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

[PPCLI Guy]

My point is:

With a strength of Reg Force strength of 68,000 ( more or less), maybe we could be a bit more general combat power focused and a bit less " boutique capability" focused.

Wholeheartedly agree.  Not much point in having STA and massive ASICs to find the enemy if you have nothing left to strike it with.  Not much point in robust HQs if you have nothing to command.  Not much point in 5th generation fighters if you have no tactical mobility or integral aviation fire support.

Just saying

 

[SeaKingTacco]

How does a massive ASIC find the enemy, anyway?

 

[PPCLI Guy]

You know - all that synchronised synergistic holistic manouevrist effects based adaptive and dispersed information dominance

 

[Old Sweat]

Wholeheartedly agree.  Not much point in having STA and massive ASICs to find the enemy if you have nothing left to strike it with.  Not much point in robust HQs if you have nothing to command.  Not much point in 5th generation fighters if you have no tactical mobility or integral aviation fire support.

Just saying

Your point and those of the two posters before you are certainly moot. Having served in a brigade group headquarters with a total of 13 staff officers along with a commander and his ADC and two helicopter pilots, I believe small is better than big and certainly much better than robust when designing headquarters.

As that was way back when, I will leave the discussion re what we really need to those with recent experience. I would however be pleasantly surprised if support weapons platoons materialized out of any rationalization anytime soon. Without getting too deep into opsec, what did the lessons learned community have to say about the present arrangement versus the one we scrapped?

p.s. you certainly know a lot of big officer words!!  ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Going further, with regard to a tactical level HQ: small = robust; big = fragile. Big HQs are, almost always, inefficient and ineffective and, thus, broadly, hamper operational success. They are popular because the US likes them; but US military victories, post 1945 are a bit scarce.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

p.s. you certainly know a lot of big officer words!!  ;D

Well I am 6' 4"......

 

[a_majoor]

Getting back to mortars for a second, the USMC came up with an experimental device called "Dragonfire II"; a fully automatic 120mm mortar which could be towed behind a HMMVW or (with wheels removed) placed inside a LAV chassis.

While watching the device work on YouTube was a bit bizarre (a hydraulic loader drops mortar rounds down the muzzle, rather than being a breech loading device like the Soviet 2B9 Vasilek), the promise is this can be manned and operated by a three man crew (actually only one man is needed to operate the controller, but including a driver and having an extra man to help rebomb the magazine is handy).

While the device was never adopted or put into production, devices like this or the Vasilek do offer the ability to provide the firepower of the mortar platoon with a much smaller "footprint" in the battalions or battlegroups. Obviously there will be a somewhat larger footprint in the maintenance side of the house, but perhaps the combined number of PYs will be less than the former mortar platoon. Food for thought:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_Fire_%28mortar%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2B9_Vasilek

 

[Kirkhill]

I still think Tomahawk6 had the best idea.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/82172/post-790406.html#msg790406

3 PYs and 120mm together with all the Fire Control gear in a nice tidy airmobile, heliportable package.

 

[a_majoor]

Nice, the Wiesel makes getting around much easier.

Of course we don't even have to go very high tech; the Russians used to mount the Vasilek on the rear deck of an MT-LB, which provided both mobility as well as direct and indirect firepower for the supported unit. I've also seen an experimental setup where a Vasilek was mounted on the load bed of a HMMVW.

While the Vasilek is a fairly primitive device, the idea of a breach loading gun/mortar which can fire from a clip is pretty versatile, and if it were engineered in 81mm it would also allow the carriage of large amounts of standard ammunition even in relatively modest vehicles (this is one of the reasons I am not such a big supporter of 120mm mortars). One could picture a towed version behind a "gator" type vehicle with a crate of ammunition in the back, all the way to a LAV mortar carrier with 99 mortar rounds in the ammunition racks.

So the question isn't if this is doable, but rather if the advantages of doing so are worth the expenditure of PY's and resources (either as a bespoke vehicle system, and add on to an existing vehicle or a towed weapon).

 

[Kirkhill]

http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/index.php?fid=5506&lang=3&pdb=1

Here's a bit more on the complete Wiesel Package.  I don't doubt that the same system could be ported to the LAV or CCV.

 

[a_majoor]

If we are thinking along the lines of a weapons platoon (from the C-16 thread), then a breech loading gun/mortar platoon would be even better (and using the Weisel, or LAV or even towed behind a MilCOT or G Wagon for mobility would not be too much different from using vehicles to lug a C-16 and ammo around).

Breech loading gun/mortars exist in all calibres, and even a 60mm provides far more "bang" than a 40mm, so if we want to conserve PY's and have the greatest possible effect on the battlefield then this should be the way to go. Put the C-16's on pintle or RWS mounts on G Wagons and TAPVs (there are already PY's for the crews anyway) and bring on an 81mm gun/mortar platoon for batalions or battlegroups.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A towed 120mm breech loader for the Reserve arty would likely be a good replacement for the 105C3, easy on the logistics. Likely it can be porteed for long trips.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

A towed 120mm breech loader for the Reserve arty would likely be a good replacement for the 105C3, easy on the logistics. Likely it can be porteed for long trips.

Last brief we received from the CIG indicated that the 120mm was intended to replace the C3/LG1 in the reserve units, but would not be pushed to the Reg Force.  The 105mm gun is more or less dead, though IMHO it still provides the best option for us to maintain the key ability of the reserves, which is to augment the regular force.  If they only have mortars than there's more training required for operations.

That said, I believe the best option we could forward would be to put the M777 in storage (oh, the horror!!!) and purchase a cheap "training" gun for use in domestic training for reserves and regular force, with features such as the DGMS et al added to allow us to maintain training ability without damaging the operational guns, princess-ish as they are.

Having a weapon system that is reserve only doesn't make much sense.....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

105mm subcal kit for the 777?

How about setting up reserve infantry with the older model complete with mortar teams, they can be the repository of mortar/infantry knowledge, equip them with the 60mm even if a bit worn. That way the regs play with the newer toys for now, later as the budget crunch recedes, the 60mm's can be replaced with new ones.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

or we could go back to these, as I recall ours were in 14.5mm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ah9nFAbdg&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[Old Sweat]

There are a number of web sites about the device. This is a link to the top one:

http://www.ruag.com/Ammotec/Defence_and_Law_Enforcement/Training_Systems_for_Large_Calibres/Artillery_Training_System_ATS

I trained with it and found it of marginal use for practicing forward observation drills. Mainly this was because the round was very susceptible to variations in wind and as a result it had a beaten zone approximately the size of a parade square. There was some training value, and it might have been very effective in the Skydome or the Big O with the roof shut. Considering what one can do these days with a computerized observation of fire trainer, the 14.5mm trainer's proper place is on display as an example of expediency carried to an extreme.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

or we could go back to these, as I recall ours were in 14.5mm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3ah9nFAbdg&feature=player_embedded#!

The 14.5 mm is likely to be highly used in the next few years, though with the new Cmdt it seems to be less popular than it was a year ago.  Having used the 14.5, it is of no value for anything aside from maybe OPV jockeying drills.  The time rounds detonate prior to getting to the targets, and the fall of shot has a PEr of, basically, gun to target.

in all honesty, getting an updated C3, ditching the mortar concept or sending them back to the inf, and putting the M777 in war storage would be our best option for actually being able to afford training IF (and it's a big if) the US and UK maintain their 105 fleets.  If not, and we become a 1 off 105 purchaser, than we may as well stay 155.  The reality with using the M777 for training is that within 5-7 years we'll need a new gun for operations to replace the 777.

With the likelihood of MRRs coming online, ever, growing smaller by the day, perhaps 4 AD/4 GSR could be a source of PYs for Inf mortar units.

 

[Infanteer]

perhaps 4 AD/4 GSR could be a source of PYs for Inf mortar units.

I like the cut of your jib, my friend....

 

[Journeyman]

Whereas, being more cynical, I focused on "ditching the mortar concept ....", as in "we take the mortars, then decide that we don't want to do that anymore so we'll just leave them in the QM."

;D

 

[vonGarvin]

Whereas, being more cynical, I focused on "ditching the mortar concept ....", as in "we take the mortars, then decide that we don't want to do that anymore so we'll just leave them in the QM."

;D

So...status quo?

;D