Author Topic: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more  (Read 406568 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 437,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,437
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
More 60mm HE ammo on order
« Reply #225 on: November 24, 2009, 15:34:45 »
Just reviving this with the latest from the MERX thread:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?topic=90186.msg892505#msg892505

".... The Department of National Defence (DND) has a requirement for 60 mm HE ammunition. This procurement is for inventory replenishment of an existing Department of National Defence qualified product that has a direct military application and is required to maintain the integrity of existing equipment and services.

Line1, GSIN:N1310, NSN:1310639900001, Cartridge 60mm HE M38A1
Soltam Long Range fuzed PD, M111B1
Military Pack: 1 per fibre tube, 16 tubes per wooden box, 18
boxes per pallet
No markings to identify country of origin, manufacturer or
contractor, Quantity:1536, Unit of Issue:Each, Delivery
Dates:See Herein

It is proposed to negotiate a contract with Soltam, Systems (link to manufacturer web page), who is the OEM for this type of ammunition.   Due to the nature of this requirement, no other supplier can provide this product.

2. ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT $600,000.00 ...."

Doing the math, that's about $390/round.  LOVE the copy on the company's web page:

“Soltam Systems – House of Mortars & Artillery …. owned by the Israeli group MIKAL has earned its world recognition as a one stop shop provider for artillery products …”
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #226 on: November 26, 2009, 21:16:43 »
It's kind of like potatoes and gravy.  Running short of gravy and still got potatoes left.  Eat up the potatoes and still got gravy.  Add more more potatoes.....

At  this rate TV will never be rid of his beloved 60s.... >:D
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline ammocat

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 8,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #227 on: November 26, 2009, 23:51:02 »
Not sure I fully follow the potatoes and gravy comments. If you look at the requirements for this contract and the specifications of the item itself compared to current service ammunition, I think you will see a significant difference.

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 188,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,092
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #228 on: November 27, 2009, 05:36:34 »
It's kind of like potatoes and gravy.  Running short of gravy and still got potatoes left.  Eat up the potatoes and still got gravy.  Add more more potatoes.....

At  this rate TV will never be rid of his beloved 60s.... >:D
What?  Who?

Oh, sorry, I thought I heard my name in vain!  ;D
So, there I was....

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 437,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,437
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
MORE 60mm HE Ammo on Tap....
« Reply #229 on: November 27, 2009, 15:26:57 »
Cancel my last MERX post - new one up today:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/index.php?topic=90186.msg893403#msg893403

"....ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT: $1,200,000.00...." (twice as much as Tuesday's MERX ACAN)
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline ammocat

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 8,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 99
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #230 on: November 27, 2009, 18:01:05 »
This appears to be a different item, the first one is a 60mm HE fitted with a Point Detonating Fuze, the second is the same 60mm HE cartridge but fitted with a proximity fuze. The difference in fuzes would explain the difference in price.

Offline MCG

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 208,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,789
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #231 on: March 22, 2011, 09:54:46 »
From the CASW thread:
  • Jim, your absolutely right, GIVE us back our 81mm Mortars (or buy us Strykers with 120mm mortars ;-)
  • As an Armour guy, even I see the potential and sense in this.  I would like to see these in Armour units, as well as Infantry, to provide support.  Tanks are not that effective at firing illumination or indirect fire.  Recce has even less capabilities.
  • The thing with mortars it comes with a pretty high training bill. Its not a weapon anyone can use. Numpties are not welcome in the Mortar World. TViking knows this as well.

    You need to train Fire Controllers, Control Post Operators, Group Commanders, Line Cpls and the crews that man the weapons as well.

    Its costly, but worthwhile.
  • Unless we are planning to go into the realm of improved munitions, then lobbying for the 120 over the 81 is a very different argument, and probably as big a difference as 60 vs. CASW.  The principal purpose of the 81 mortar was suppression. Suppression is best effected by hitting the target hard in the first few seconds of a fire mission, then maintaining a decent sustained rate. Soldiers in the target area don't duck lower or stay down longer in direct proportion to the diameter of the mortar round, so heavier mortars don't necessarily scale into more effective application of fire.  The 81 can be drop fired much more efficiently than the 120, and an automatic 120 for burst capability is a different animal again with all its own problems. Sustained fire with the 81 can be achieved with approximately one-fourth the logistic penalty of providing the same number of rounds for a 120, and the coverage of 4 x 81 is about the same as 3 x 120 for about the same cost in troops and vehicles to deploy. (When we looked at a 120 program we were planning to replace 8 x 81 with 6 x 120.) And even replacing 4 with 3 results in a logistic cost of about three times the weight/bulk for equivalent effect.

    The ICM argument is also a non-starter for the same reasons the Guns don't carry every possible ICM round, it takes too much capability away from core mission capabilities with HE/smoke/illum when you aren't planning specialized applications of fire.  So, if we want to get into the merits of bringing back the 81 or alternatives, then there's already a thread for that. ….
Given the differences between 81 mm and 120 mm, I would still be interested to hear if people would see a 100 mm mortar as an acceptable intermediate calibre or as a poor compromise solution.

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,962
  • What the????
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #232 on: March 22, 2011, 18:59:46 »
100mm Mortar? Poor compromise, it doesn't even exist as far as I know. There used to be a 107mm Mortar in US service buts its long gone.

The M1129 Stryker Mortar carrier basically has a 120mm Mortar and can carry 60 x 120mm rounds. A 120mm HE mortar round has approximately 5 LBS of explosive charge (It doesn't seem like much but it is, the round weighs about 30 LBS), the effective range is 7 KM but 120mm mortar has devasting effect on enemy. 120mm Mortars is more of a dream than anything. The US have slightly different ways of employing mortars as well (They maintain a Battalion mortar platoon and each company has a mortar squad as well in a stryker infantry battalion, all use 120mm contrary to original stryker BCT doctrine).

I took the time and ask some yanks about it when I had a chance, they say 120mm and 81mm are two very different beast. Now an 81mm (I have expirience here) can still be man packable (For mountain or jungle ops). and its range is 5 KM. Still a damn good weapon. Wish someone would give it back to us, but another dream.

I think if we want really preserve at minimal cost and a realistic solution, would be to purchase the M224 60mm Mortar. Can be used in Light (hand held) role and with Bipod. Max range is 3.5 KM. 60mm mortars can very easily be man packed (much more so than a CASW).
M'eh

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,374
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #233 on: March 22, 2011, 19:21:12 »
I totally agree with Michael O'Leary and the 120mm vs 81mm comments.  We deal with the same issues with 155mm vs 105mm.  Quick suppression with a high volume of fire is the key.  The bigger calibre brings a whole different animal of logistical headaches.  The main reasons we have 777s in Afghan would be range to cover the entire AO, accuracy to prevent fratricide and the ability to fire excalibur.  For larger, high intensity and more sustainable ops we the Arty would likely use a lot more 105mm instead of trying to procure more 777s.

As for the 120mm comments.  I don't think it would be valid within a Btln.  It would be Bde asset, the same as an Arty Regt.  A Btln would have to give up an entire Coy to do this (probably more).  Someone who knows for sure please correct me if I am wrong but, wasn't the main reason the mortars came to the Arty was to have more rifleman in the Btln.  This started in the early 90s with the Yugoslavia task and has just continued from there.  I am cetainlly not against the Infantry getting their mortars back and the 81s could be at the Btln level but, once again, do you want 2 strong Coys and mortars, 3 small Coys and mortars or do want 3 strong Coys.   I think the choice was made to have 3 strong Coys with the caveat that they would always have direct support (DS) from Arty.

The 120mm makes sense to me as a Bde asset meant for DS to the lead Btln or the Armd Regt, therefore freeing up the 2 Arty Btys to prosecute the deep targets that our STA assets are locating.  In bigger Ops like Div, the Arty Regt could reinforce the adjacent Regt with the Bde still having the 120s for itself.

And to continue this pipe dream there would also be GS Arty Regt to the Div that would have long range ISTAR and MLRS.  Not likely in any of our careers though.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 342,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,684
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #234 on: March 22, 2011, 19:25:20 »
As for the 120mm comments.  I don't think it would be valid within a Btln.  It would be Bde asset, the same as an Arty Regt.  A Btln would have to give up an entire Coy to do this (probably more).  Someone who knows for sure please correct me if I am wrong but, wasn't the main reason the mortars came to the Arty was to have more rifleman in the Btln.  This started in the early 90s with the Yugoslavia task and has just continued from there.  I am cetainlly not against the Infantry getting their mortars back and the 81s could be at the Btln level but, once again, do you want 2 strong Coys and mortars, 3 small Coys and mortars or do want 3 strong Coys.   I think the choice was made to have 3 strong Coys with the caveat that they would always have direct support (DS) from Arty.

No, it wasn't to have more riflemen, it was to provide positions being given up by the Infantry (and the Army) for reallocation to other capabilities.  The positions lost by the removal of Mortars and Pioneers were not simply reallocated within the battalions.

The size of a weapon system doesn't automatically determine whether it is a battalion or brigade asset, the organizational decision is a different matter. Similarly, its employment is determined by a variety of factors. There are no physical characteristics regarding the 120mm mortar that automatically preclude it being a battalion weapon system. In my opinion the overall package (platoon org, vehicles, logistics, etc.) doesn't present a strong enough case for 120 over 81. In any case, it the capability requirement that must be identified and met.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 19:33:52 by Michael O'Leary »

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 180,235
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,382
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #235 on: March 22, 2011, 19:30:37 »
Would a 120mm in a LAV combined with the M777 be a nice mix?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,962
  • What the????
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #236 on: March 22, 2011, 19:35:59 »
If I remember correctly (on paper) the old Infantry mortar platoon was about 56. Large by platoon standards but not ridicolous.
-Fire Support Co-ordination Center
-Platoon Stores
-Platoon Recce Det
2 x Mortar Groups consisting of a Fire Control party, Command Post, 4 x 81mm Mortar detachments and group stores.

Sound about right? And yes, I don't seem to recall a sudden increase in the infantry company numbers. The trutch is right now, I beleive with our trade being overbourne, we could easily stand up mortar platoons again.

In the US doctrine, a 120mm detachment has 5 guys (I beleive it is reduced to 4 when its mounted in an M113 or Stryker). So that man power increase for a 120mm mortar platoon would be noticeable. Our old 81mm detachment (inf) was 3 guys.

The US doctrine (Stryker BCT), a company commander can order up a crash action or hasty fire mission from his own mortar squad (2 x 120mm dets) while the fire support team (american talk = FOO) can rattle up a fire mission from a M777 or M198 155mm battery. The Battalion mortar platoon is tasked out as BN CO sees fit.
M'eh

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 342,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,684
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #237 on: March 22, 2011, 19:36:51 »
Would a 120mm in a LAV combined with the M777 be a nice mix?

For any mortar system you have to find a balance between its primary capability (suppression) and the logistic cost to provide the desired effect. A more complex delivery system doesn't alleviate the high logistic cost of getting the ammo to the target for the 120 mm.


Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 342,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,684
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #238 on: March 22, 2011, 19:40:28 »
If I remember correctly (on paper) the old Infantry mortar platoon was about 56. Large by platoon standards but not ridicolous.
-Fire Support Co-ordination Center
-Platoon Stores
-Platoon Recce Det
2 x Mortar Groups consisting of a Fire Control party, Command Post, 4 x 81mm Mortar detachments and group stores.

Sound about right? And yes, I don't seem to recall a sudden increase in the infantry company numbers. The trutch is right now, I beleive with our trade being overbourne, we could easily stand up mortar platoons again.

In the US doctrine, a 120mm detachment has 5 guys (I beleive it is reduced to 4 when its mounted in an M113 or Stryker). So that man power increase for a 120mm mortar platoon would be noticeable. Our old 81mm detachment (inf) was 3 guys.

The US doctrine (Stryker BCT), a company commander can order up a crash action or hasty fire mission from his own mortar squad (2 x 120mm dets) while the fire support team (american talk = FOO) can rattle up a fire mission from a M777 or M198 155mm battery. The Battalion mortar platoon is tasked out as BN CO sees fit.

The old mortar platoon organization was 2 + 52. I was able to shoot and support 8 tubes with 2 + 40, but that leaves no flexibility for sustained operations.

When we were considering a 6-tube 120 mm platoon organization in the mid-1980s, the platoon was going to grow to 70+ personnel.  That project, when even went so far as to test at least three systems died when it was discovered by a senior officer (i,e., the general that replaced the general who stood up the project) that it had no doctrinal basis.


Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,374
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #239 on: March 22, 2011, 19:47:27 »
I agree with Michael. This is a link to the 120mm LAV http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Armour-and-Artillery-Upgrades/General-Dynamics-Land-Systems--California-Technical-Center-RO-Defence-120-mm-Armoured-Mortar-System-AMS-International.html

I would be more intersted in a 120mm mounted in the back of vehicle, capable of dismount and the ability to cross load if the vehicle breaks.  The obvious problem with LAV 120mm is if the vehicle breaks your SOL.

I have seen the LAV 120mm, and their selling feature is that it is, by itself, it's own firing unit capable of locating the target (like our LAV OPV), calculating the firing solution (like an Arty CP) and delivering the munition as well.  Pretty high tech and cool but if you blow your transmission it quickly turns into a really expensive road block.

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,962
  • What the????
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #240 on: March 22, 2011, 19:50:01 »
Further to add how US Stryker Infantry battalions employ mortars

Each company mortar squad carries 60mm mortars for dismounted use in addition the 120mm mounted. At the Battalion mortar platoon, they have dismountable 81mm in addition to their 120mm mounted. Man, thats alot of space gobbled up in the back.

In the Stryker ISTAR Squadron (Armoured Recce Regt, yank terminology Squadron = Regt), there are only the 120mm mounted mortars, no dismountable mortars.

Each SBCT, has a total of 40 of 120mm Mortars mounted (divided between 4 units), 18 x 60mm mortars and 12 x 81mm mortars. Keeping in mind, SBCT doctrine is meant to be able to fight both mounted and dismounted operations (aim flexibility)

As far as a complex system? The 120mm Mortars are mounted on turntables in the back (Do not confuse the M1129 with the GDLS 120mm turretted mortar that Saudis use).

As for logistics, a 120mm Mortar bomb weighs 30 lbs vs an 81mm weighing 10 Lbs. So yes, there would be a decrease in amount that could be carried. But a 120mm mortar has a more devasting effect on target.

I also agree that we do not let weapons size/caliber dictate wether it should be a Company, battalion or Brigade assett. Personally, if it were up to me, an Arty Regt would have 3 x batteries of 155mm Guns (1 Bty for each BG) and a battery of HIMARS (Big wish list) for big ops that require HUGE destructive fire power (Deliberate attacks such as the fire support premeditated OP MEDUSA '06)

Standing by Mike (our mortar DS?), waiting for my debrief.

Gnyhwy, The Stryker M1129 is what your talking about (mortars in back)
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 19:54:31 by ArmyRick »
M'eh

Offline GnyHwy

  • is a pragmatic optimist.
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,095
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,374
  • GO GUNS!!!
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #241 on: March 22, 2011, 20:03:12 »
The link I posted was talking about the 120mm that the Saudis are using ( an independant firing unit). I was unaware of the M1129, but yes now that I am aware, the M1129 would be my choice my far.
« Last Edit: March 22, 2011, 20:07:17 by GnyHwy »

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 342,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,684
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #242 on: March 22, 2011, 20:27:03 »
You still have to start by deciding what your primary capability requirement is. If it is to be suppression of infantry in the open, in exposed entrenchments or soft-skinned vehicles, then more rounds at higher rates of fire normally have an advantage over fewer rounds even if larger calibre.

If, on the other hand, you propose the larger calibre because of alternative munition options, then you're changing the argument and not defending a return of the old mortar platoon capability - but a new one altogether.

There will no doubt be roles which the M1129 would be ideally suited to perform, but that system doesn't necessarily answer all the capability issues across the spectrum of possible requirements. Choosing the heavier weapon and sacrificing mobility options is the same road we are arguing in the other thread regarding the CASW.

Offline ArmyRick

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,780
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,962
  • What the????
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #243 on: March 22, 2011, 21:46:34 »
Mike,

IF, big if, I were the King of Canada and everything (as warped as could be) was my way, I would purchase for the infantry the following toys (with capabilities) in this priority

1. Javelin Anti-armour missile system. I realize our current threat in A-stan doesn't use AFV but sooner or later if we keep playing with guns internationally, we are probably going to end up agaisnt a potential armour threat. The Javelin would beat Eryx garbage hands down (600m vs 2500m and fire & forget). I would select Javelin over Spike because our closest allies are using the same (USA, UK, New Zealand and I think Aussies got it too). Capability; Anti-Armour Rick's Pick; Javelin

2. 60mm Mortar. For dismounted troops that need a weapon capable of enemy suppression that can be quickly brought into action and has a reasonable man portability, I would select the M224 60mm Mortar (can operate in sustained fire or hand held role). Again commonailty with our brothers in the south and the UK have started using the Hirtenberger (when you look at it, its the same damn thing). Capability; Man Portable Indirect Fire Support Weapon for suppression. Rick's Pick; M224 Mortar

3. Platoon level sharpshooters. I would love to add in platoon or maybe company level sharpshooters equipped with something along the lines of 7.62mm HK417 Rifle and a damn good scope. Yeah Snipers can do this but its kind of a waste of their talent when they could be taking bigger missions. An example, a platoon commander spots an enemy pers with radio, directing or reporting our movement, he task his sharpshooter to knock him down. Capability; Precision Elimination of Key enemy targets to a range of 800m tasked out to PL/COY level  Rick's Pick; HK417 7.62mm Rifle

4. A Mounted mortar that belongs to the infantry and provides a quick, reaction of suppressive fires agaisnt enemy in open or fortified. Because an M1129 can haul 60 x rounds (not bad), I beleive that would be enough for a scrape or too. I would go for 120mm over 81mm for slight increase in range (+2 KM), more devasting fire power and hopefully future 120mm precision rounds become availible (direct hit/fewer colateral damage). Capability; Vehicle mounted Indirect Fire Support weapon for suppression. Rick's Pick; M1129 Stryker Mortar carrier with M121 120mm mortar.

(Submitting my next plan to DS, waiting outside CP for a debrief, good or bad)
M'eh

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 209,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,803
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #244 on: March 22, 2011, 23:03:57 »
Arty is benefiting from technology - fewer gunners can supply more rounds on target to greater effect at greater ranges.  Ultimately that means that the CF needs Batteries and not Brigades of guns. 

However the technology generally benefits the larger calibers which need heavy vehicles which can carry big servomotors and which can compensate for the disadvantage of reduced mobility with increased range.

Given that, that means that the gunners have excess PYs (at least compared to Cold War standards) and are not likely to get more guns for those gunners.

Accordingly, I guess, the gunners were given the 81s to suck up those PYs and because the training was broadly similar.

The question that keeps coming to my mind is why the gunners haven't embraced infantry cooperation to a greater extent and formed infantry support troops of 8 tubes to be issued to infantry battalions together with a large FOO organization - Capt command with FCCS, FISTs for the Coys and MFCs for the platoons (maybe even issue the MFC tms with 60s).

That would maintain gunner badges, concentrate a common training group, maintain gunner career progression, relieve PY pressure on the infantry, improve infantry/arty cooperation, and ensure that the infantry retains the fire support they need at the battle group level, if not the battalion level.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

"If change isn’t allowed to be a process, it becomes an event." - Penny Mordaunt 10/10/2019

Offline Technoviking

    DANCE TO THE TECHNOVIKING.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 188,021
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,092
  • Requiescat in Pace
    • Canadian ASL Open
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #245 on: March 22, 2011, 23:09:36 »
The question that keeps coming to my mind is why the gunners haven't embraced infantry cooperation to a greater extent and formed infantry support troops of 8 tubes to be issued to infantry battalions together with a large FOO organization - Capt command with FCCS, FISTs for the Coys and MFCs for the platoons (maybe even issue the MFC tms with 60s).

That would maintain gunner badges, concentrate a common training group, maintain gunner career progression, relieve PY pressure on the infantry, improve infantry/arty cooperation, and ensure that the infantry retains the fire support they need at the battle group level, if not the battalion level.

This is the big one for me too.  It's not so much to have infantry mortars, for me, but to have integral indirect fire support at the battlegroup level.  They could be RMS clerks for all I care, but to have it there as part of the battalion (in garrison) and battlegroup (on deployment) ORBAT, that's all that matters.  Hell, they could have 40mm AGLS if it had the range....
So, there I was....

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 469,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,950
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #246 on: March 22, 2011, 23:38:50 »
This is the big one for me too.  It's not so much to have infantry mortars, for me, but to have integral indirect fire support at the battlegroup level. They could be RMS clerks for all I care, but to have it there as part of the battalion (in garrison) and battlegroup (on deployment) ORBAT, that's all that matters.  Hell, they could have 40mm AGLS if it had the range....

"Please complete the CF81-M-47 in triplicate, indicating the type of fire you would like to request.  Be sure to include the NSN for all items.  I'm on leave next week, but I hope to get to your fire mission the following week between PT and the CO's coffee break."

This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 342,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,684
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #247 on: March 22, 2011, 23:50:41 »
Accordingly, I guess, the gunners were given the 81s to suck up those PYs and because the training was broadly similar.

The question that keeps coming to my mind is why the gunners haven't embraced infantry cooperation to a greater extent and formed infantry support troops of 8 tubes to be issued to infantry battalions together with a large FOO organization - Capt command with FCCS, FISTs for the Coys and MFCs for the platoons (maybe even issue the MFC tms with 60s).

That would maintain gunner badges, concentrate a common training group, maintain gunner career progression, relieve PY pressure on the infantry, improve infantry/arty cooperation, and ensure that the infantry retains the fire support they need at the battle group level, if not the battalion level.

The Gunners didn't get the PYs to go with the mortars.  The PYs went to the VCDS and probably ended up in the dotcoms, soldiers' positions traded off for staff officer/NCO jobs. Mortars and Pioneers went away because two infantry Colonels decided they were an expendable capability to try and protect riflemen positions (failing to realize we could backfill riflemen a lot more easily than replace the lost capabilities when needed - which we didn't accomplish with Sappers and Gunners covering them off despite the theoretical discussions of them doing so).

The Guns got the mortars to be employed as alternate weapon systems, or in lieu of guns for some detachments/batteries with no offset of manpower.

The Guns also simply replaced mortars for guns at the detachment level when they were used, maintaining the same battery organization and fire control training requirements to fire 81mm mortars as they did for howitzers.

The problem with discussing a return of 81 mm mortars to the infantry is that the last of the Advanced Mortar qualified Officers and NCOs will soon be gone. To recreate it, we do not want to bring mortars back with the staffing and organization of the Artillery fire control system with them.  It's a time limited opportunity to restore the medium mortar to the infantry battalions with the infantry officers and NCOs who have the training we would want to recreate.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 148,335
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,689
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #248 on: March 23, 2011, 10:56:15 »
I hear that parts for the 105C3 are getting harder to find, perhaps towed 120mm mortars for Reserve arty units might be in order, smaller logistical footprint, off the shelf tech and would allow the introduction of this weapon system into the CF so they can experiment with it's deployment, also the reg force arty units can transition from the 81 towards the 120. Can't for the life of me figure why the arty is running the 81mm.

Offline Michael O'Leary

  • The moral high ground cannot be dominated by fire alone, it must be occupied to be claimed as held.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 342,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,684
    • The Regimental Rogue
Re: Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more
« Reply #249 on: March 23, 2011, 11:00:35 »
I hear that parts for the 105C3 are getting harder to find, perhaps towed 120mm mortars for Reserve arty units might be in order, smaller logistical footprint, off the shelf tech and would allow the introduction of this weapon system into the CF so they can experiment with it's deployment, also the reg force arty units can transition from the 81 towards the 120. Can't for the life of me figure why the arty is running the 81mm.

The Arty is running the 81mm for two reasons, neither of which have anything to do with reasoned decision-making for field force structures.

A. The infantry had to give up PYs and the Mortar (and Pioneers) were sacrificed.

B. Giving the 81s to the Guns let the Army claim the capability wasn't given up.