[EchoFiveMike]

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

[Hans Strelow]

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.argospres...lume5/5-1-2.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).]

[Sami Jumppanen]

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.argospres...lume5/5-1-2.pdf

<font size=1>[Edited by Hans Strelow (18 Dec 2003).]

[Ivanhoe]

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. http://63.99.108.76/ubb/wink.gif

[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.

[Josh]

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.

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?

[Burncycle360]

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.

[gewing]

I know there are long range 81mm rounds, very aerodynamic in design. Has anyone built similar rounds for the 60mm?

[Paul in Qatar]

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.

[UshCha]

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.

[AaronW]

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.

[gewing]

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.

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)

[Burncycle360]

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...5/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...ick/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....ages/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).]

[MarkFWard]

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

[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

[Ivanhoe]

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.

[gewing]

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.

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