Mortars: 51 mm, 60 mm, 81 mm, 120 mm & more

[ArmyRick]

Its too bad that the whole mortar issue has been a problem. The arty don't really want them and the infantry never wanted to give them up.

 

[Petard]

The honeymoon with the M777 is almost over as the bride has shown to be higher maintenance and less versatile than anticipated.  A rugged, high mobility 120mm which would be cheaper and require fewer servants could be interesting now.

I would say there never really was a honeymoon, the Cdn Forces settled for what was the best girl available to dance with at the time, and she has remained faithful, even if we have misunderstood what we might get from her from time to time. But that doesn't mean we should ditch her.

While the M777 certainly has had maintenance problems, keep in mind this tends to happen with something brand new; did you see anything like it before in service? Even the digital system on the gun was developed at short notice, was working before the American equivalent was, and yes it showed teething problems but it has gone a long way, especially at night, in improving occupation and response times. Development is still on going to make it more robust.

As for lack versatility, keep it mind the M777 was designed to be replace the M198, a gun primarily used in a reinforcing role, and sometimes in a close support role, a far cry from organic firepower to a Bn which some think is its purpose. A reinforcing type of role used to require a system that is less flexible since it was meant to engage tgt's at long range, sometimes with sustained fire to fix the enemy (something a rocket system does not do well), and this the M777 does very well, now in excess of 30 km. This role usually requires a carriage design that is very heavy to achieve the stability required to heave something heavy that far. To save weight the M777 design used some unique approaches, but one of the compromises still involved lack of carriage flexibility to achieve rigidity, and is one of the main reasons it needs a 10 man det to manhandle and prepare a gun platform.  Things change and now artillery systems are required to be more flexible, ie to be able to do reinforcing and close support and sometimes even general support; the M777 wasn't particularly designed to be that versatile, but considering its being used in a way it wasn't originally meant for, with such short notice, and with so few for training the dets and maintainers, it isn't doing too bad as a "brand new" technology.

In 2005 the indirect fire capability sought specifically for the Afghan mission, and not as a replacement for the M109, was long range fire support, with the potential for precision guided ammunition. At that time the only system that fit that was the M777, which, given the points above, I would argue was not really designed for the way in which some thought it should be used; close support for a BG. Nevertheless all things considered it was the best fit at the time.

This idea of replacing the M777 with a 120 mortar, or any other type of mortar system, is mixing up capability requirements. The M777, even in Afghanistan, has ended up being used as a Brigade resource. For those who might not know what I mean; sometimes a Troop of guns (or more) may be tasked to other formations (Brits in Helmand, Dutch in Kahkrez), and consequently a Coy in the Cdn BG goes without. But this has been the role of Field Artillery for some time, to coordinate and concentrate more weight of fire where it is needed most, and as the Mission evolved the need for the deployed Artillery to return to its traditional role only highlighted another capability deficiency that has existed for some time. The organic fire support capability need at the Bn level has never gone away, it just hasn't been dealt with
I would agree that a big hole was created in Infantry Bn's when the 81's left, and this point has been discussed at length elsewhere, but just because there is hole there does not mean another capability has to be sacrificed to fill it. This goes along with the absurd notion that because CASW is coming (sometime?) they 60's have to be removed from service.

I think the gunners should stick with the girl they brought to the dance, but someone needs to set the infantry up with a date, maybe (as is being suggested in this thread) their old flame 

 

[Kirkhill]

The honeymoon with the M777 is almost over as the bride has shown to be higher maintenance and less versatile than anticipated.  A rugged, high mobility 120mm which would be cheaper and require fewer servants could be interesting now.

If I understand the history of light guns and pack howitzers it seems that this is an ongoing problem with them.  They engineer so much "meat" off the frame in order to meet the weight requirements that there is no resiliency left and the result is a short life and high maintenance.

And D&B, wrt "If the Pl Comd has to wait for a Cecil B Demile Production (cast of thousands, millions of dollars, years in the making) it might be too late to be successful.":  I understand "better a battalion in time, than a division too late."  I think that the battalion should have its own indirect/high-angle capability.  I am just not sure that we can afford (or that it is necessary) to have each battalion field a full slate of 60s, 81s and 120s, on top of the 40mm GMGs after the fashion of the Stryker Battalions.

Having said that, every battalion can't have all the kit that a division carries.  

 

[vonGarvin]

I think the gunners should stick with the girl they brought to the dance, but someone needs to set the infantry up with a date, maybe (as is being suggested in this thread) their old flame 

Normally once I break up with someone, I don't go back, but in this case, I'd love to rekindle that long lost flame I had with my girls, the 81 sisters! ;D

 

[Old Sweat]

If I understand the history of light guns and pack howitzers it seems that this is an ongoing problem with them.  They engineer so much "meat" off the frame in order to meet the weight requirements that there is no resiliency left and the result is a short life and high maintenance.

I don't think this applies in the case of the M777. Titanium was used to reduce the weight and some novel approaches were taken in the design of the equipment, especially the non-recoiling parts. Remember that this is the first time for many years that we were the first to field a new weapon fresh of the early part of the production run. It should come as no surprise that a number of kinks were discovered the hard way. (The only previous example I am aware of is the Churchill tank at Dieppe.)

To get back to the main point, what calibre of mortar should we use if we had to select one or two?

 

[ArmyRick]

A new 60mm mortar for light Infantry operations and lets purchase the Stryker mortar carrier with 120mm mortar for mounted Ops. Lets assign 2 mortar dets (120mm) to every infantry company as organic fire power to the OC. There are some things the yanks do that have proven succesfully in combat (Iraq) and this is one idea I like alot.

This idea to expand further and copy directly from a stryker infantry company would involve 2 x stryker mortar carriers 120mm with 60 x 120mm bombs and each of thos would have a dismountable 60mm with a small stash of ammo for airmobile and mountain ops.

Transfer all existing 81mm mortars and the ammo stock to reserve infantry units. 2 per unit. This my opion as an old mortar pig.

 

[Arius]

I’m not advocating the replacement of the 155mm from the artillery.  I’m all for the capability to level a grid square from more than 20k away – Give them MLRS stuff also.

Using the soldier as a mule irks me and it will need to stop.  45lbs is supposed to be the max combat load to maintain some tactical agility for a 180lbs naked guy...  We’re running at 100lbs + these days.  Hopefully, the Integrated Soldier System Project will get it right.  I expect to see a future where the soldier doesn’t have to carry the means to achieve an effect on the battlefield.  Be it a laying a smoke screen, taking out a tank or levelling a building.  I would like the soldier to designate the target and call in the effect.

The effect tools need to be standing by to fire.  For this, I would think that having the weapon system within the same unit is a must.  The PGM issue is a big one since discriminate fire is a requirement nowadays.  We can’t target bad guys in their compound and have rounds land in the schoolyard next to it.  It will become more so in the future as we get involved in denser urban settings.

What I would like is find enough reasons to justify a return of mortars to the infantry unit.  For that we need to figure out the indirect fire deficiencies of other systems and sell the solution.  Multiple mortar types won’t fly.  We need to approach it from the point of view of having only one calibre to play with.  I lean toward the 120mm because I feel the terminal effects are probably better.  From both the point of a heavy round crashing through buildings, range, kill radius and precision.  I don’t have enough hard data to fall on my sword on that yet.

I don’t want to get rid of the M777 but I would be ready to steal money and NP from it…

 

[daftandbarmy]

I’m not advocating the replacement of the 155mm from the artillery.  I’m all for the capability to level a grid square from more than 20k away – Give them MLRS stuff also.

Using the soldier as a mule irks me and it will need to stop.  45lbs is supposed to be the max combat load to maintain some tactical agility for a 180lbs naked guy...  We’re running at 100lbs + these days.  Hopefully, the Integrated Soldier System Project will get it right.  I expect to see a future where the soldier doesn’t have to carry the means to achieve an effect on the battlefield.  Be it a laying a smoke screen, taking out a tank or levelling a building.  I would like the soldier to designate the target and call in the effect.

Hear hear I say. Speaking as an old 'mule' (hee haw), the infantry can travel lighter if the A/B and other Echelons can get him what he needs when he needs it. Whenever I've had excellent and flexible support from the echelons, it's been easier to get out of the habit of carrying the kitchen sink 'just in case'. I've even seen depth rifle companies converted into 'CSup porters' for forward elements. Regardless, maybe we need to invest our money at the 'dull end' to make the 'sharp end' more effective?


*fixed your quotes

 

[vonGarvin]

Unless someone develops 5 gram anti tank rockets, mortar bombs, etc, then avoiding the use of soldiers as pack mules will never be anything more than a pipe dream.

I'm sorry, but i have zero faith in DLR.  We have a new CADPAT rucksack that was designed and trialed using webbing that we no longer use (what tells me that is the recent ruck march I did in which the waist belt was useless, because it couldn't be done up properly while wearing tac vest and flak vest with plates).  In short, it's junk (with a capital J).

You're quite right in that we need a minimal number of calibres, if possible.  We currently have the following calibres for small arms:
9 mm
5.56mm
5.56mm link (I'll list this as separate because, as issued, it cannot be fired in a rifle or carbine.  Meaning you have to delink it first)
7.62mm
12.7mm (aka "50 cal")
We currently have the following mortar calibres
60mm
81mm
I say: stay with the status quo.  They are both combat proven calibres, and let's face it, 155 isn't used to vaporise grid squares.  I realise that the current 60 barrels are worn beyond life expectancy.  I have a solution: buy more of the same barrels.  Or refit them.  Don't buy a different barrel (requiring years of trialing, etc), just get the barrel we have now, but new.

The real problem has nothing at all to do with equipment.  It's all about manpower (or soldier power).  We dont' have enough people to man everything.  That's why the mortar platoons are no more.  That's why we don't have enough indirect firepower in theatre: 155's are doing everything, whereas if we had them, 81's would fire probably half of those missions.

[/rant]

Anyway, sorry, I have the pre-leave doldrums.  I'm sure I'll be back to my happy self post leave! ;D

 

[daftandbarmy]

Let's put mortars on tanks, like the Isarealis. Problem solved:

http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/vehicles/tanks/merkava/MerkavaMk3.html
 
The Merkava Mk. 3 entered service with the IDF at the beginning of 1990. All systems and assemblies were of new design and all, except for the engine, are of Israeli design and production. Among the prominent features of the Merkava Mk. 3 are: new suspension system, 1200 horsepower engine and new transmission, higher power main gun and ballistic protection provided by special armour modules. About 1000 Merkava Mk. 2 and Mk. 3 tanks are in service with the IDF. 
 
Armament 
 
The main gun is a 120 mm smoothbore gun developed by Israeli Military Industries. The gun has a Vidco Industries thermal sleeve, which increases accuracy by preventing distortion through the effects of heat and shock. The tank carries an ammunition store of 50 rounds of 120 mm ammunition. The tank is also equipped with three 7.62 mm machine guns, two roof mounted and one co-axial with the main gun. The tank carries a store of 10,000 rounds of 7.62 mm ammunition.
The Soltam 60 mm mortar system is capable of firing high explosive rounds and illumination bombs. The crew can load, aim and fire the mortar system from within the turret.

 

[ArmyRick]

Where exactly is this 60mm mortar on the tanks? I have seen many pics of the merkava(s) and can't figure it out. I do know they have them.

 

[McG]

The mortar is inside:

 

[daftandbarmy]

Very cool. That would be a nice addition to our APCs and tanks.

 

[McG]

Buy 120 mortars [in addition to the potential HIMARS purchase] and we've mirrored the USMC's "Triad of Fires" concept.  Get some more people and we may be able to effectively man these systems.

The piece of the triad that the 120mm makes up has nothing to do with the size of the round.  It is all about integral fire support i.e. giving the supported commander his own dedicated indirect fire capability.  We had that with the 81mm and we took it away.  While yes the 120mm is bigger, and therefor arguably better (mobility issues and RoF aside) we could first start with giving the infantry back its mortars.

So, while it does not exist in NATO inventories, would a 100 mm mortar be a system worth exploring as a compromise between 81 mm and 120 mm?

 

[Infanteer]

I only mention the 120 because the Marine artillery use it to augment Infantry Battalion 81mm in an expeditionary setting - presumbably when it is too difficult to get M777s ashore and to support them.  I remember some of the Mortar Guys comparing the two - could they be complementary (especially if the Infantry got the 81mm back?) when deploying a full up Howitzer Battery was "too much"?

 

[George Wallace]

Good points all around.  I would like to see 120mm mostly for the wide range of munitions avail to it.  I am sure with its added range it would greatly complement our other systems.  I would even like to see the day when the Armour Corps would have them in their Support Troops, which they haven`t seen since WW II.

 

[daftandbarmy]

All mortars are cheap, effective, low tech, easy to service and fix, easy to use at night and in adverse weather conditions, have high rates of fire, are flexible as they use lots of different ammo natures, are a good supplement to all the other heavy direct fire weapons we already field (25mm, 120mm, 50 cal, various anti-armour focused electric darts etc etc), have ammo that is easily packed and transported (in comparison with other natures), are very accurate and have a decent range with all the new fancy schmancy ammo.

Oh, and they're cheap, did I already say that? So we can use it far more often in training and get troops used to calling for indirect fire etc.

I find it bizzarre, borderline negligent, that our army hasn't embraced these things wholeheartedly instead of trying to eliminate them from the armoury and treating them like the red headed step child of the indirect fire support world (shaking head and rummaging through bergan looking for mess tins now).  :deadhorse:

 

[ArmyRick]

I agree 100%. We need to take mortars seriously again. I am still a firm beleiver in following the US SNCT model of having 2 x stryker APC with 120mm mortars in each rifle coy. Indirect fire support at the OC's finger tips. I would keep the 60mm mortar for dismounted task. If we did get the 120mm (for mounted ops) then I think we should simply bin the 81mm. Yes i am quite expirienced on 81s so I do know what i am talking about.

I think an indirect package of 60mm mortar, 120mm mortar and 155mm M777 is the ideal solution.

 

[vonGarvin]

I agree 100%. We need to take mortars seriously again. I am still a firm beleiver in following the US SNCT model of having 2 x stryker APC with 120mm mortars in each rifle coy. Indirect fire support at the OC's finger tips. I would keep the 60mm mortar for dismounted task. If we did get the 120mm (for mounted ops) then I think we should simply bin the 81mm. Yes i am quite expirienced on 81s so I do know what i am talking about.

I think an indirect package of 60mm mortar, 120mm mortar and 155mm M777 is the ideal solution.

I would disagree if only in degrees from your post.  I would go with the 60 at platoon level, 81 at Coy level, 120 at Bn level, and "whatever" for artillery.

It's all about range bands.  A pl, mech or dismounted, has a range of its integral weapons, all light role, to circa 600-800 metres.  The 60 fits well into that.  Only with a bipod can it reach out beyond 2 km.
For the coy, the range bands are from 1800 to around 2400.  The 81 goes well beyond that; however, the weight of fire it would bring (say 3 or 4 per company) far surpass that of the 60.  And given today's operational environment, its 5+km range would be ideal.
Bn level mortars, if 81 were at coy level, would naturally be the longer ranged 120.

For fire support, it's all about layering effects and capabilities. 

 

[TangoTwoBravo]

Perhaps a section of two or three new 60mm mortars with bipods at company level and a platoon of  81mm/120mm at battalion level? I worked with a Marine battalion that had 60mm at company and 81mm at battalion and it seemed a sensible mix. Those company mortars had bipods and looked to me like 81mm on a smaller scale.

Would a mounted battalion have a different set of mortars, perhaps, than a dismounted battalion?