.haggve.se/Mpeg/AMOS.mpg (normally I tend to see that turret on either a CV90 or the new 8 wheeler from the Finns, this is a little ...odd)
and this mms://qstream-31.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_wis_l.wmv or rtsp://qstream-34.qbrick.com/01580/01580_1344_3_res_l.rm (sadly not firing from an AMOS)
Interesting fire support concept. A turret from a 551 was mounted on one of the hydro-foils in Vietnam. I agree it might need a bigger platform but the turret looks STABed anyway.
Note: even 81mm round is bit inefective during winter months if rounds are contact fused.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Hans Engström:
I see no reason to use the 81 unless manpacking is a requirement. As for the 60mm and even 47mm I never thought much of them. The Carl Gustav can do the same job with a more powerful shell anyway. The under barel grenade launcher is a nice complement though.
I see no reason to use the 81 unless manpacking is a requirement. As for the 60mm and even 47mm I never thought much of them. The Carl Gustav can do the same job with a more powerful shell anyway. The under barel grenade launcher is a nice complement though.
QUOTE
Originally posted by Sami Jumppanen:
Note: even 81mm round is bit inefective during winter months if rounds are contact fused.
Note: even 81mm round is bit inefective during winter months if rounds are contact fused.
Why?
Contact fuze will detonate the shell under the snow, dampening the blast.
I've seen mortar design concepts for a chrome liner/carbon fibre wrap barrel with titanium base plate and aluminium tube bipod that is 25-30% lighter than your average 81mm.
ADI produces 81mm rounds (full range of loads) that will reach 7.6kms from a standard 81mm, and DSTO (who designed them) says they can do the same with 120mm with no problem, probably pushing them out to 13.5-14kms.
As for transport, something like the 6x6 ATV the Brits use for an ULW 120mm mounted on the back with a spade, 2 crew, a trailer, and another for 2 more crew, ammo, w/trailer.
Use quad bikes for the 81mm, some of them happily tow 250kg capacity trailers.
ADI produces 81mm rounds (full range of loads) that will reach 7.6kms from a standard 81mm, and DSTO (who designed them) says they can do the same with 120mm with no problem, probably pushing them out to 13.5-14kms.
As for transport, something like the 6x6 ATV the Brits use for an ULW 120mm mounted on the back with a spade, 2 crew, a trailer, and another for 2 more crew, ammo, w/trailer.
Use quad bikes for the 81mm, some of them happily tow 250kg capacity trailers.
BTT to prevent pruning.
I'm now even further convinced of the need for 120mm mortars at the Bn level. A 105mm cannon would be nice, but IMO these should be reinforcing attachments from the Div level, allocated at three battery per Rgt. No, that's not too much artillery. S/F..Ken M
sounds like a plan. I saw a blurb in Janes e-mail news brief about a new version of a 120 mortar on a modified Hmmvw???
Must be like the one on the Wiesel2, it must deploy to the ground to fire. If they can't fire the 120mm mortar out of the LAV3...
I still would like to see what Lahat can do from a mortar or gun mortar.
The Precision guided Mortar munition seems to be going very slow, probably very expensive, and pretty limited in capability.
Does the COurse corrected 155 use basically a guided/guiding nose fuse? Could that be adapted to 120 mm mortar?
Must be like the one on the Wiesel2, it must deploy to the ground to fire. If they can't fire the 120mm mortar out of the LAV3...
I still would like to see what Lahat can do from a mortar or gun mortar.
The Precision guided Mortar munition seems to be going very slow, probably very expensive, and pretty limited in capability.
Does the COurse corrected 155 use basically a guided/guiding nose fuse? Could that be adapted to 120 mm mortar?
QUOTE
Originally posted by EchoFiveMike:
I'm now even further convinced of the need for 120mm mortars at the Bn level. A 105mm cannon would be nice, but IMO these should be reinforcing attachments from the Div level, allocated at three battery per Rgt. No, that's not too much artillery. S/F..Ken M
I'm now even further convinced of the need for 120mm mortars at the Bn level. A 105mm cannon would be nice, but IMO these should be reinforcing attachments from the Div level, allocated at three battery per Rgt. No, that's not too much artillery. S/F..Ken M
If you want passive laser lock-on-after-launch for your mortar, then think about APKWS - it's less than 10,000US-$ apiece (full 70mm guided Hydra missile), and as the guy said to me on Farnborough 2004, they're already trying to integrate it into mortar bombs. Since mortar bombs are usually not spinning, you can use much simpler steering than with 155mm howitzer projectiles. And the US has a tendency to get more expensive gear than APKWS - or none at all, the German 120mm Bussard (PGMM) projectile is a running offer since about 15 years or so, ready fro production and often modified for the USArmy...
QUOTE
Originally posted by gewing:
sounds like a plan. I saw a blurb in Janes e-mail news brief about a new version of a 120 mortar on a modified Hmmvw???
Must be like the one on the Wiesel2, it must deploy to the ground to fire. If they can't fire the 120mm mortar out of the LAV3...
I still would like to see what Lahat can do from a mortar or gun mortar.
The Precision guided Mortar munition seems to be going very slow, probably very expensive, and pretty limited in capability.
Does the COurse corrected 155 use basically a guided/guiding nose fuse? Could that be adapted to 120 mm mortar?
sounds like a plan. I saw a blurb in Janes e-mail news brief about a new version of a 120 mortar on a modified Hmmvw???
Must be like the one on the Wiesel2, it must deploy to the ground to fire. If they can't fire the 120mm mortar out of the LAV3...
I still would like to see what Lahat can do from a mortar or gun mortar.
The Precision guided Mortar munition seems to be going very slow, probably very expensive, and pretty limited in capability.
Does the COurse corrected 155 use basically a guided/guiding nose fuse? Could that be adapted to 120 mm mortar?
I personally think that modifying apkws to give an infantry launched guided missile with the 10 lb warhead of the 70mm rockets would be potentially usefull.
OTOH, I wouldn't mind seeing a pod of apkws on some of our armored vehicles for greater firepower. Particularly if it could be adapted to the new higher thrust motors (Crv-7, also the new one the US is working on) and the various flechette warheads, and the APHE or HEDP warheads. The anti armor flechette with 5 penetrators at the higher velocities would be pretty effective if you could guide it to near the target.
Another idea...
What about adapting the "Air burst munition" or "AHEAD" fusing to the 70mm rockets?
OTOH, I wouldn't mind seeing a pod of apkws on some of our armored vehicles for greater firepower. Particularly if it could be adapted to the new higher thrust motors (Crv-7, also the new one the US is working on) and the various flechette warheads, and the APHE or HEDP warheads. The anti armor flechette with 5 penetrators at the higher velocities would be pretty effective if you could guide it to near the target.
Another idea...
What about adapting the "Air burst munition" or "AHEAD" fusing to the 70mm rockets?
QUOTE
Originally posted by lastdingo:
If you want passive laser lock-on-after-launch for your mortar, then think about APKWS - it's less than 10,000US-$ apiece (full 70mm guided Hydra missile), and as the guy said to me on Farnborough 2004, they're already trying to integrate it into mortar bombs. Since mortar bombs are usually not spinning, you can use much simpler steering than with 155mm howitzer projectiles. And the US has a tendency to get more expensive gear than APKWS - or none at all, the German 120mm Bussard (PGMM) projectile is a running offer since about 15 years or so, ready fro production and often modified for the USArmy...
If you want passive laser lock-on-after-launch for your mortar, then think about APKWS - it's less than 10,000US-$ apiece (full 70mm guided Hydra missile), and as the guy said to me on Farnborough 2004, they're already trying to integrate it into mortar bombs. Since mortar bombs are usually not spinning, you can use much simpler steering than with 155mm howitzer projectiles. And the US has a tendency to get more expensive gear than APKWS - or none at all, the German 120mm Bussard (PGMM) projectile is a running offer since about 15 years or so, ready fro production and often modified for the USArmy...
QUOTE
Originally posted by gewing:
Another idea...
What about adapting the "Air burst munition" or "AHEAD" fusing to the 70mm rockets?
Another idea...
What about adapting the "Air burst munition" or "AHEAD" fusing to the 70mm rockets?
Instead of Ahead, I'd look into range-preset flechette cannister ammo.
All this expensive terminal guidence shit costs too much $ for targets that might not even be there anymore once the targets are passed off to you from higher. Rifled mortars, and arty are plenty accurate enough for the ranges currently employed over, extended range 155mm might be a possible exception and there's Excaliber for that. You want lots of ammo in the ASP, trust me on this!
I'd love 120mm rifled at Bn level-4 gun section 13km range
I'd like 81mm smoothbore at Coy level-3 gun section 7km range
I'd like 60mm smoothbore at plt level-2 gun section 4km range
This is not too heavy and it's not too much gun for the unit, not for this war, and foreseeable wars to come. This way, if the Div decides to reinforce with arty, great, if not, you get by just fine without. We USED to have this with 4.2" mortars, a gap which was left with their retirement without replacement. S/F...Ken M
I'd love 120mm rifled at Bn level-4 gun section 13km range
I'd like 81mm smoothbore at Coy level-3 gun section 7km range
I'd like 60mm smoothbore at plt level-2 gun section 4km range
This is not too heavy and it's not too much gun for the unit, not for this war, and foreseeable wars to come. This way, if the Div decides to reinforce with arty, great, if not, you get by just fine without. We USED to have this with 4.2" mortars, a gap which was left with their retirement without replacement. S/F...Ken M
QUOTE
Originally posted by EchoFiveMike:
I'd love 120mm rifled at Bn level-4 gun section 13km range
I'd like 81mm smoothbore at Coy level-3 gun section 7km range
I'd like 60mm smoothbore at plt level-2 gun section 4km range
I'd love 120mm rifled at Bn level-4 gun section 13km range
I'd like 81mm smoothbore at Coy level-3 gun section 7km range
I'd like 60mm smoothbore at plt level-2 gun section 4km range
How about 2 mortars/platoon at Coy level, so if neccessary all mortars coud be pointed to same target and all mortars coud use same ammo? Or is there some reason why platoon must have their own mortars?
QUOTE
Originally posted by EchoFiveMike:
I'd love 120mm rifled at Bn level-4 gun section 13km range
I'd like 81mm smoothbore at Coy level-3 gun section 7km range
I'd like 60mm smoothbore at plt level-2 gun section 4km range
I'd love 120mm rifled at Bn level-4 gun section 13km range
I'd like 81mm smoothbore at Coy level-3 gun section 7km range
I'd like 60mm smoothbore at plt level-2 gun section 4km range
Do platoons need to engage all the way out to 4 km and companies at 7 km? It would surprise me if that were the case. If not, perhaps a lighter, low pressure system would be more useful?
The standard of 3 x 60mm per company has been around for over 60 years -- I don't see any real changes in infantry combat at that level to require a diversion from this policy. I think the valid argument is between 81mm and 120mm mortars at battalion level. I can see an argument for both sides, revolving mostly around the maneuver and engagement flexibility of more small systems (I personally think the USMC should go to 12 x 81mm at the battalion level) vs. the extended range of larger systems.
QUOTE
Do platoons need to engage all the way out to 4 km and companies at 7 km? It would surprise me if that were the case. If not, perhaps a lighter, low pressure system would be more useful?
Yes and YES. Given the size of AO's we're working and can expect to be working for the future(they ain't going to get smaller boys and girls) you need more range to cover patrols. As it is, we have squad sized patrols going out beyond the Bn mortar coverage, without arty, you'd be SOL. QUOTE
The standard of 3 x 60mm per company has been around for over 60 years -- I don't see any real changes in infantry combat at that level to require a diversion from this policy.
Fair enough, the 60mms don't do much more than provide suppression and ILLUM anyways. A long tube 60mm mortar like the SA use would be very nice however. As for changes, you'd better believe it. We now have the comm gear to have platoons as independant maneuver elements, working within a comapny AO that should properly belong to a Bn. Ever have 60mm's shooting radar directed CM missions before?
QUOTE
I think the valid argument is between 81mm and 120mm mortars at battalion level. I can see an argument for both sides, revolving mostly around the maneuver and engagement flexibility of more small systems (I personally think the USMC should go to 12 x 81mm at the battalion level) vs. the extended range of larger systems.
Manpower will utterly crush any plan for 12 81's. 0341's are going out as 11's, so if you did have 12 81 tubes laying about, 8 would be sitting idle for want of crews. And as always, 4 big shells landing on target are better than 4 or 6 little ones(as you'd likely have to do IOT provide area coverage) Manuever is great and all but trying to hip shoot your mortars against this enemy and their maneuverability is a waste of time. So you're going to use your mortars in a fixed patrol base and then you need range for coverage of your AO. S/F...Ken M
Not to sound stupid, but i have a few questions about the current TO regarding mortars withing the USMC.I was an 0351 from 83-87,as part of the battallion Heavy Weapons Company, and at the time the mortars were in a platoon as part of our HW company, with 4 secions of 4 81MM apeice, for a total of 16 tubes.
They were not attached at company level in my unit. Also, the 60 MM was introduced into the unit after I joined, was a new weapon, so i am curious about the comment that they have been attached to the rifle companies for the last 60 years. ( i am of the opinion that 30 years ago there were NO 60 mm mortars in service).I could be wrong, if so, could someone please enlighten me, and what is the current TO for the mortars attached at battallion level and below, and what is the anticipated TO for the 120s that are mentioned, when are they supposed to enter service, and what are they replacing, if anything?( are they augmenting, or replacing?)Any info would be appreciated.
They were not attached at company level in my unit. Also, the 60 MM was introduced into the unit after I joined, was a new weapon, so i am curious about the comment that they have been attached to the rifle companies for the last 60 years. ( i am of the opinion that 30 years ago there were NO 60 mm mortars in service).I could be wrong, if so, could someone please enlighten me, and what is the current TO for the mortars attached at battallion level and below, and what is the anticipated TO for the 120s that are mentioned, when are they supposed to enter service, and what are they replacing, if anything?( are they augmenting, or replacing?)Any info would be appreciated.
Marine infantry Battalion 81's platoon, 8 tubes of M252 mortars.
Marine infantry Company 60mm squad, 3 tubes of M224 mortars.
Potentially EFSS will be a 120mm mortar system assigned to the DS artillery battalion that supports that specific regiment, they will deploy as part of either a composite or pure battery in the BLT when a BLT is formed for a MEU. For all other operations the XM777 will be the DS weapon from the DS Battalion.
[Edited by Steel Rain (14 Nov 2004).]
Marine infantry Company 60mm squad, 3 tubes of M224 mortars.
Potentially EFSS will be a 120mm mortar system assigned to the DS artillery battalion that supports that specific regiment, they will deploy as part of either a composite or pure battery in the BLT when a BLT is formed for a MEU. For all other operations the XM777 will be the DS weapon from the DS Battalion.
[Edited by Steel Rain (14 Nov 2004).]
Well, you have 8 81's at Bn, but normally one or two are down so you run two three gun sections. Here we're running three two gun sections, so we have extra guys tied up manning mortar FDC's, but we need to do this because the company 60's can't cover the companies assigned zones. M252 81mm ranges to 5800m with a decent HE shell.
You have 3 60mm M224 mortars per coy, which can go out on patrol with the light baseplate, but IMO, you're better off leaving them in a patrol bases with the tripods and take an extra M203 or two if possible. M224 goes 3500m with an adequate HE shell.
The 120mm mortars are TBD at this point, there used to be 4.2 mortars assigned to the Bn, but I don't know what the T/E was. Probably four tubes per Bn. They went away in the 80's IIRC, and were not replaced with anything. The 120mm's will be a new thing, kinda like the old thing but nobody really knows. IMO, you need this at the Bn level, rather than an attachment from Rgt. Yes, that means an expansion of the Bn, but WGAS? the Bn level and lower is where the fighting is at. Rgt's and higher provide support, they are logistical agencies.
120mm mortars are being considered for the EFSS system, the so called Dragonfire system which I think the USMC is making far too complex for it's own good. It is supposed to be a towed type system with auto lay and auto load which can also be mounted in the back of an LAV. IME this means it will suck ass in both roles. The bugboo of being down a gun when you're down a vehicle is jackassery of the highest order. How about maintaining the damned vehicles and having enough parts on hand rather than accepting that you get by with marginal shit? Procure two systems with high commonality of parts instead of BS like this. The 120mm mortar under consideration goes 8200m with standard HE and 13km with RAP. It'll just about cover what our Bn AO is, with some gaps at the edges and Bn HQ in a central location. S/F...Ken M
You have 3 60mm M224 mortars per coy, which can go out on patrol with the light baseplate, but IMO, you're better off leaving them in a patrol bases with the tripods and take an extra M203 or two if possible. M224 goes 3500m with an adequate HE shell.
The 120mm mortars are TBD at this point, there used to be 4.2 mortars assigned to the Bn, but I don't know what the T/E was. Probably four tubes per Bn. They went away in the 80's IIRC, and were not replaced with anything. The 120mm's will be a new thing, kinda like the old thing but nobody really knows. IMO, you need this at the Bn level, rather than an attachment from Rgt. Yes, that means an expansion of the Bn, but WGAS? the Bn level and lower is where the fighting is at. Rgt's and higher provide support, they are logistical agencies.
120mm mortars are being considered for the EFSS system, the so called Dragonfire system which I think the USMC is making far too complex for it's own good. It is supposed to be a towed type system with auto lay and auto load which can also be mounted in the back of an LAV. IME this means it will suck ass in both roles. The bugboo of being down a gun when you're down a vehicle is jackassery of the highest order. How about maintaining the damned vehicles and having enough parts on hand rather than accepting that you get by with marginal shit? Procure two systems with high commonality of parts instead of BS like this. The 120mm mortar under consideration goes 8200m with standard HE and 13km with RAP. It'll just about cover what our Bn AO is, with some gaps at the edges and Bn HQ in a central location. S/F...Ken M
Ken,
We were patrolling outside of battalion 81mm range in the 80's. Nothing new there. There's no such thing as perfect supporting arms coverage. Trying for it will either limit tactical options or cause complicated, impractical systems to be fielded -- which would amount to the same thing. That's why I favor 12 x 81mm for the battalion, even if it requires more mortar manpower. Doctrinal and operational flexibility is almost always more useful than sheer power and range, when it comes to fire support assets.
We were patrolling outside of battalion 81mm range in the 80's. Nothing new there. There's no such thing as perfect supporting arms coverage. Trying for it will either limit tactical options or cause complicated, impractical systems to be fielded -- which would amount to the same thing. That's why I favor 12 x 81mm for the battalion, even if it requires more mortar manpower. Doctrinal and operational flexibility is almost always more useful than sheer power and range, when it comes to fire support assets.
Ken...most of the spiffy 120mms out there are vehicular, if nothing else because they are just so complex as to make them rather poorly suited to being towed around. they are all automatically laid, withich needs power and have top be wired up to the FCS and comms. The only way you're gonna get the sort of power supply for extnded periods is with a genset.
120mm bombs are also much larger than 81mm....which makes getting the tubes into and out of action much slower if you have to prep the ammo both ways.
The Army uses a simpler Soltam 120mm smoothbore and they have a baseplate which they can dismount the mortar to. 2R2M uses a load assist so really, dismounted use is out the question.....
Why not cascade some of the 81mms down to Co. when you are on static duty? You have some a not too dissimilar no. of maortarmen running much less capable tubes....
If you're static, it doesn't really matter since the tube won't move.....and if you have to...you can actually keep the 60mm stowed up on the humvee for a rapid displace...no take daown!
120mm bombs are also much larger than 81mm....which makes getting the tubes into and out of action much slower if you have to prep the ammo both ways.
The Army uses a simpler Soltam 120mm smoothbore and they have a baseplate which they can dismount the mortar to. 2R2M uses a load assist so really, dismounted use is out the question.....
Why not cascade some of the 81mms down to Co. when you are on static duty? You have some a not too dissimilar no. of maortarmen running much less capable tubes....
If you're static, it doesn't really matter since the tube won't move.....and if you have to...you can actually keep the 60mm stowed up on the humvee for a rapid displace...no take daown!
Just came off the mortar range 20 min ago. We were shooting our 81mm inbores (in 120's) to mark targets for AGOS students from Nellis.
The US 81MM is a good system. I can't see many places for it to go from a technological standpoint.
The 60mm is decent too. The hand fire option is pretty cool, especially in close in fighting.
The only mortar in the US system that needed replacement badly was the 4.2. It was ancient.
The US 81MM is a good system. I can't see many places for it to go from a technological standpoint.
The 60mm is decent too. The hand fire option is pretty cool, especially in close in fighting.
The only mortar in the US system that needed replacement badly was the 4.2. It was ancient.
QUOTE
Ken,
We were patrolling outside of battalion 81mm range in the 80's. Nothing new there. There's no such thing as perfect supporting arms coverage.
Yes but intentionally walking naked into the breech when you do not HAVE to is stupid. I make decisions about acceptable risk vs mission importance every day, and knowingly going out without any reasonable plan for supporting arms is not only going to get your Marines killed, but more importantly it means you're not going to kill the enemy, which is the whole point of the job. Going outside the FOB with just a fire team and no supporting arms/no reasonably timely plan for QRF is just f**king stupid. Sometimes you have troops in contact and you have to take risks but when you have the time to do it right, you do it right. Oh BTW, this is an insurgency, you have no on-call air until you call TIC, which means EVERYTHING is ad hoc and you have no real idea what'll be on station or what it's response time will be. We were patrolling outside of battalion 81mm range in the 80's. Nothing new there. There's no such thing as perfect supporting arms coverage.
QUOTE
Trying for it will either limit tactical options or cause complicated, impractical systems to be fielded -- which would amount to the same thing. That's why I favor 12 x 81mm for the battalion, even if it requires more mortar manpower. Doctrinal and operational flexibility is almost always more useful than sheer power and range, when it comes to fire support assets.
Doctrinal and operation flexibility are provided by a robust and organized logistics and transportation system, not by getting by with more compromises from the trigger pullers and always asking them to do more with less. Brother I wish you were here for this fight because it is totally different, we're trying to jam the square (big war) peg into the round hole and it doesn't always work right. We get by because we always get by, on the backs of our Marines. And we're far too unresponsive on the supply and log side to support anything remotely out of the ordinary. This AO was covered by a MECH BRIGADE and we're being asked to cover it with a f**king infantry Bn and you think we should get by with 81's? You said it yourself when bashing artillery vice mortars, every point you place out there has to be secured and that's manpower that isn't being used to find targets and kill the enemy. That means you have one Bn FOB, maybe a few company FOB's and that is where you're going to put your tubes. Those positions should be dictated by something other than what you need to cover your zone with your mortars.
QUOTE
Ken...most of the spiffy 120mms out there are vehicular, if nothing else because they are just so complex as to make them rather poorly suited to being towed around. they are all automatically laid, withich needs power and have top be wired up to the FCS and comms. The only way you're gonna get the sort of power supply for extnded periods is with a genset.
What is so difficult about having the guns on a robust wireless LAN with the FDC having the uplink to AFTDS or whatever? I'll answer my own question, nothing is difficult about it except the procurment! Simon, everything has a generator over here. The hadji run internet cafe I'm posting from has a backup generator. I have freaking solar panels to run my laptop computers in the field. This isn't difficult except getting it from the USG because they're such ignorant penny pinching asshats. Guess what, you should have a power outlet or convertor for 115v 60hz on every vehicle in the fleet, but we don't because we were too shortsighted to think about it. Oh, and the HUM-V's have pathetic 60 amp alternators so you can't put a serious convertor on them. You have a HUM-V per gun with a generator as primary power(little $1000 Honda, throw it in the back of the HUM-V with 40 mortar bombs) and you can run the gun off the truck's power in an emergency. Or just set the gun up to run on 24v and use a slave cable which is the cheaper, crappier way to do it.
QUOTE
120mm bombs are also much larger than 81mm....which makes getting the tubes into and out of action much slower if you have to prep the ammo both ways.
How much ammo you have to prep? This won't even come into play during most missions.
QUOTE
Why not cascade some of the 81mms down to Co. when you are on static duty? You have some a not too dissimilar no. of maortarmen running much less capable tubes....
Done already, Bn 81's have been sent out to the companies, which are also using the 60's at the same time. When it hits the fan, you run both sets of guns at the same times with seperate FDC's. So lots of sitting about, then lots of frantic activity. Also lots of pondering about whether you might need your 81's in a different location... QUOTE
If you're static, it doesn't really matter since the tube won't move.....and if you have to...you can actually keep the 60mm stowed up on the humvee for a rapid displace...no take daown!
If you're static and in the process of building the Maginot line, why not setup 8" field guns instead of 81mm popguns? Because it's hard to move ammo and we're logistically streched? Please, tell the pogues at BIAP to eat less ice cream or get by with less steak and lobster. As for throwing the tubes in the vehicle, what for if your targets can be reached from your prepared and suveyed positions, with all your met data and everything all set? If the vehicles are going to the fight they need to be taking DF weaponry, not mortars, as you're sending the vehicles out there to patrol or move logistics, either way you're going to see the enemy. There is no front line so there are no protected positions where you can setup your tubes while everyone else moves to the fight, the fight will be OVER by the time they setup. S/F...Ken M
Ken,
With all due respect to the fact that you're there and I'm not, I've heard it all before:
"Why does 1st Platoon get the upgunned AAVs and we don't?"
"Why are we starting this attack with only 800 rounds per machinegun?"
"Why are we only getting two MREs a day?"
Yes, the mission does get accomplished on the backs of the Marines and soldiers on the front line. That's not a bad thing, that's just the way things are. Sometimes you do have to go beyond the supporting arms umbrella, at least as far as organic fires are concerned. Nothing's perfect, and people should stop wishing that they were.
With all due respect to the fact that you're there and I'm not, I've heard it all before:
"Why does 1st Platoon get the upgunned AAVs and we don't?"
"Why are we starting this attack with only 800 rounds per machinegun?"
"Why are we only getting two MREs a day?"
Yes, the mission does get accomplished on the backs of the Marines and soldiers on the front line. That's not a bad thing, that's just the way things are. Sometimes you do have to go beyond the supporting arms umbrella, at least as far as organic fires are concerned. Nothing's perfect, and people should stop wishing that they were.
I liked the sound of the Swiss (?) 60mm mortar round, so much so that I wondered if it would be possible to make a light recoilless tube that could fire them, using some kind of mechanical vent instead of blow out disks on the casing. Probably only work with one charge level, but... Ammunition commonality would seem to be good for that, and I think it was a 2 lb HE shell...
On a more practical note, what fuses are available for the 81 mm and the 120mm? I recall that Proximity/airbursting are available, but does the cost make them problematic? Has anyone made an extended (could you do it?) impact fuse like some of the aircraft bombs have had, so less fragmentation is wasted in the ground?
What is the minimum elevation a normal 60mm mortar can be fired at? What are the range bands for the different charge levels?
are they useful this way as a support weapon?
WOuld the 40mm HV or the 76mm "HIGH IMPULSE WEAPON SYSTEM" that FN iirc has been demonstrating be more useful?
On a more practical note, what fuses are available for the 81 mm and the 120mm? I recall that Proximity/airbursting are available, but does the cost make them problematic? Has anyone made an extended (could you do it?) impact fuse like some of the aircraft bombs have had, so less fragmentation is wasted in the ground?
What is the minimum elevation a normal 60mm mortar can be fired at? What are the range bands for the different charge levels?
are they useful this way as a support weapon?
WOuld the 40mm HV or the 76mm "HIGH IMPULSE WEAPON SYSTEM" that FN iirc has been demonstrating be more useful?
Tony, I wish you had SIPR, then I could tell you how truly loathsome some of the log practices here are.
I'm not talking about perfection, I'm talking about better. I'm not talking about LCpl shithead who is bitching about not getting his four MRE's per day so he can ratf**k them. I'm talking about improving the ways we're fighting wars and fighting them better. All it takes is a little money, which the US has more of than anybody. And the excuse that it makes life a little harder for some f**king slug sitting on his fat ass doing computerized inventory back in Barstow or Albany or Quantico doesn't wash, never should have. Last I heard, the only people out there stepping up, working 24/7, are the civilians working at Lake City, ATK, and other ammunitions plants. It's surely not the guys sitting at the various CONUS bases, where it's back to business as usual and let's try to forget about that nasty little war thing that gets the way of our COD and garrison games.
We're no longer at the point of buildup where we are just scraping by, we've got units here that are going out and getting it done with damned near nothing, and then right up the street 40 minutes we have 20,000 USELESS MF's sitting there getting fat in the chow hall and wondering why everyone thinks the war is so hard. We've been here two YEARS, and we're still FUBAR on log issues. WTF, over?
None of this has anything to do with mortars. Oh well. S/F...Ken M
I'm not talking about perfection, I'm talking about better. I'm not talking about LCpl shithead who is bitching about not getting his four MRE's per day so he can ratf**k them. I'm talking about improving the ways we're fighting wars and fighting them better. All it takes is a little money, which the US has more of than anybody. And the excuse that it makes life a little harder for some f**king slug sitting on his fat ass doing computerized inventory back in Barstow or Albany or Quantico doesn't wash, never should have. Last I heard, the only people out there stepping up, working 24/7, are the civilians working at Lake City, ATK, and other ammunitions plants. It's surely not the guys sitting at the various CONUS bases, where it's back to business as usual and let's try to forget about that nasty little war thing that gets the way of our COD and garrison games.
We're no longer at the point of buildup where we are just scraping by, we've got units here that are going out and getting it done with damned near nothing, and then right up the street 40 minutes we have 20,000 USELESS MF's sitting there getting fat in the chow hall and wondering why everyone thinks the war is so hard. We've been here two YEARS, and we're still FUBAR on log issues. WTF, over?
None of this has anything to do with mortars. Oh well. S/F...Ken M
Ken, It sure is interesting to see that things have not changed sinced I was in (Dinosaur days). I remember not getting WATER (stops things pretty quick) when some idiot "forgot" to have it ordered in. WHY? Cause they never get thirsty sitting in a chair at Battalion HQ. You have brought up so many memories. It is amazing we actually win these fights! Luckily, everyone else is even more screwed up. Thanks for the memories. Good Luck and keep shooting!
@gewing
>>>If they can't fire the 120mm mortar out of the LAV3...<<<<
Where do you get this info from? I know early models of a swiss LAV 3 based mortar had problems but this was because of faulty recoil buffers.
@Sami
>>>How about 2 mortars/platoon at Coy level, so if neccessary all mortars coud be pointed to same target and all mortars coud use same ammo? Or is there some reason why platoon must have their own mortars?<<<<
With this setup you would need an FDC for every second mortar...not an efficient use of manpower.
As to MO of 120mm vs 81mm
Both use the same amount of manpower.
Ammo prep times favor 120mm since their fuzes are already in.
The 120mm's strong points are range, beaten zone, destructive potential and flexibility of rounds/fuzes available. Weak points are log support needed (too much really for assignment to Co level) and big safety zones (400m-200m).
81mm are good enough for supression, light on log and their fire can be brought much nearer to ones own troops (?200m-100m?). The big drawback being range and lack of canister.
Id say go for 12x120mm with Bat (who can handle their log needs) and 4x81mm for Co. Than you have the best of both worlds.
SP is only really needed where one has to fear CB. One could get both versions and adapt according to threats and logistics. The training is just about the same anyway.
>>>If they can't fire the 120mm mortar out of the LAV3...<<<<
Where do you get this info from? I know early models of a swiss LAV 3 based mortar had problems but this was because of faulty recoil buffers.
@Sami
>>>How about 2 mortars/platoon at Coy level, so if neccessary all mortars coud be pointed to same target and all mortars coud use same ammo? Or is there some reason why platoon must have their own mortars?<<<<
With this setup you would need an FDC for every second mortar...not an efficient use of manpower.
As to MO of 120mm vs 81mm
Both use the same amount of manpower.
Ammo prep times favor 120mm since their fuzes are already in.
The 120mm's strong points are range, beaten zone, destructive potential and flexibility of rounds/fuzes available. Weak points are log support needed (too much really for assignment to Co level) and big safety zones (400m-200m).
81mm are good enough for supression, light on log and their fire can be brought much nearer to ones own troops (?200m-100m?). The big drawback being range and lack of canister.
Id say go for 12x120mm with Bat (who can handle their log needs) and 4x81mm for Co. Than you have the best of both worlds.
SP is only really needed where one has to fear CB. One could get both versions and adapt according to threats and logistics. The training is just about the same anyway.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.