Light Mortars

[big bad john]

Big Bad John

Doesn't the Brit Army and the RAF Regiment - as opposed to the Marines - still use the 51mms at platoon level?   They are strictly hand-held and don't have a bipod as I understand it so there generally wouldn't be a grouping of them.   The Battalions seem to rely strictly on the 81s for fire support.   I guess that this is based on an intention to use the Battalion as a unit rather than, potentially, as three independent sub-units.

Can you clarify and correct here?

Cheers.

Yes, you are right.  The "Fleet Protection Group RM" also uses the 51mm .  The Army is in the throes adopting the new 60mm Long Range Mortar, the same as the Marines now have.  The 60mm M224 Mortar has been updated and modified for British use.  We use it with "improved munitions.  The 51mm will be history in 5 or so years with the Army and RAF Regiment.  The 51mm is used only in the handheld role.  The new (for the Marines 12 years old) 60mm is used in the handheld role as a traditional "commando" mortar, and with the bipod in support roles.

 

[Kirkhill]

With the 60 being used at both troop and company level (handheld and bipod) for support, is the 81 still value for money or would a smaller number of 120s be a better bet.  Eg 4x 120mm instead of 8x 81mm along with ~12 60s?

 

[Michael OLeary]

Comparing the 120 to the 81 requires the examination of the factors to be considered. If one only accepts range and weight of bomb to be determining factors, then the nod might go to the 120. The heavier weapon, however has some drawbacks that make it less suitable than the 81 as an infantry support weapon in some respects, including:

Weight and size â “ by comparison, the 120 will suffer from loss of mobility, more limited methods of transport, requirement for a larger crew, and greater logistic support

Logistic cost to support - with bombs weighing, on average 4 times as much as an 81's, it costs 4 times the logistic effort to deliver one bomb to the baseplate position, for about twice the lethal area covered by the exploding HE bomb

Employment - the mortar is most often used as a suppressive weapon, the bulk of the ammo provided in most operations being HE (with some exceptions as noted), when used in the suppressive role the most effective aspects of an engagement will be the weight of fire in the first few seconds of the mission, and the frequency of following rounds (the rate of fire). Targeted soldiers will duck just as quickly from an 81 as from a 120 mm bomb explosion. The 81, having a lighter round, allows faster rates of fire at the start of the mission, and with an equitable logistic expenditure, allow for 4 times as many impacting rounds in the course of a mission firing the same weight of ammunition.

Range â “ when I last did a comparison, which was some years ago, the working range of most 120s was 7-8000 m (with the notable exception of the Thomson-Brandt rifled mortar, which could achieve 13000 m, with rocket assisted ammo only). 81s were firing out to 5000m and longer ranging ones were being developed and fielded even a decade ago (the French had one if I recall correctly). The functional range gap has decreased, and with the large areas of operational responsibility we are seeing in many operations today, mobility seems to be more important than range itself.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Michael, I take your point about rate of fire vs 1 large round every Quarter Hour.

Looking at things from the other end of the spectrum - and comparing the 60mm to the CASW, I believe this has been studied by some RMC types.  The CASW, like the 81 will deliver rate of fire rather than weight of fire (40mm vs 60mm) and thus, I suppose could be argued that it is a more effective weapons system - but overall its heavier, doesn't have indirect fire capabiliity and the linked ammo boxes seem to be a bit of a load to expect guys on foot to carry.

Is the CASW an effective replacement for the 60 in a light company or is it really only effective if it has its own vehicle as a weapons carrier? 

Short question to the world at large, Which would you rather have - 60s or CASWs? Or do you need both - meaning more bodies and a longer logistical tail?

Just curious.

 

[Britney Spears]

Somewhat related, <a href=http://www.g2mil.com/155mortars.htm>155mm mortars</a>.

 

[Britney Spears]

It seems the discussion was expanding into the big picture of light infantry fire support, to include the bigger tubes. Not to worry, the mods(if they don't mind) can always spin off new threads if it goes too far off.

 

[Michael OLeary]

BBJ, ack.

I would say that 155 mortar argument is a case to acquire the capabilities of medium artillery and the ranges of light guns under the infantry commanders, calling them mortars helps to avoid having the artillery claim them and bring along the Gun's command and control systems. But let's keep this thread with the company support weapons, if anyone wants to discuss 81 - 120 - 150+ mm mortars, we should start a new thread.

Back to lighter weapons and Kirkhill's questions:

While both the 60 mm and the CASW are company level area suppression weapons with overlapping characteristics, each has capabilities the other doesn't. There will be occasions when each is the optimum weapon system, as well as other instances that each weapon will not effectively fill the bill. If we only compare the 60 in the handheld role and limited to charge 1 in the direct fire role to the CASW in its standard mount application, I suppose they can be considered fairly equal in employment capabilities, with the notable exception of the CASW's belt fed rate of fire. (This doesn't mean other weapon characteristics shouldn't be examined and compared in detail.)  If, however, we add the 60's potential for bipod mounted indirect for applications to full charge ranges, it has advantages the CASW can't deliver.

Which would I rather have? How about both? With the flexibility to deploy either of them with platoons and/or at the Company level depending on the nature of the operation.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks again Michael

Cheers

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Bearing in mind that I am Armoured and not an Infanteer or Mortarman I feel that Light Infantry companies should have a 60mm mortar "group."  It's weight, simplicity (of maintenance) are assets for a light force and its indirect capability give the OC the ability to quickly influence virtually any area in his battlespace.  CASW is an impressive system (whichever is selected), but I think that the weight issue is a problem for light forces.  CASW probably belongs on a vehicle mount and grouped at Battalion level, but with the ability to be "chopped out" to the Companies and dismounted when appropriate.

The Infantry would have to be careful, however, about adverstising that they have 60mm mortars and are practicing indirect fire techniques.  They could end up losing yet another weapon system. 

Cheers,

2B

 

[Kirkhill]

Just came across this today:

Now we have on the horizon a Laser Guided 60mm Mortar Munition capable of being fired from the South African Vektor 60mm Mortar out to ranges of 6000m.

Given that precision increases the effectiveness of a given weight of explosive (same weight, landing closer, more destruction or smaller weight, landing closer, same destruction) and the high rate of fire of the 60mm does that influence the debate over 40mm CASW/60mm/81mm?

Either way it certainly makes a company a particularly capable organization, especially with GPMGs, Long Range Rifles, ALAWS (either Gill/Spike or Javelin) and the 40mm CASW.

BAE Systems to Develop 60mm Mortar Guidance Systems
 
 
(Source: BAE Systems North America; issued Feb. 14, 2005)
 
 
NASHUA, N.H. --- BAE Systems has been selected by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Advanced Technology Office to convert a 60 millimeter mortar into a precision guided munitions system. 

DARPA's Optically Directed Attack Munition (ODAM) program is a technology development and integration initiative to demonstrate a laser-guided, low cost optical seeker for the 60mm mortar. The total value, if all phases of the development program are completed, will be approximately $9 million. The systems will improve U.S. military effectiveness by providing small, operational units with cost-effective precision indirect munitions systems capable of operating across multiple environments. 

Dr. Doug Kirkpatrick, DARPA program manager, said that ODAM represents "a break-through in affordable, precision-guided munitions." 

"ODAM will provide a new capability for the war fighter based on low-cost, precision optical guidance of a munition that has never been able to operate with precision in the past," said Aaron Penkacik, vice president of Advanced Systems and Technology for BAE Systems. 

The ODAM program will occur over 24 months and culminates in a live-fire demonstration and delivery of 1,000 live rounds for government test and evaluation. 

BAE Systems is an international company engaged in the development, delivery and support of advanced defense and aerospace systems in the air, on land, at sea and in space. 
BAE Systems North America is one of America's foremost national security, aerospace and information systems companies. It is a leading provider of electronic and information-based systems and knowledge-based solutions that meet our customers' mission effectiveness and operational safety needs. BAE Systems North America employs more than 30,000 people at sites across the United States and the United Kingdom and generates more than $5 billion in annual sales. 

-ends- 

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/vektor/

 

[Michael OLeary]

Let's wait and see if they can make it work, everyone predicted new roles for the 81 when the British MERLIN round was under development too.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough.

But I think it is fair to say that the Merlin begat the Strix.  While the cost of the Merlin compared against the weight of HE made it impractical (not to mention the physical size of the round for a man-portable system) the targeting system lent itself very well to the 120mm calibre which required a vehicle in any case.

Actually I don't think there will be much problem in getting this thing to work - 1000 rounds for a live fire demonstration in 24 months suggests to me they may already have some of the solutions canned.

They can launch Copperhead rounds from 155s at much higher velocities and forces and since that round was developed solid-state electronics, hardening, miniaturization and cost reductions have all come a long way in the last 25 years.

But as you say, we'll have to wait and see.

Cheers.

 

[big bad john]

Just came across this today:

Now we have on the horizon a Laser Guided 60mm Mortar Munition capable of being fired from the South African Vektor 60mm Mortar out to ranges of 6000m.

Given that precision increases the effectiveness of a given weight of explosive (same weight, landing closer, more destruction or smaller weight, landing closer, same destruction) and the high rate of fire of the 60mm does that influence the debate over 40mm CASW/60mm/81mm?

Either way it certainly makes a company a particularly capable organization, especially with GPMGs, Long Range Rifles, ALAWS (either Gill/Spike or Javelin) and the 40mm CASW.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/vektor/

See the thread on the new South African Mortar under the Weapons Forum.  They have adopted the Vector.

 

[ArmyRick]

I am an expirienced 81mm mortarman and I have used and instructed the 60mm mortar on numerous occassions.
So here is my in 2 cents

60mm Mortar... We still very much teach it on the DP 1 Infantry and we seriously need an up to date PAM and doctrine on it. For light infantry ops, it is terrific. I think we should consider going with a modern 60mm mortar in place of our korean war relic though.
I enjoy seeing the look on the new troopies faces the first time they fire a 60mm and realize how much damage can be done.

BBJ, you probably did not see us using the 60 because in the mech hey days of the eighties and early nineties, in my expirienced we almost never dismounted them. They almost always used to sit in the HQ Call sign.
Until 10/90 came along the CF had 9 mechanized battalions (Grizzly or M113) and light airborne unit (Canadian Airborne Regiment).


81mm Mortar. Good, still man portable but less so (mostly because you need alot of troops to carry a respectable amount of bombs). If you have a respectable helicopter force to assist than I think its great idea to bring them. They also work well mounted in the Bison.

120mm Mortar. In a dismounted use. Forget it. From what I understand of yank doctrine in SCBT, they use 120mm mortar mounted (great for its mobility) and the 60mm mortar for dismounted operations.

 

[big bad john]

Good article on 60mm Mortar usage in Iraq, from Infantry Magazine.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IAV/is_3_93/ai_n6366546

 

[ArmyRick]

BBJ, it was a good bit of reading.

I would try this for employment of mortars in my perfect world.

60mm Mortar, 2-4 light infantry @ Coy HQ
81mm Mortar, 2-4 light infantry @ battalion level
120mm Mortar, 2-4 mounted in a stryker or MTVL (M113 with extra road wheel and more powerfull engine) at a company level (For mech guys)

I beleive this is ideal based on the amount of fire power for each company and the amount of ammo required to sustain these weapons.

 

[big bad john]

Not bad at all.  But as of yet, I am not a 120mm convert.

 

[Art Johnson]

My experience with the 60mm was that it was a Coy weapon to provide DF Tasks, smoke for withdrawl of units in trouble or about to assault and lighting at night. Why would you need such a small mortar to fire 6000 m. The mortar is not a precise weapon it has a beaten zone the size of which increases with the range the weapon is fired. A rifle Coy needs close in support not long range targets, that is the Artillery's job.

 

[big bad john]

With the new precision munitions it is now used on occasion as an indirect fire weapon. 

 

[BernDawg]

My experience with the 60mm was that it was a Coy weapon to provide DF Tasks, smoke for withdrawl of units in trouble or about to assault and lighting at night. Why would you need such a small mortar to fire 6000 m. The mortar is not a precise weapon it has a beaten zone the size of which increases with the range the weapon is fired. A rifle Coy needs close in support not long range targets, that is the Artillery's job.

Now what if said Coy or Pl breaches a ridge line and observes en   positions in the distance or may need to support the flanking unit (units).   I think that a long range semi-indirect weapon would be a very beneficial addition to their arsenal.   It could be deployed long before Bn assets could be brought into play. I have found that our artillery assets are sometimes not avail on such short notice if only because they are engaging targets of greater priority.