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

[vonGarvin]

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?

Well, perhaps a mounted would have 60/81/120 (pl, coy, bn), and a dismounted (aka "light", as in foot-borne, not motorised or any combination thereof) perhaps x/60/81.  Load carriage would restrict the "lighter" mortars one level higher, in my opinion.

 

[ArmyRick]

For mounted Ops, i standby my position, ditch the 81mm and go with 120mm. Might as well get the awesome blast effect. If its mounted, then why waste your time with 81? I would still go with 120mm.

 

[vonGarvin]

For mounted Ops, i standby my position, ditch the 81mm and go with 120mm. Might as well get the awesome blast effect. If its mounted, then why waste your time with 81? I would still go with 120mm.

For a mechanised battalion, I agree that you go with 120mm, but why go with 60 at coy level, when you could have 81?  81 provides awesome weight of lethal and non-lethal fires to the coy commander, while still allowing the platoons to have 60's (from experiences in Afghanistan, the 60 is a much-beloved piece of kit).  So, I'm not saying "81 over 120", I'm saying "both".

 

[McG]

For a mechanised battalion, I agree that you go with 120mm, but why go with 60 at coy level, when you could have 81?  81 provides awesome weight of lethal and non-lethal fires to the coy commander, while still allowing the platoons to have 60's.  So, I'm not saying "81 over 120", I'm saying "both".

But, why go with 81 at coy level, when you could have 120?  Having the two types of mortars in a BG increases the logistic demands (two types of ammo, to sets of parts). If you are going to make the effort to go bigger than the 60 mm, what is lost by going all the way to 120 mm?

 

[Michael OLeary]

As with many discussions here on the acquisition of weapons and equipment, first we need to decide what role the mortars fill.  Are they principally for suppression of dismounted pers and soft targets?  Are the high-priority roles envisioned to be those requiring improved munitions?  For each task, it needs to be determined at what level they are conducted, and therefore who controls the weapon systems; and what, in manpower, vehicles and logistic support requirements, are to be acceptable.

Developing a "system of mortars" across the platoon-company-battalion can certainly allow the addressing of different primary tasks by different components of the system. 

60-81-120 are not just three sizes of one weapon.  They do have different characteristics of mobility, firepower (especially as a result of logistic effort), and costs in terms of manpower and vehicles to bring each of them to bear on the fight.  If one mortar does the job envisioned for it, stepping up to the next larger weapon may not be as simple or effective as it sounds if its harder to place, operate and feed with ammo through the whole logistic system.

Also, what types of tactical environments do we see them used in.  What might be manageable at a certain level in a low threat (i.e.,  friendly air dominance and no enemy counter-battery) may be an unsupportable solution in a higher threat environment where a lighter system could still have provided the essential firepower.

So, perhaps the first question is, what do we want our mortars (within this proposed system of mortars) to achieve? - and the answer may be different at each level of command for the mortars they would control.

Secondly, what mobility requirements and limitations will be acceptable at each level?  Vehicle mounted weapons are great, but the capability to deploy dismounted weapons may be a desirable or essential factor at some levels.

What logistic support cost to supply ammo is acceptable at each level?  The bulk of ammo that might be deliverable to a battalion mortar platoon may be untenable as a component of a company resupply in operations.

 

[ArmyRick]

After reading what US Soldiers employing the stryker mortar carrier with 120mm mortars I see mortars being used in LAv coys as such
-Very fast to bring into action and lethal fire power (120mm is more lethal than 105mm howitzer)
-At company commanders finger tips (I am adament that they be a Coy level and we forget this BN level mortars business), I would leave the M777 battery to be the BG level fire support
-Used in different ways
---HE (obvious)
---Smoke (blind/screen, etc, etc)
---Illumination (Ah here we go) a very vaulauble assett to see who is doing what at night (Mortar illum is excellent because of the high angle) and wait for it
---IR Illumination (I am sure that this is availible for 120mm mortar ammo) this would be a biggy for A-stan. The insurgents wouldn't even know they are being watched unless they have IR capability (they very well might)
---The US are working on it and the swedes have it, precision 120mm mortar HE. Similar to excaliber, minimize colateral damage

I again standby that 120mm mortars mounted and 60mm mortars dismounted. I would reccomend we get a new 60mm but I know, I know, highly unlikely. The 60mm mortar is Much more man packable than 81mm and the ammo load should be obvious, YOU CAN CARRY MORE! The 60mm HE is nasty enough agaisnt troops, the illumination is decent and the WP rounds are good to go. I have OODLEs of expirience with 60mm (its one of my favorite) and I am big fan for light ops.

Again I want to emphasize that I think we should have 2 x 120mm Stryker mortar carriers with each each LAV Coy and NO BN level mortar platoon. The BN fire power would be to bring in the M777 Battery. 

 

[vonGarvin]

After reading what US Soldiers employing the stryker mortar carrier with 120mm mortars I see mortars being used in LAv coys as such
-Very fast to bring into action and lethal fire power (120mm is more lethal than 105mm howitzer)
-At company commanders finger tips (I am adament that they be a Coy level and we forget this BN level mortars business), I would leave the M777 battery to be the BG level fire support
-Used in different ways
---HE (obvious)
---Smoke (blind/screen, etc, etc)
---Illumination (Ah here we go) a very vaulauble assett to see who is doing what at night (Mortar illum is excellent because of the high angle) and wait for it
---IR Illumination (I am sure that this is availible for 120mm mortar ammo) this would be a biggy for A-stan. The insurgents wouldn't even know they are being watched unless they have IR capability (they very well might)
---The US are working on it and the swedes have it, precision 120mm mortar HE. Similar to excaliber, minimize colateral damage

I again standby that 120mm mortars mounted and 60mm mortars dismounted. I would reccomend we get a new 60mm but I know, I know, highly unlikely. The 60mm mortar is Much more man packable than 81mm and the ammo load should be obvious, YOU CAN CARRY MORE! The 60mm HE is nasty enough agaisnt troops, the illumination is decent and the WP rounds are good to go. I have OODLEs of expirience with 60mm (its one of my favorite) and I am big fan for light ops.

Again I want to emphasize that I think we should have 2 x 120mm Stryker mortar carriers with each each LAV Coy and NO BN level mortar platoon. The BN fire power would be to bring in the M777 Battery. 

I think that we are in violent agreement on a few things, because you do raise some very germane points
The lethal and non-lethal effects that can be provided (and are provided by the 60 right now) at the lowest of levels frees up higher assets to do the real business of killing.  Now, I won't talk about Afghanistan in particular, because no matter the organisation or tools, they would have to be flexible enough in any type of war (conventional, non-conventional, peace support, etc).
"A" 60mm mortar for dismounted operations is a no-brainer, in my opinion.  Fast into action, "relatively" light, and you have already brought up those points.
"A" 120mm mortar, mounted (for obvious reasons!) is also an outstanding weapon, and as you point out, more lethal than 105, not only due to the larger projectile, but also as a function of its terminal ballistics.
The point of contention is the lack of battalion level "mortar" asset.
For starters, I wouldn't go with the 60 for coy level ops for the simple matter of the range: it's not far enough.  For platoons, its perfect, and yes I acknowledge that it outranges a 25mm; however, the best place to fire is well back of the FEBA, or at least not in the sights of the enemy, so add some range, and it quickly loses ability to hit out far enough on a company fire plan.
That leads to the conclusion that something with more range ought to be at the coy level.  I agree that it be a mortar carrier (we currently have, in pristeen condition, somewhere, a bunch of Mortar Bisons, so whether Stryker, or Bison, that's moot).  I would offer that for a mortar to be effective at the company level, it must be able to be dismounted for, well, dismounted ops.  As an example, suppose a LAV company were to be tasked on an airmobile or dismounted action.  Were the mortars not be able to be humped in (and yes, I know the pain of humping in 81s!), then that is, in my opinion, a non starter.  So, from that premise, the 120mm is out of the running at company level.
This leads me to the battalion level.  I think that we were on to something with the battalion having integral mortars (as is the rest of NATO, and the former Warsaw Pact, I might add).  Right now, in Canada's fight, there is one battery to support one battalion.  That may not always be the case (for whatever reason).  For a mechanised battalion, then, a battalion level mortar platoon, able to reach out and superimpose its integral fire support onto the company plan, it has to be, in my opinion, long ranging enough, and potent enough, to do the job.  For all the reasons you pointed out above, the 120 mm fits the bill.
Now, the battalion level mortar platoon does more than just fire.  It coordinates the fire of integral and supporting assets.  It does that and more (and I'm sure you're aware).  The artillery regiment could be augmented to give every battery an FSCC to bring along to the fight (instead of just the BC in the old model), but if that were the case, then the FSCC would not be integral to the CO, and that, in my opinion, is an error.
So, for these reasons, and more, is why I would prefer a 60/81/120 mix.  As for three natures of ammo, well, the platoon already has four natures of small arms ammo: 9mm, 5.56mm clipped, 5.56 mm link and 7.62mm link.  I doubt that three vice two natures of mortar ammo would break the back of our logistics system.

Anyway, I do appreciate your points, and I look forward to your comments.  Take care

Rambler

 

[ArmyRick]

I will go into further detail following the US Stryker BCT model, in the stryker battalions, each company has the 2 x mortar dets, each det has the following
-120mm Mortar mounted + 60 x rounds ammo 120mm
-Dismountable 60mm mortar + 20 x 60mm ammo

The stryker battalion mortar platoon (part of their HQ Coy) has dismountable 81mm in addition to the 120mm.

They carry both systems on one vehicle. Depending on wether it is battalion mortar platoon or Company mortar squad (section in our terms).

The US intend to use Stryker battalions in both mounted and dismounted ops and thats why their mortars in the Stryker battalions are configured as such. Thats why I like their model, it is maximum flexibility. I should have gone into more detail on how they employ mortars. I know somebody is going to say thats them not us. But I look at it this way, if we get mortars back, we have a chance to re-build our thinking on employing mortars.

Another difference to note, in the Stryker BCT, the Cavalry Squadron (equivalent to a Canadian armoured Regt) is roled for reconnaissnace and some other cavalry task. Their mortars are all mounted and they only use 120mm.

I do see we agree on a lot of issues, i guess it is just fine tuning of the employment.

 

[Kirkhill]

But you two now seem be creating a natural dividing line between mounted ops and dismounted ops.  A  120, and a 25mm, both require 20 tonne carriers to be effective.  Dismounted troops, infantry can't carry those systems.

If you are going to consider using the same 6-9 battalions of infantry in all future ops, both dismounted and mounted, hasty intervention or planned sustained operation, doesn't that bring you back around to whether or not the Carriers should be part of the Battalion structure?

If you leave the Carriers out of the structure of the battalion and stipulate that the infantry has to be able to pack their kit so as to exhibit max flex capability then that leaves you free to pile whatever system you like onto the Carriers.

It also leaves open the possibility of the retaining the Carriers at Brigade level and integrating them with the infantry through association and training. 

Under those circumstances MRs 60/81 Battalion, 120 Brigade makes sense to me.

On the other hand if you are going to limit the deployability of the inf by insisting that they only go where they can take their Carriers then by all means integrate the Carriers in the battalion and they can bring along their 25s and 120s.

But they won't be, in my opinion, as broadly available for ops, as dismounted troops that cadge a lift with trained Carrier operators.  They will be better trained for mounted ops.

 

[ArmyRick]

Kirkhill, stand by.

1. Enough of pooling tactical resources at Brigade level. We don't do really do brigade ops, things at brigade level tend to stay there.
2. IFV or Carriers belong to the troops who use them. The dismounts in the back need to be familiar with this systems they work and they function as part of a team
3. Look at what I said about Stryker BCT. They must be prepared for mounted ops and dismounted ops. They have to be flexible enough to do both. Thats why stryker infantry battalions have 9 man dismounted squads as opposed to bradley 6 man dismounted squad. Get the picture?
4. The Stryker Infantry company is a very robust and flexible organization. It has built into its organization a Company HQ with medical evac resources, a mortar section, a MGS platoon and 3 x 48 man platoons (with 36 dismounts in each! Thats a decent number of boots on the ground).

I really don't like this whole pooling this and that at Brigade level. The point of having mortars is for the immediate coy comd on the ground to be able to bring them quickly to bear on the enemy. Mortars are very fast. Same with having LAVIII at Brigade level, why? Seriously why would you do that?

I fear that you are thinking too much at the echelon level in a weird way.

 

[Kirkhill]

Rick, Splash.

Just thinking weirdly.

No problem with your logic.  Just that the outcome is that in all scenarios something has to give, some compromise.  I happen to believe that your Stryker Brigade scenario will result in the Canadian government being less equipped for effective hasty interventions.

I agree that separating the troops from the carriers will result in them being less effective panzergrenadiers and the entire force being less effective in that role.   But unless we bump up resources significantly so we can maintain a rapid reaction brigade of 3 battalions for hasty interventions and some 9 battalions of panzergrenadiers for sustained ops everything is a compromise.

So what selection of tools in what organization gives the maximum flexibility of response to the Canadian Government at the least cost to the Treasury and with the maximum security to the Troops?

Edited to add:  Is it as simple as taking a top down approach rather than a bottom up view?  Rather than starting from the Section and stipulating the number of troops in a section, sections/platoon, platoons/company......and the weapons necessary to meet capabilities (some defined in treaties and agreements) is it possible to start and say we have X number of troops.  We will divide them into one rapid reaction force of 3 deployable teams and one sustainng force of 9 deployable teams. The manpower available in those teams allows us to man this equipment and perform these tasks, this is what we can contribute - regardless of how the rest of our allies organize to meet their obligations.

 

[ArmyRick]

First off, I beleive that our army should be organized (regular) with 6 x infantry companies with 4 x LAVIII companies each
What I am proposing would be (if we add six fully equipped modern day LAV battalions) would be the purchase of say 56 x LAV III Mortar (basically a stryker mortar carrier)
That would be 2 x for each LAV Coy (x 24) and 8 more for the now extinct mortar cell at the infantry school. Each one would do as I said in an earlier post, be primarily 120mm mounted mortars, but I would have a dismountable 60mm mortar with a small number of rounds for dismounted ops. i would also bump up the mortar crew to 4 (the old canadian infantry det was 3).

 

[McG]

So what selection of tools in what organization gives the maximum flexibility of response to the Canadian Government at the least cost to the Treasury and with the maximum security to the Troops?

To answer that, you need to look beyond just mortars.  You need to consider the role of mortars alongside other systems on the battlefield (like rockets, howitzers, CASW, TOW, etc), and you need to look at the larger doctrine & force structure.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/83079.0.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Shifting gears MCG.

 

[ammocat]

If a Coy has a HQ, 2 Mortar Carriers and 3-4 LAVIII platoons, who controls the mortar carriers and who calls in the fire. Each Coy would require someone to act as the fire controller and someone at either Coy or Bn level would have to coordinate the fire. I see this scenario adding extra people and vehicles to every Coy as well as increasing the required support from Wpn Techs, FCS Techs, Maint, etc and increasing the logistical demand for fuel, food, water, and yet another nature of ammunition.

I am not familiar with any 120mm mortar carrier, so I will have to do some research, but I imagine the basic load is limited especially if a mixed load (HE, Illum, Smoke) is carried. This would require frequent ammo resupply, something I am not sure we can support. From what I have read the Stryker battalions have a mixture of four 120mm and six 81mm vehicle mounted mortars. The 120mm mortar vehicles have a 81mm mortar for dismounted use and the 81mm mortar vehicles have 60mm mortars for dismounted use.

Supporting 3 calibres of mortar would be difficult and mixed ammunition loads would further limit the amount of each type of ammunition carried.

The old mortar platoons had two groups, each with four carriers for the mortars, a carrier for the group commander, and a carrier for the fire controller. Platoon HQ had the FSCC to coordinate the fire and movement of the groups. I Kosovo we had the 81mm mortar Bison (Wolf) but were unable to mount the mortars in the vehicles. Never saw this vehicle in action during my stint in mortars.

There are some advantages to 120mm in the target effects of the ammunition, but I think it would be easier to sustain a 81mm mortar vehicle where the mortar can be dismounted and used independently of the vehicle and base the mortar assets as it use to be, a mortar platoon. Leave the 60mm with the pl wpns det.

 

[ArmyRick]

Stryker mortar carrier, 60 x 120mm mortar bombs

The company and battalion mortars use 120mm mounted in the vehicle and the dismountable for the BN Mor PL is 81mm where the dismountable for the Coy is 60mm. What wikipedia says and the US troops I am chatting with say are two different things.

I did forget to mention in the US Stryker INF Coy, the mortars are controlled by a Fire Support team mounted in a special Stryker (Similar to our FC from the old mortar platoons)

Thats all they have at Coy level, 3 vehicles and they use new technology in a big way to their advantage (GPS, Force Battlefield command thingy canot remember the name it shows blue force units). The nature of ammo at Coy level would be 120mm mortar and 60mm mortar. I am seriously thinking that people can't stop thinking about yesteryear. Lets maybe try something new, huh?

As far as different ammo in a Coy, what do we have now typically found in a LAVIII Coy? 5.56mm ball, 5.56mm link, 7.62mm link, 25mm, 40mm M203, M72 (Old favorite is back), 84mm ammo (Typically HEAT and HEDP) and 60mm mortar ammo (HE, ILLUM, SMK). My example would see adding 120mm mortar to the Coy.

Again i want to point out the advantage of 120mm Mortar ammo (some people don't get it)
-Range; 7,200m (not very far, but mortars are known for being quick and deadly)
-can fire 16 rounds a minute for 1 minute than sustained fire is 4 rounds per minute
-120mm HE Lethal radius 60m
-High angle excellent for proximity burst, illumination and overall even blast effect

I again stand by what I am saying. I have yet to see a sound argument for not getting 120mm mortars in our army.

 

[dapaterson]

Three arguments:

No people no man them.

No money to buy them.

No money to buy ammo to sustain them.

 

[ArmyRick]

let me guess, you remember not that long ago we were getting out of the tank business?

The whole idea of this thread is talking about possibilities. IMO, it takes people with ideas to come up with suggestions and then sell it with a strong enough sales pitch and you never know, we may or may not get the goodies.

Just remember 4-5 years ago there was no hope or even a dream of us having leopard 2s.

 

[ammocat]

As for no people to man them, I believe the loss of mortar platoon and pioneer platoon had an effect on retention in the infantry. There were some die hard mortarmen in the platoon I was in. Funding to procure a mortar vehicle may be hard to come by, but I think the ammo world could support the ammunition requirements if required.

I think 3 levels of mortars complicates logistics. I would hate to see the 60mm mortar be lost as any infantryman can use it in the hand held role. I believe the armoured assault troop was could also handle the 60mm mortar (rumour I heard once, never seen it). With a small amount of training the mortar can be used in the bi-pod in the direct fire role. (the C-2 sight used to aim at the target vice an aiming post). With a little more training it can be used as a indirect fire weapon. This gives the Pl/Coy quite a bit of flexibility in how this weapon is employed.

I am not sure that we require an 81mm and 120mm mortar and I feel that the 81mm mortar provides more flexibility as it can be used mounted in the vehicle or dismounted.

The mortar bison carried a basic load of 111 cartridges, with a mix of 84 HE, 21 Smk, 6 Illum, so the basic load is almost double what the 120mm basic load is. The range for the 81mm varies depending on type of ammunition but the C70A1 HE is listed at 4800m. The HE has a lethal radius of 40m and casualty producing radius of 150m. The US M252 81mm mortar is listed at 5650m with a sustained fire rate of 15rds/min, ammunition is not specified. The 120mm has some advantages in range and lethal radius, but limitations in ammunition carried. The high angle should be the same for both, thus equally effective for proximity and blast effect.

I am still not totally clear on the Stryker mortar vehicle. If the vehicle has a mounted 120mm and they use a dismounted 81mm, who carries the 81mm and the required ammunition. Is this essentially a CQ responsibility? Do they carry the 81mm in the Stryker and then call the ammo forward when it is required? Do you have any good links for the Stryker other than Wikipedia for this?

 

[Kirkhill]

Ammocat:

Try this link - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/images/ibct.gif

I don't know how up to date it is.  It was the "pre-contact" plan.  2x81mm/coy and 4x120mm/bn for the inf.  The cav got 2x120mm/tp.

Here's the primary article - http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/brigade-ibct.htm