Indirect Fires Modernization Project - C3/M777 Replacement

[Colin Parkinson]

That's the big ticket. I've tried to bring that point across repeatedly in this and other forums as other folks keep bringing it up.

One has to think of mortars as the one indirect fire system that a battalion commander can always count on because they are his, to use when and if he considers appropriate. Their fire support won't ever be taken away from him. They are simple and robust systems, easily maintained and used albeit manufacturers keeping pushing the complexity. The simplicity of a mortar is what dictates its high angle fire - i.e. push recoil directly into the ground without the need for a heavy carriage and wheels. Sure the infantry could use a battalion gun instead of a mortar (and they did in the past) but then it would be heavier and more complex.

Artillery on the other hand is fickle. Their networking system is designed specifically so that large volumes of fire can be moved and shifted across a large frontage and depth. Close support and priority of call on fire can be and does get removed from a battalion by way of a simple radio call originated from the brigade or divisional commander's gunner. On top of that longer range means firing at lower angles which means heavier and more complex guns but you can afford that further back in the line. Yes there are large artillery mortars but, for the most part, most systems now go with the "gun-howitzer" which operates at both high and low angles.

There are very fundamental reasons why we, and most countries like us, organize mortars and artillery the way we do. There is no valid reason to change that even as we upgrade our systems.

The mortar combined with a good drone team at the Battalion level has apparently being instrumental in breaking up Russian infantry assaults. At that level better to have the 81 with more ammunition and drones to select targets, than larger 120mm.

However in WWII you have the 4.2" (106mm) mortar each with their own Universal carrier for mortar, crew and ammunition. With a modern replacement for the carrier and mortar you could have 120mm in a light Battalion. I suppose that 3x 81mm battery for the Company support platoons and single battery of 120mm for the Battalion support company/platoon.

 

[Kirkhill]

I have zero idea where you are pulling the 70mm from.

Long, long time ago I read that the 10 pdr 70mm delivered equivalent effect to a 105mm shell. That led me to keeping an eye on systems like these:



In Brazilian and South Korean service.
These have furthered my interest

Arnold Defense introduces FLETCHER

Arnold Defense, the St Louis based international manufacturer and supplier of 2.75-inch rocket launchers, is unveiling a concept named the “FLETCHER” 2.75-inch/70mm Weapon System at AUSA. FLETCHER can be mounted on land-based military vehicles as well as, potentially, marine and littoral platforms.

arnolddefense.com

Which brings me to the Canadian offering

But more importantly I thought @FJAG and I had made it clear that the Mortar is an Inf BN weapon. The Arty is a Fires Bde Divisional asset. You need both items.
They aren’t interchangeable or replaceable with the other.

And where am I disagreeing?
I am simply saying that if a 120mm mortar is unsuitable for light infantry use then don't use it for light infantry. The 81mm has a solid reputation with the light infantry. Stick with it.
If I need the effects and ranges that the 120mm offers then I am looking for alternatives.
The 70mm might be appropriate to an infantry Heavy Weapons element.

One other way to ensure the CO of an infantry battalion gets the fire support he needs might be to permanently assign an artillery battery to her. The arty doesn't want mortars. Fine. 105 or 155 would be fine with me.

SF kit isn’t made anymore. Virtually no one knows how to record targets with the C2 sight and no firing tables exist anymore // so Direct

But --- it was Indirect Capable and so other low angle weapons are Indirect Capable. Naval guns come to mind.

Indirect

Indirect? Or high angle? If the layer is laying on the target is that Direct or Indirect?

Agreed

Yay!!!!

Well there is a breech loading pick up truck mounted 120mm - but I don’t like the fact it’s stuck in the truck.

Which is my argument about any turreted/mounted system for the infantry.
And why I argue for a differentiation between light infantry and armoured infantry. Panzergrenadiers belong to the Armoured Corps.

Mortars and Artillery don’t overlap outside of range bands

Do you really care if the package of explosive that disappeared your target was delivered by a mortar or a B52?

110% this.

And again, Yay!!!.

We will probably give them to some undesirable right wing authoritarian given our current situation here.

 

[FJAG]

I expect the best case being discussed is that the Reg Force will have three CS Gun regiments with SPH and one HIMARS regiment with the M777s being given to the reserves. However that will mean that the airmobile howitzers won’t be available to the high readiness GRTF.

I agree. The M777 is the best solution for a high readiness light battalion/bde. And yes. It makes no sense to give the M777s to an ARes regiment and the SPs (whatever they end up being) to the RegF regiment supporting a light bde. I actually think that if we are forming something called a light "regiment" rather than a light "brigade" then its CS and CSS support is going to be minimal. It may very well not have any artillery assigned to support it.

The 70mm might be appropriate to an infantry Heavy Weapons element.

Do you have stock in a company that makes 70mm rockets?

One other way to ensure the CO of an infantry battalion gets the fire support he needs might be to permanently assign an artillery battery to her.

No! No! No! Are you the designated, daily duty forum member assigned to screw with me? Don't just read what @KevinB and I wrote above; try to analyze it. Permanently assigning a battery to a given battalion negates the whole concept behind massing artillery. It would be a fundamental f**k up of the first order.

 

[Kirkhill]

I agree. The M777 is the best solution for a high readiness light battalion/bde. And yes. It makes no sense to give the M777s to an ARes regiment and the SPs (whatever they end up being) to the RegF regiment supporting a light bde. I actually think that if we are forming something called a light "regiment" rather than a light "brigade" then its CS and CSS support is going to be minimal. It may very well not have any artillery assigned to support it.

Do you have stock in a company that makes 70mm rockets?

I wish I did.

No! No! No! Are you the designated, daily duty forum member assigned to screw with me?

I try.

Don't just read what @KevinB and I wrote above; try to analyze it. Permanently assigning a battery to a given battalion negates the whole concept behind massing artillery. It would be a fundamental f**k up of the first order.

I get what the two of you are saying. Try and get what I am saying.

You want all the guns under your control. I am saying that I want some of the guns under my control.
Same with the loitering munitions.
Same with air defence.

I agree there is benefit to having an umbrella.
I just don't trust you to have my best interests at heart all the time.

You allow me mortars.
You don't allow me guns.

I don't understand.

 

[KevinB]

I wish I did.



I try.



I get what the two of you are saying. Try and get what I am saying.

You want all the guns under your control. I am saying that I want some of the guns under my control.
Same with the loitering munitions.
Same with air defence.

I agree there is benefit to having an umbrella.
I just don't trust you to have my best interests at heart all the time.

You allow me mortars.
You don't allow me guns.

I don't understand.

It’s all about how things are organized an infantry battalion has an integral mortar platoon. While the infantry battalion may have a close support artillery battery attached to watch over it. The battery is not an integral part, and in fact its divisional asset that belongs to the divisions fires brigade, so it can be pulled away at any time while the Battalion mortar platoon cannot be.

 

[FJAG]

You want all the guns under your control. I am saying that I want some of the guns under my control.

We'll give them to you BUT they come with a return spring (to quote an old FNC1 saying)

Same with the loitering munitions.
Same with air defence.

I agree there is benefit to having an umbrella.
I just don't trust you to have my best interests at heart all the time.

You allow me mortars.
You don't allow me guns.

I don't understand.

All the above are either part of a layered system already or ought to be part of one. Here's a concern of mine. The battalion's FSCC used to be based on its mortar platoon and its observers on its MFCs. The BC's party and FOOs merely augmented that system. When the mortar platoons were chopped, the artillery had to give up a whole gun battery in order to upgrade their FSCCs and add more FOOs (and incidentally STA). We now wed them to battlegroup deployments. But what happens in a major conflict when the bde commander decides that the bde recce screen needs an arty tactical group. Does he take one from the reserve battalions - like we used to do back in the day - or does he slag something together ad hoc.

Go ask @Infanteer if he wants an M777 or M109 platoon as part of his battalion vice a mortar platoon.

I've said it above; mortars are cheap, simple to train on and use and they are effective for what the infantry needs and can handle organically.

 

[Kirkhill]

It’s all about how things were organized and infantry battalion has an integral mortar platoon while the infantry battalion may have a close support artillery battery attached to watch over it. It is not an integral part, and in fact its divisional asset that belongs to the divisions fires brigade, so it can be pulled away at any time while the Battalion mortar platoon cannot be

But you are arguing rules against technology here.

The rules say that the mortar platoon is integral. Those rules have been changed in the past when mortars were withdrawn from the battalion and handed to the artillery.

What is to prevent the mortar platoon being armed with guns instead? Rules? Custom? Tradition?

We know that artillery batteries have been armed with mortars.

Go back to your CAR and E Battery. Were those guns at the direct disposal of your CO? Along with the mortars (81mm)?

....

I am arguing for consideration of something like this:

A mortar platoon of 81s that can be distributed among the companies or collected at battalion
A gun battery (or rocket battery), artillery trained and badged, at the direct beck and call of the battle group commander - the US permanently assigns arty trained personnel to the infantry for their FIST teams.
A gun regiment (gun and rocket) assigned to the Brigade in addition to the CS batteries
A divisional regiment or group over and above the Brigade GS Regiment.

Yes. I know this is more guns and more gunners.

 

[Kirkhill]

We'll give them to you BUT they come with a return spring (to quote an old FNC1 saying)

All the above are either part of a layered system already or ought to be part of one. Here's a concern of mine. The battalion's FSCC used to be based on its mortar platoon and its observers on its MFCs. The BC's party and FOOs merely augmented that system. When the mortar platoons were chopped, the artillery had to give up a whole gun battery in order to upgrade their FSCCs and add more FOOs (and incidentally STA). We now wed them to battlegroup deployments. But what happens in a major conflict when the bde commander decides that the bde recce screen needs an arty tactical group. Does he take one from the reserve battalions - like we used to do back in the day - or does he slag something together ad hoc.

Go ask @Infanteer if he wants an M777 or M109 platoon as part of his battalion vice a mortar platoon.

I've said it above; mortars are cheap, simple to train on and use and they are effective for what the infantry needs and can handle organically.

And that return spring is the issue.

Why is there no return spring on the mortar platoon?

...

As to the M777 or M109 platoon vs the mortar platoon - do you guarantee rounds on target on time?

 

[Maxman1]

SF kit isn’t made anymore. Virtually no one knows how to record targets with the C2 sight and no firing tables exist anymore // so Direct

New SF kits were part of the C6A1 contract. Training on the C6 in the SF role is integral to the infantry post-DP1 career course.

 

[PrairieFella]

New SF kits were part of the C6A1 contract. Training on the C6 in the SF role is integral to the infantry post-DP1 career course.

Sounds like an example of the old cliché that while most our shit sucks, we train our conventional troops to a higher standard than the Americans. Pretty sure I saw a video of some of the reserve infantry units in 38 CBG using them the other day.

 

[Maxman1]

I don't believe that they have any 105mm guns in service. You are probably thinking of the Denel G7 variant that was touted for the Stryker/LAV III SP howitzer. To my understanding it's not really in production but keeps being thought about.

They built some good 155mm guns which have been made even better with conversions to L52 barrels. Their 155mm ammo has been delivering better range than the more common US ammo we've been using.

The G5 howitzer, which was based on Gerald Bull's GC-45.

South Korea also developed their own 155mm, the KH179, which is still in production.

KH179 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[boredtoon]

IBMG is a standard course for reserve infantry units. IBMG also includes map and table firing. Most units try to put all their new Pte/Cpls through it. I know in my regiment, we do famil on the SF kit and C2 sight at least once a year. We try to shoot with the SF kit on at least one range, but ammo limitations makes this a challenge.

 

[PrairieFella]

IBMG is a standard course for reserve infantry units. IBMG also includes map and table firing. Most units try to put all their new Pte/Cpls through it. I know in my regiment, we do famil on the SF kit and C2 sight at least once a year. We try to shoot with the SF kit on at least one range, but ammo limitations makes this a challenge.

On the ammo shortage point - get on your chain of command about that. It's often a local unit issue, at least out our way, there hasn't been an 4BIT shortage since COVID.

 

[KevinB]

New SF kits were part of the C6A1 contract.

Interesting - any idea of the manufacturer? There was an effort down here to get some for a program, and the original mfg in the UK was out of business - and as a result the concept that that entity died on the vine.

Training on the C6 in the SF role is integral to the infantry post-DP1 career course.

Biggest issue is like the Post 1988 MG courses there where no firing tables, even for the M2 - so all targets must be recorded via direct fire - and while they can be engaged later using pre-recorded targets it isn't indirect firing. I taught laying and recording the gun on the 1 VP PSWQ in 2002/3, and even the WO and MWO running Safety didn't have a clue of of what I was doing in the trench with no direct line of sight to the targets.
I had to get a former Mortar Platoon WO to explain what I was doing to the Safety Staff so I could shoot the gun in indirect. Even then without firing tables - recording targets was by trial and error with adjustments from an observer - we could lay on for bearing easily - but the elevation was a bit of an unknown without the firing tables.

Without firing tables and students knowing how use the C2 Sight to pre-record targets (which seemed to die off when the Mortar Platoons died off) SF kit is then pretty useless - and doesn't offer much more than the M192 LW Ground Mount down here - other than a larger adjustment area for traversing.

 

[PrairieFella]

Interesting - any idea of the manufacturer? There was an effort down here to get some for a program, and the original mfg in the UK was out of business - and as a result the concept that that entity died on the vine.

Biggest issue is like the Post 1988 MG courses there where no firing tables, even for the M2 - so all targets must be recorded via direct fire - and while they can be engaged later using pre-recorded targets it isn't indirect firing. I taught laying and recording the gun on the 1 VP PSWQ in 2002/3, and even the WO and MWO running Safety didn't have a clue of of what I was doing in the trench with no direct line of sight to the targets.
I had to get a former Mortar Platoon WO to explain what I was doing to the Safety Staff so I could shoot the gun in indirect. Even then without firing tables - recording targets was by trial and error with adjustments from an observer - we could lay on for bearing easily - but the elevation was a bit of an unknown without the firing tables.

Without firing tables and students knowing how use the C2 Sight to pre-record targets (which seemed to die off when the Mortar Platoons died off) SF kit is then pretty useless - and doesn't offer much more than the M192 LW Ground Mount down here - other than a larger adjustment area for traversing.

Reference the above by @boredtoon. His unit has firing tables and uses them yearly.

 

[KevinB]

IBMG is a standard course for reserve infantry units. IBMG also includes map and table firing. Most units try to put all their new Pte/Cpls through it. I know in my regiment, we do famil on the SF kit and C2 sight at least once a year. We try to shoot with the SF kit on at least one range, but ammo limitations makes this a challenge.

Interesting - where are you getting the firing tables - as at least by 1988 they have been removed.

 

[KevinB]

Reference the above by @boredtoon. His unit has firing tables and uses them yearly.

Yeah I am curious as to when they got re-introduced - or perhaps the PRes never listened to the idiot idea about removing them from the system.
I searched high and low in 2002/03, similar to how I had searched in 1995 (but in 02/03 was able to use the Platoon Computer to search the DWAN, and well as email folks at the School - and was told very specifically that was done - and there was no requirement anymore).

 

[PrairieFella]

Yeah I am curious as to when they got re-introduced - or perhaps the PRes never listened to the idiot idea about removing them from the system.
I searched high and low in 2002/03, similar to how I had searched in 1995 (but in 02/03 was able to use the Platoon Computer to search the DWAN, and well as email folks at the School - and was told very specifically that was done - and there was no requirement anymore).

Knowing the MO well - they probably thought that was stupid and stashed some photocopies in the Unit Pam library haha. Turns out they were correct. I can see plunging fire and area denial for GPMGs will become far more useful again with the proliferation of section level drones.

I'd be curious if something similar can be done on RWS systems. I know the Aussies did some trials on that in the past.

 

[NavyShooter]

Sounds like an example of the old cliché that while most our shit sucks, we train our conventional troops to a higher standard than the Americans. Pretty sure I saw a video of some of the reserve infantry units in 38 CBG using them the other day.

My unit has been tasked to run an IBMG in the fall, and I've already started putting the planning together for it as Training Coy CSM. Booking ranges in Gagetown and finding enough guns for candidates to use are critical factors. (We cannot do SF role in Aldershot, nor any other range that I'm aware of in Nova Scotia.)

Notably, 2 candidates per gun/SF Kit for the classroom stuff, 1500+ rds per student, and 10 training days.

If there's an empty seat, I might jump on, but I am not the priority to attend - I'll put every Cpl and Pte(T) on first before I take one of their spots.

 

[PrairieFella]

My unit has been tasked to run an IBMG in the fall, and I've already started putting the planning together for it as Training Coy CSM. Booking ranges in Gagetown and finding enough guns for candidates to use are critical factors. (We cannot do SF role in Aldershot, nor any other range that I'm aware of in Nova Scotia.)

Notably, 2 candidates per gun/SF Kit for the classroom stuff, 1500+ rds per student, and 10 training days.

If there's an empty seat, I might jump on, but I am not the priority to attend - I'll put every Cpl and Pte(T) on first before I take one of their spots.

It's a sick course. I worked as a storesman supporting one once upon a time. Was pretty jealous as a crewman until I did my DRWS gunnery course - wasn't jealous after that point, I had my stabilized direct fire itch scratched lol.