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

[Colin Parkinson]

Anyone have an idea of how much a new 60mm mortar costs? How many we would need?

 

[Kat Stevens]

I'm pretty sure my local Hutterite colony's metal shop could crank 'em out for a couple hundred bucks a piece.

 

[dapaterson]

Hutterites are pacifists, and likely would not make weapons.

 

[Kat Stevens]

You'd be surprised how flexible their standards are when there's money to be had.  As far as I know, they are prohibited from fighting, not manufacturing.

*addendum* There are plenty of rifles and shotguns on my local colony.

 

[Petard]

I don't know about a 60, but an 81 goes for about $16K each (EIS extra)

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just reviving this with the latest from the MERX thread:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90186/post-892505#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 …”

 

[Kirkhill]

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.... >

 

[ammocat]

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.

 

[vonGarvin]

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.... >

What?  Who?

Oh, sorry, I thought I heard my name in vain!  ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

Cancel my last MERX post - new one up today:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/90186/post-893403#msg893403

"....ESTIMATED COST OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT: $1,200,000.00...." (twice as much as Tuesday's MERX ACAN)

 

[ammocat]

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.

 

[McG]

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.

 

[ArmyRick]

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).

 

[GnyHwy]

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.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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.

 

[Infanteer]

Would a 120mm in a LAV combined with the M777 be a nice mix?

 

[ArmyRick]

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.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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.

 

[Michael OLeary]

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.

 

[GnyHwy]

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.